Ed Broadbent – NDP
Ed Broadbent has supported abortion on demand throughout his political career.
Henry Morgentaler has defied Canadian law for at least 12 years with his unauthorized and illegal clinics. In the House of Commons Ed Broadbent has consistently supported motions or declarations favouring Henry Morgentaler and he has opposed government measures to uphold Canadian law against the Montreal abortionist.
Mr. Broadbent fully supports the NDP party programme which calls for removal of abortion from the Criminal Code. The NDP is the only party with such formal party commitment to the killing of the unborn. This party plank was confirmed during the party congress in Regina, Saskatchewan, in 1983.
During the televised leadership debate on Wednesday July 25, 1984, Mr. Broadbent expressed his own commitment to this policy in the following words. “I am pro-choice; I favour removing abortion from the Criminal Code.”
To be “pro-choice” is to be pro-abortion because the “choice” means the choice to kill another human being having the gift of a human spirit as we do.
Brian Mulroney – PC
In March 1984, at a meeting organized by Advisory Council on the Status of Women in Ottawa, Mr. Mulroney stated that he did not favour removing abortion from the Criminal Code.
On May 15, 1984, Mr. Mulroney attended a luncheon which was part of a series called “Luncheons With the Leaders” organized by feminists’ groups in Toronto. There were more than 2300 women present when he was asked directly whether he was in favour of removing abortion from the Criminal Code. He responded without hesitation that he was not in favour of it.
During the televised leadership debate of July 25, 1984, the PC leader after a moments hesitation, indicated he would go with the present law.
Certainly to “go with the present law” is to find one million dead over the past ten years acceptable. To “go with the present law” is to applaud de facto abortion-on-demand in Canada. To “go with the present law” is to be pro-abortion and accept the present Liberal government’s philosophy that the expedient killing of children in the womb is proper and somehow justified.
Mr. Mulroney is not pro-life.
John Turner – Liberal
In 1968, Mr. Turner became the Minister of Justice in the Trudeau government which was committed to the legalization of abortion. Thus he was responsible for the amendment to the Criminal Code passed in the House of Commons in May 1969 which in effect brought abortion-on-demand to Canada.
At that time he claimed that the Criminal Code should be neutral and not represent “private moralities.” The Criminal Code is not neutral, of course, public though it may be. It is nevertheless a moral code, which means that it represents somebody’s morals.
At the time, despite many proposals to the contrary, Mr. Turner rejected restrictive clauses in the wording of the amendment, opting for the ambiguous term “health” as the justification for making the killing of the unborn legal. In 1970, a letter from the office of the Minister of Justice to the Ottawa Civic Hospital indicated Mr. Turner’s approval of the World Health Organization’s definition of the term “health” which is so wide as to encompass any or all conceptual reasonings, philosophies or opinions.
Fourteen years and over one million abortions later Mr. Turner is proud of his legislation. “You know I am one of the architects of the abortion amendment,” he happily informed Barbara Frum on CBC’s Journal (March 16, 1984). He had just declared his candidacy for the leadership and he went on to comment on his abortion legislation telling her, “it is a fair compromise.” On June 15, 1984, at the Liberal Party convention during the Woman’s Issues Workshop, he repeated his claim of responsibility for the present abortion law. He went on to justify the present law saying it is the best accommodation that can be made and that his government, if elected, will work with provincial attorneys general to see that the abortion law will be “equally applied.” It is in this sense, then, that Mr. Turner favours a widening of the abortion law, applying it where it does not today.
Dan Eardley: “We’re here to win”
Dan Eardley, running as independent candidate in Kingston-and-the-Islands, recognizes that there are several important issues in this election.
Most important is Mr. Eardley’s critical recognition that “life and the sanctity of life” are the crucial election issues.
Farther Karl Clemens, a spokesman for the Pro-Life Association and Eardley’s official agent says, “We’re a party which has its priorities in order. We’re the only party which understands life.”
Eardley correctly issues as not simply a women’s issue. He said, “It’s everyone’s issue. It’s a civil rights issue.”
Dan Eardley’s support, both financial and from volunteers, is impressive. He now has about 100 workers who staff his campaign headquarters from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. He also has the support of priests, teachers and a cross-section of pro-life supporters throughout the Kingston area. Private citizens have contributed at least $4,000 towards Mr. Eardley’s campaign and financial and moral support continues to pour in.
His recognition of the primacy of the right to life to the innocent and defenseless unborn child establishes him as the candidate worthy of the pro-life vote in Kingston-and-the-Islands.
His example is one to be emulated by all pro-life candidates both for the correctness of his stand and the conviction he expresses in his statement” “We’re here to win.”