“Proudly pro-choice” Christy Clark, the former Liberal premier of British Columbia, is slamming some of Canada’s federal political parties for marginalizing Canadians who hold pro-life views on abortion.Canadian Catholic News

Former B.C. premier Christy Clark defends federal pro-life candidates

As potential federal election candidates who hold pro-life views on abortion are squeezed out by some federal political parties, pro-life candidates are getting support from a surprising source.

“Proudly pro-choice” Christy Clark, the former Liberal premier of British Columbia, is slamming some of Canada’s federal political parties for marginalizing Canadians who hold pro-life views on abortion by making it difficult for them to become political candidates or dropping them as candidates if their pro-life views come to light through social media posts.

Clark, who was B.C. premier from 2011-17, made her comments about pro-life candidates on Facebook and Twitter, following the English language federal leaders debate on Oct. 7.

And she said the efforts in some parties of blocking people with pro-life views from being candidates is robbing Canadians from having good people who disagree on that issue from being involved in public life through politics.

“The talk about abortion rights during the debate really bugged me,” Clark said. “(Green Party leader Elizabeth) May and (Conservative leader Andrew) Scheer have both said they won’t change the laws on abortion, and then both took heat for allowing candidates to run with them who are pro-life. So what?”

While Clark said she personally is “proudly pro-choice,” she said that within her governments there were pro-life members who contributed significantly to the well-being of the province of British Columbia.

“I’m proudly pro-choice, but as a leader, I worked with lots of people in my caucus who disagreed with me on that. They weren’t dangerous radicals from the alt-right. They were just people with deeply held, very different views from mine. And they accepted that limiting access to abortion was not on our party’s agenda.

“We were united around one thing: growing our economy. The result? Many of those same people whom (NDP leader) Jagmeet Singh and (Liberal leader) Justin Trudeau apparently want to bar from holding public office made huge contributions to making B.C. better.”

Both the federal NDP and governing Liberal parties have all but banned pro-life activities within their parties.

Scheer, a Catholic, has said that while he personally holds pro-life views, he has “promised” that a government led by him would not reopen the abortion debate, although he wouldn’t stop MPs from putting forward private member’s bills.

The Green Party’s position is a little more confusing, as leader May has said in the past she can’t stop party members from trying to advance private member’s bills on the issue. But the party has since put out a number of statements indicating the party is pro-choice. One Catholic candidate in the eastern Ontario region has been dropped by the party allegedly for making anti-abortion statements on Catholic blog sites.

Former Green Party candidate Marthe Lépine has been dropped by the party in the Glengarry-Prescott-Russell riding over comments she made online about abortion, party spokesperson John Chenery said. He added that the “Green Party will always fight for access to timely, safe, legal abortions.”

Lépine, who ended campaigning as an independent, told Canadian Catholic News she was surprised the Greens scuttled her candidacy because she was vetted by the party before getting the green light to run as a candidate.


3 thoughts on “Former B.C. premier Christy Clark defends federal pro-life candidates

  1. Well, the problem is the basis of your argument is simplistic–spuriously fabricated to achieve righteousness out of atrocity. It’s obviously not merely the ‘woman’s body’ that’s at stake here. Not very interested in the subject myself but the widespread promotion of rejecting the hard facts is somewhat disturbing.

  2. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I agree with Christy Clark.

    Pro-Choice is middle-ground.

    As a human rights advocate, individual women are inherently responsible for their bodies. It’s they who are charged with making abortion decisions.

    Pro-Choice is where any modern law and policy should stand. In order to make any choice, one needs options from which to choose.

    For those who stand firmly on either side of the debate, that we continue to put this issue into political circles at all for discussion makes no sense. The facts are that persons bringing a singular faith-based belief system on the issue into Government leadership roles, with clear intent to make the issue a cause for change in law and/or policy in Canada are considered a threat to the progress on the issue we have made together.

    Where I most agree with Christy Clark is on her position that denying Pro-Life citizens opportunity to serve their country is a knee-jerk, over-the-top pushing back that’s easy enough to accuse is a Charter Violation.

    Pro-Choice is Middle-Ground. To have choice one needs available options. Some are Pro-Abortion. Others Pro-Life. Others stand comfortably allowing choice to rule in this land.

    As for the Faith-Based in politics today, please, along with those who’ve denied grants to pro-life organizations in regard to summer-student job placements and the like:

    Embrace the Charter. It is your right in this country to take a Pro-Life Position.

    It’s the right of others to take a Pro-Abortion Position.

    It’s the most rational right of all to consider legalizing the Pro-Choice, secular Government position perhaps more clearly.

    As individuals we have rights to express our positions. However, as a representative of the people served, and that means of every Party-Stripe, not only those with the Party any member serving might align with:

    You DO NOT have any right to bring neither a Pro-Life position, nor a Pro-Abortion position into our Houses of Parliament that are intended to represent all.

    Singular-Religion-Based politics is a scourge upon this democracy. A scourge.

    Legalize clearly for all the country to finally accept a Pro-Choice framing, once-and-for-all.

    From there it is women who own this issue. Men? Sorry. Our own position needs to be that we defer this issue to those charged with making such a decision-women-privately-with her family and physician-and whomever else she wishes to seek counsel from.

    I would like us to evolve finally to the place of mutual understanding that ensures we no longer need to continue to use this issue as bait to ignite division during campaigns in elections.

    From the human rights place. Is your cause with an organization Pro-Life?

    You’re entitled to offer services to assist women with making an informed choice.

    Is your cause with an organization Pro-Abortion?

    You’re entitled to offer services to assist women with making an informed choice.

    Are you Pro-Choice?


    That position is actually brilliant in tone:

    Pro-Choice allows those of us who hold that position the grace of minding our own business.

    1. ProChoice is not middle ground. The middle ground is demonstrated by the majority of Europe which permits abortion within the first trimester of pregnancy, but recognizes the humanity of the fetus and the development of the child by restricting access to abortion after the first trimester. Holland limits abortion to the first 18 months of fetal development, England to the first 24 months (since the fetus can survive outside the womb at 22 to 24 weeks). Not to recognize the humanity of a fetus until the moment of birth is simply inhumane. That is currently the Canadian position. Note that the 1988 Supreme Court ruling acknowledged in its decision that the rights of the unborn child could be established by later law; only the law of that time was considered unconstitutional. Scientifically, the development of the fetus should enter into this discussion.

Comments are closed.