Josie Luetke:
Like a kicked dog coming back for more, I flew to Calgary for the 2026 Conservative Party of Canada convention at the tail end of January.
As pro-life candidates have been disqualified by the party and leader Pierre Poilievre has gone over to the dark side—fully embracing abortion, same-sex “marriage,” and even the status quo on euthanasia—many of Campaign Life Coalition’s supporters have had the self-respect to flee to greener pastures, i.e. parties more hospitable to social conservatives.
To be clear, this was a missionary trip for me.
The Conservative Party is the only party fielding pro-life Members of Parliament currently, so I think it behooves the pro-life movement to maintain a foothold in the party, and to increase it if possible.
Keeping “pro-life” in a mainstream party keeps “pro-life” mainstream.
Our coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups didn’t walk away bruised and empty-handed: We were able to elect more national councilors accountable to grassroots members and Electoral District Associations, and pass some worthwhile policies and constitutional amendments (though not as we would have liked).
The top prize, though—removing the cursed Article 86 from the Policy Declaration—once again slipped through our fingers, just as it has at past conventions. It states: “A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.”
Cheers rang out in the breakout session when this policy submission was defeated.
A response like that can be expected from “pro-choice” delegates—and there are many such members in the party—but what’s more infuriating is a debate on the policy submission’s own merits, i.e. the dim prospect of a government legislating on abortion, was not had and does not get had. The magic word—electability—shuts the whole thing down, faster than you can ask, “To what end?”
For what reason should we elect Conservatives? Everyone at the convention was pulling their hair out over the past decade of Liberal reign and four successive election losses. Tories are desperate to save Canada…but how? What would they do differently from the Liberals? Lower taxes, stiffen bail conditions, and…? It’s practically a moral imperative to restore the Conservatives to power and yet they offer no competing cultural vision to the Left. On social policy—which shapes a nation—they are mum. They cede this ground to the “natural governing party.”
While I did make a big production of enthusiastically whipping up my voting card and holding it high, I didn’t get the chance to speak in favour of the Delete 86 policy submission at the mic. Had I been able to make 30-second remarks, I had planned to say: “Josephine Luetke. Mississauga—Streetsville. Abortion kills innocent human beings. Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, I imagine you’re uncomfortable with that and abortion-on-demand in any circumstance, and any stage of pregnancy, which is the status quo in Canada. But you’re afraid—of the media, or about our electoral chances. A) We can speak persuasively and compassionately about this. Look at Charlie Kirk or Jordan Peterson. B) We don’t deserve to govern if we cowardly back away from leading on issues literally of life and death.”
What I didn’t say (or even plan to say) is: “Better a lifetime spent in permanent opposition, both in Parliament, and to abortion, than to be the ones directly enabling the slaughter of the pre-born, with bodies at one’s feet and blood on one’s hands.”
Let’s say the naysayers are right (a concession I will not make, but a hypothetical I will entertain): Deleting Article 86 would threaten or even wipe out the Conservatives’ election hopes. If a nation is so bloodthirsty that support for killing children is necessary to govern, any decent, ethical party, I think, would relish the opportunity to be the Official Opposition, officially holding such a morally bankrupt government to account. Whether history remembers such a party kindly or not cannot be guaranteed, but also, the highs and the lows to which a party ascends or descends are never the be-all and end-all.
As I said to a fellow delegate at convention, it’s like most delegates forget that they’re going to die.
Some are already quite willing and eager to sacrifice the preborn on the altar of convenience, pleasure, or whatever else motivates a woman to get an abortion and a man to effect such a fate. Others will reluctantly, maybe even bitterly, sacrifice the preborn on the altar of power, and they don’t understand that that doesn’t make them any better than the former group. There’s a case to be made that it makes them worse.
The Conservative Party, like any entity with a major platform, isn’t merely chasing popular opinion but actively forming it—with its Policy Declaration, but also with any bills tabled, petitions presented, and speeches made.
Nonetheless, I also heard the tired argument that popular opinion must change first. When opposing the killing of the innocent would incur no cost and require no risk and the expense of no political capital and it would only bring accolades, fortune, and favour, and a windfall of votes, then—and only then—will the party suddenly be bestowed the moral imperative to act. It’s funny how duty always aligns with self-interest in these scenarios.
“That’s a straw man,” you may charge, and I’ll grant I’m being hyperbolic. As per German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, politics is the art of the possible, right? There lies a happy medium somewhere afield, a sweet spot where the party does take a risk for the sake of the preborn, but it isn’t political suicide either. We’re not at that point currently, but perhaps when we float into some vaguely flowery period in the future, the Conservative Party of Canada will stick out a limb—just not its neck. After all, self-interest is one thing, but self-preservation is quite another.
It’s a pity the preborn aren’t capable of it.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.