The Questionnaire Issues Explained

The issues addressed in the Campaign Life Coalition Questionnaire, as crucial as they are, are often not understood by candidates.

1. If elected, will you strive to introduce and pass laws to protect unborn children from the time of conception (fertilization) onward?

This refers to the candidate's commitment to support proposals in parliament that would increase direct legal protection
for the lives of unborn children at any stage of life.

This question includes all surgical abortions as well as abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals such as the abortion drug RU-486 or the so-called Morning-After Pill (MAP). One MAP objective is to bring about the death of a conceived human by preventing it from implanting in the wall of the mother’s uterus. Also included is destructive embryonic stem cell research and any other reproductive technology developments that would result in the intended or deliberately allowed deaths of unborn humans at any stage.

2. If elected, would you support all legislative or policy proposals that would result in a meaningful increase of respect and protection for unborn human life?

This question addresses the candidate's commitment to support a wide range of proposals that would in any way increase respect and support for unborn human life without compromising the essential principle of respect for all human life.

This could include such measures as defunding of abortion, conscience clauses for health care workers,
mothers’ right-to-know legislation, funding and promotion of crisis pregnancy centers and many other measures.

3. Are there any circumstances under which you believe a woman should have access to abortion?
    (Note: Surgical or medical intervention, designed to prevent the death of the  mother i.e. in the cases of tubal pregnancy or cervical cancer, which results in the unintended death of the preborn child is not an abortion)

Some candidates state they are opposed to abortion but would still allow it under specific conditions. These
exceptions vary widely depending upon these candidates’ understanding of the issue or personal experiences
or beliefs. It is important that the voters are aware if there are any such exceptions.

“The life of the mother exception” is often misunderstood by candidates noting that exception. In the case of
an ectopic pregnancy (baby implanted in the fallopian tube), the mother’s life is endangered by that situation
and the child is certain to die as it grows. Removal of the fallopian tube to protect the mother’s life is not a
direct killing of the unborn child within the tube. It is considered treatment of the mother and is NOT an
abortion.

Similarly, when a pregnant woman is discovered to have cancer and is treated for that cancer with radiation
and/or chemotherapy, the possible resulting death of her unborn child is NOT considered an abortion. That is
because the measures are directly intended to treat the mother and NOT to kill her unborn child.

As for intended abortions, there are no longer ANY valid reasons to consider such abortions being necessary
to save a mother’s life. The medical profession has for some time now been capable of treating BOTH mother
and child in all situations. However, it is common for physicians to strongly suggest, in response to difficult
pregnancies, that a mothers’ life is endangered. Abortion is then frequently and unnecessarily recommended
in order to lessen complications, extra costs and possible lawsuits.

See also Rape & Incest Victims Call for Congressional Hearings on Abortion
Women who become pregnant from sexual assault say they don't want or need abortions

Conception resulting from rape is extremely rare and abortion in such instances is not in the best interests of the woman. Victims of rape and incest above all need emotional and other support rather than the supposed quick fix offered by an abortionist which adds further, life-long complications, both physical and psychiatric.

4.If elected, will you oppose any legislative or regulatory measures designed to permit the deliberate euthanasia of a human being or designed to permit “doctor-assisted suicide”?

This refers to the candidate's position on legalizing the killing of sick, disabled, elderly or other vulnerable persons by active euthanasia or euthanasia by omission and assisted suicide. There is often poor understanding of this issue. The removal of burdensome and useless medical treatment from a dying patient is neither assisted suicide nor euthanasia. However, basic nutrition and hydration are not medical treatment and may never be removed unless the patient is completely unable to assimilate them.

There is growing pressure for the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada and elsewhere. This is an issue that Members of Parliament will not be able to avoid addressing in the immediate future.

The euthanasia/assisted suicide movement is a direct outcome of the abortion movement which has massively undermined acceptance of the intrinsic value of every human life. Abortion has also been conditioning society to accept that there can supposedly be valid reasons for killing innocent humans. Euthanasia, therefore is one of the next logical steps as pro-life advocates have warned for years.

Euthanasia advocates emphasize that euthanasia and assisted suicide should only be permitted to take place under strict conditions and only for those who are suffering unbearably from incurable, deadly conditions. Experience in Holland and elsewhere has shown that maintaining such conditions or restrictions eventually becomes impossible once a nation has stated in its laws that some vulnerable, innocent persons may be killed for some reasons.

Others logically push the envelope and say, if some may take their lives or be killed, then why not other categories of persons? Who is to say who may live or die if the principle has been established in law that some vulnerable persons may die or be killed?

Also, the right to die invariably becomes the duty to die for persons considered a burden upon family, the medical system, institutions, the state. As well, once the practice of euthanasia becomes accepted many persons who become chronically ill or incapacitated will become afraid to enter hospitals, as they are now afraid in Holland, and will feel powerful pressure to allow themselves to be killed or to do the deed themselves.

5. Do you consider yourself ____ “pro-life” or ____ “pro-choice”?

This asks how how the candidates sincerely view their overall position on the life issues. Most candidates view themselves as
being one or the other, although often to significantly varying degrees.

Many candidates have previously not had to consider how they would categorize their overall views on the abortion, euthanasia and other life issues. It is useful for them to consider their current overall philosophy and principles on the life issues via this question.

Poverty, homelessness or other issues that may result in the eventual deaths of some persons are not "pro-life" issues since they do not involve decisions to intentionally take life.

Campaign Life Coalition does not publish the answers to #9 in the Voter’s Guide but does consider the answers to this question important for further communications with candidates and elected Members of Parliament.