CORNER BROOK, Newfoundland, April 22, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The pro-life views of Newfoundland’s likely new premier has been a hot topic in the media in the last week after reporters learned that he and his family join Corner Brook’s annual Walk for Life every year.
Frank Coleman, who became the sole candidate for leader of the governing Progressive Conservatives last week after his opponent Bill Barry chose to withdraw, has defended his pro-life views but insisted he will not “impose” them on the province.
Coleman was unable take part in this year’s Walk for Life outside Corner Brook’s Western Memorial Regional Hospital, but his family was present.
Coleman issued a statement on Good Friday after media learned of his pro-life views.
“As a leader I believe in the rule of law. It would be weak of me to deny my beliefs and at the same time it is important that people understand I do not intend to impose my personal views,” he said.
“It is with humility and honesty that I say unequivocally yes, I have as a private individual participated in the Right to Life walk held each Good Friday in Corner Brook,” said Coleman. He added that while his family's participation in the event is a result of shared beliefs in the value of every human life, “I do not seek to impose my views on anyone and truly respect the gift of free will we are all afforded.”
Patrick Hanlon, spokesman for Pro-Life Newfoundland Labrador, said that while the province's pro-lifers are pleased that Coleman is seeking the leadership of the province, his statement about not imposing his pro-life views is “puzzling.”
“Being aware of his involvement in the faith community and the pro-life movement, we were delighted that someone principled was stepping forward. However, his latest comments regarding not imposing his pro-life views are a little puzzling,” Hanlon said in a statement sent to LifeSiteNews.
Click “like” if you are PRO-LIFE!
Hanlon said a well-formed conscience does not allow for one view privately and another publicly, adding that he hopes Coleman’s conscience will guide him in accepting the responsibility, and using the great influence he has been given in his role as premier, to make free and informed decisions.
Hanlon pointed out that while respecting diversity of practices and opinions is a noble thing, the primary role of government is to ensure that certain standards are met and reasonable limits are not exceeded.
He said that Canada, which has no laws governing abortion whatsoever, is in the company of the human rights travesties of China and North Korea, the only other nations without any restrictions on abortion, because of the federal government's failure to take the 1988 Supreme Court's invitation to draft a new law, which it said would be a “perfectly valid legislative objective.”
“Ideally, we would like him to abolish abortion completely in Newfoundland and Labrador as it is in PEI,” Hanlon said. He added, however, that if that goal is not immediately possible, it could be pursued by incremental steps.
In response to Pro-Life NL's statement, Coleman told the local newspaper that he will continue to hold personal pro-life views, but he will not imitate the lead of Prince Edward Island. The PEI government does not provide abortions on the island, but will fund them if obtained off-island.
“I am not going to, in my role, dictate or abuse my position to create a change in the current funding model, or policy, that would have a negative impact on what I believe to be a person’s right to exercise their free will in this province,” Coleman told Corner Brook’s Western Star.
“I’m not imposing my view on people. I have a view and I believe in what I believe,” he said. “But I also respect that we live in a democracy and I respect people’s free will.”
“I don’t intend to try to imitate some other province that wants to exact control. That is not my way,” Coleman said.
Nonetheless, Pro-Life NL maintains that the pro-life movement stands for human rights, especially the most basic right of life, and that “these pro-life aims are virtually universally accepted as positive government responsibilities, not negative impositions as some claim.”