No present candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party is worthy of pro-life support. Not one of them would go out of his way to protect the smallest and most powerless of humans.
The following brief lineup of the candidates’ views gives a glance at their practice of family morality [insofar as it is known to this writer] and some slight political analysis.
John Turner will most likely be the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and perhaps our next Prime Minister.
After declaring his candidacy for the leadership on March 16, 1984, he was interviewed on CBC’s “Journal” by Barbara Frum. When asked his views on abortion he replied, “You know I am one of the architects of the abortion amendment. It is a fair compromise.”
In 1975, in his correspondence, Mr. Turner noted that the Criminal Code should be neutral and not reflect “Private” morality [i.e. opposition to abortion]. Indeed, at one point, Mr. Turner proposed there be no law on abortion at all.
In 1969, Mr. Turner became the new Minister of Justice in the new Trudeau Government and so became responsible for reintroducing a bill to amend the Criminal Code on abortion. At that time, Mr. Turner said that abortions would neither be paid for by government medicare nor would any abortions be performed for socio-economic reasons.
Before the amendment passed, the Standing Committee which studied the abortion law, specifically stated that they did not abide by the definition of the word “health” as given by the World Health Organization because it was too broad and so could be misused. However, in 1970, a letter from the office of the Minister of Justice to the Ottawa Civic Hospital said that Mr. Turner favoured the World Health Organization’s wide definition of the word “health” which includes physical, psychological or social health.
Mr. Turner has had a chance over the past 15 years to view the deadly effects of his 1969 abortion law and how the wide definition of the word “health” is misused by hospital abortion committees, yet his opinion remains static.
Mr. Turner will not try to protect the unborn if elected.
Jean Chretien is Minister of Energy. He has a wife and three children. He projects the image of a confirmed family man. His youngest child is an orphaned Indian whom the Chretien family adopted at the start of his tenure as Minister of Indian Affairs. He was part of the Liberal establishment in 1969 at the time of the abortion amendment.
As Minister of Justice in 1981, he presided over the deliberations on the Charter of Rights. Despite the explicit efforts of various pro-life groups, he refused to consider including the rights of unborn children in this Charter. When questioned about this, he repeated the standard dodge of the times: “Personally I am against abortion, but I can’t impose my private views on society.”
In 1983, during protests against the award to him of the Christian Culture Medal by Assumption College in Windsor, Ontario, he remarked, “there is a separation of church and state in Canada.” Indeed, during his speech of acceptance of the Christian Culture Award, he noted that, in addition to being “undemocratic,” trying to guarantee rights for the unborn in the constitution would have “jeopardized the entire exercise.”
Donald Johnson is the Minister of Economic Development. In an interview on Newsradio on the weekend of March 26, 1984, he said he favoured permitting abortion on demand to bring the law “in line with social realities.” Mr. Johnson stated, “I have always taken the view that this is a matter between a woman and her doctor.”
He has said the country’s abortion laws are not being obeyed. The law permits abortion only when approved by a hospital committee to protect the health of the expectant mother. “I am not sure that those provisions are in keeping with the social realities today.” A policy spokesman at his campaign office in Ottawa was asked, “is Donald Johnson pro-abortion?” She replied, “he is not pro-abortion, he is pro-choice.”
John Roberts is Minister of Employment and Immigration. He is separated from his second wife.
When called at the John Roberts campaign office in Ottawa, Terry Flynn, the office manager, responded that Mr. Roberts agrees with the present abortion law as it now stands.
Mark MacGuigan is the current Minister of Justice. He is separated from his wife. In 1969 he voted in favour of the abortion amendment. In 1972 he declared himself willing to accept abortion on demand, if it was the will of the people.
On May 1, 1984, at Royal York Hotel in Toronto, Mr. MacGuigan repeated that he was satisfied with the law as it now stands as he didn’t think any other legislation concerning abortion would pass through parliament today.
Mr. MacGuigan is the government’s chief promoter of the new divorce-on-demand legislation which will make divorce automatic after one year of separation. In July 1983, in a Toronto Star interview, he said “divorce reform will be my number one priority.” With reference to this legislation, he commented further, “it will make it more humane.”
John Munro is Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He has three children from a previous marriage and was remarried in 1978. He was a member of the Liberal government which voted for the legalization of abortion in 1969.
John Munro has had a chance to see clearly that the legislation that his party voted for in 1969 has since paved the way for abortion on demand in Canada. On May 3, 1984, in The Toronto Star, John Munro said he is satisfied with the law as it now stands.
Eugene Whelan. There is no hard evidence at all that Eugene Whelan is pro-life. Indeed he has made motions [not in the House] towards pro-lifers by signing some of their statements in the past, but now it appears he was doing this only to gain political support, not because he is pro-life. He has has ample opportunity to speak up for the unborn in the House of Commons but has never done so. He has a chance to be a great pro-life hero during the debate on the Charter of Rights. He could have stood out as the lone Cabinet voice to include the rights for the unborn in our constitution but he did not do so. Mr. Whelan is not pro-life.
C.A.S.
