You have not enabled cookies! This site requires cookies to operate properly. Please enable cookies, and refresh your browser for full functionality.

REGINA, Saskatchewan, December 4, 2001 ( – Bill Whatcott, of the Christian Truth Activists, has won a case where the Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses (SALPN) attempted to have him barred from practice due to his convictions resulting from pro-life and pro-family activism. Whatcott said that the SALPN lawyer, Angela Zoborsky, argued that despite his 12 years of good service as a nurse, his criminal record, strong anti abortion views and views on heterosexuality rendered him a threat to his patients.

Whatcott told LifeSite that SALPN first brought to the adjudicator’s attention his criminal convictions during his wayward youth, some 20 years ago and prior to his becoming a Christian. Those arguments were soundly rejected. Adjudicator Dan Miller wrote in his ruling November 22, “The convictions from Mr. Whatcott’s youth are too remote to even be considered relevant to this inquiry. It is to his credit that he endured such a youth and then had the strength and wisdom to seek a new lifestyle and a new profession.”

After realizing the ancient convictions would be rejected, the SALPN lawyer argued that his recent convictions based on peacefully protesting the killing of unborn children inside restricted zones, should disqualify Whatcott as a nurse. However, Whatcott’s lawyer reminded the tribunal of the often engaged in illegal nursing strikes in the province. In his judgment on the issue Miller concluded: “The civil disobedience convictions, in the committee’s opinion, do not have a substantial enough connection to Mr. Whatcott’s professional duties, or to the profession, to warrant a finding of professional misconduct. While illegal, his activities were peaceful and, indeed the Committee recognizes that Mr. Whatcott is not alone in his views. Modern day life is rife with accounts of illegal protests for a variety of issues in society. The Committee therefore finds that Mr. Whatcott is not guilty of professional misconduct.”