News

By Steve Jalsevac

EDMONTON, Alberta, November 14, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – With 11 days to go to the Nov. 25 vote for a new leader of Alberta’s Conservative party the race to sign up new members is intense. Albertans can become party members right up to Nov. 25 to be eligible to vote for the new leader and automatic premier of the province to replace current Premier Ralph Klein who has submitted his resignation. For pro-life and pro-family Albertans this is seen as an important opportunity to ensure the candidate most favourable to life and family wins the leadership.

According to the most recent Ipsos-Reid poll on the leadership, socially liberal Jim Dinning is the clear favourite of Alberta Tories. 36 per cent support Dinning with half that percentage supporting the more socially conservative and next runner-up, Lyle Oberg. The other candidates have seven per cent or lower support. However, should Dinning not receive the necessary 50% of the votes to win the nomination on Nov. 25, the top three candidates will go on to a second ballot on Dec. 2. The outcome could be considerably different then given that supporters of the dropped candidates could go to any one of the remaining three.

Campaign Life Coalition (CLC), the Alberta provincial chapter of the national pro-life organization, reports that none of the candidates would respond to its original questionnaire, or interview requests, despite repeated attempts by CLC. However, CLC says it was still able to accumulate significant information on many of the candidates from other interviews, the public record and past election comments.

CLC Alberta president Julius Yankowsky reports that “The result is that none can be rated as being pro-life, and therefore worthy of a full endorsement by Campaign Life Coalition.” However, of the candidates that lean in the pro-life position, CLC suggests that “Lyle Oberg clearly offers the best possibility of advancing the pro-life cause in Alberta,”

Very disappointing to CLC has been the total lack of response from candidates Ted Morton and Victor Doerksen who have in the past been seen as strong social conservatives. A Morton spokesman told LifeSiteNews.com the candidate was “not touching” the life issues as they saw them as being “too divisive”.

In his newsletter to CLC Alberta supporters, Yankowsky urges them to “help to choose as next Premier of Alberta someone who is at least open to doing something regarding life issues” by purchasing a PC membership for $5 and voting on Nov. 25.

  Following is Campaign Life Coalition Alberta’s evaluation of the candidates:

Jim Dinning:ÂCurrently considered the front runner: believes that abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. That is an explicit pro-abortion position. Dinning should be actively opposed.

Lyle Oberg: He supports parental consent, women’s right to know information regarding abortion, conscience legislation, opposes euthanasia and supports palliative care and believes in the sanctity of marriage (one man, one woman). On defunding of abortions he would only look at having ‘not all abortions paid for’, specifically repeat abortions. He would consider “a tighter definition for ‘medically necessary’ abortions”. 2004 election- no response

Ted Morton: He has been completely unresponsive to CLC’s questions and communications. A senior Morton official stated that Ted’s campaign is “not touching” the abortion or other life issues. He stated the issues are “too divisive”. Ted introduced Bill 208 to protect religious freedom on same-sex marriage. However in 2004 he answered “no” to a question “would you support de-insuring all abortions except those done for medical reasons?” He answered “no” to requiring informed consent for abortions. He also answered “yes with reservations” to a question on requiring parental consent for abortion. He answered “yes” to conscience rights for health care workers. 2004 Election: answered exactly the same as this time

Victor Doerksen : He has taken strong pro-life stands in the caucus but has not responded to correspondence of any kind on the pro-life leadership questions.ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ
In 2004 election:
Marriage-one man/one woman- he answered “yes”
  Defund all abortion- he answered “yes”
  Parental consent- he answered “yes”
  Informed consent- he answered- “yes”
  Conscience legislation- he answered “yes”
  _____

  Statements from other candidates: Most hold positions that are effectively anti-life, based on their answers to one or more questions or lack of any significant commitment.

Mark Norris:
  Abortion – supports more education and believes other options should be presented.
  Euthanasia – he would endorse a general referendum and invoke the notwithstanding clause if necessary.

Ed Stelmach:
  Abortion – he would consider working with churches, families and governments to reduce numbers of abortions.
  Euthanasia – he would investigate legal options and stands against right-to-die legislation
2004 election:
  marriage-one man/one woman- he answered “yes”
  defunding all abortions- he answered “yes with reservations
  parental consent- he answered “yes”
  Informed consent- he answered “not certain”
  Conscience legislation – he answered “yes with reservations”

Gary McPherson:
  Abortion – he is concerned about repeat abortions. Disabilities should not be a reason to have an abortion.
  Euthanasia – Pro-euthanasia – would not want legislation but favours allowing personal choice

Dave Hancock:
  Abortion – if abortion for medical purposes were de-listed, “medically necessary” would have to be defined
  Euthanasia – Pro-euthanasia – personally not in favour but can’t choose for others
  In 2004 election- he did not respond.