In the Election ’88 supplement to the November Interim it was stated that “in ridings without a pro-life  candidate, it is still possible to make distinctions for voting purposes such as “not pro-life” and is “pro-abortion.”  We were wrong.  We apologize to our readers for any confusion this statement may have caused.

For the truly pro-life voter there is no distinction between ‘not pro-life’ and ‘pro-abortion.’  A legislator who does not have the defense of the pre-born child as a priority is a hindrance to the pre-born children for whom we as voters are fighting.

In other words, candidates who are not part of the solution are part of the problem.  We must teach politicians that if they are to receive our support they must be willing to speak out, public ally and unequivocally, in defense of all pre-born children.  Voting for the “least offensive” candidate simply teaches them to acquire first-rate fence-sitting skills.

The Interim apologizes for the error.  Although we could plead that the pressure of deadlines sometimes leaves details overlooked, that is not sufficient.   In this instance, the pro-life political advisors of Campaign Life Coalition should have been consulted before the article was printed.  While the Interim maintains an editorial policy independent of any pro-life group, we admit that we are not experts in every area of pro-life endeavour.  In this case those with more experience could have, and should have, been consulted.