Abortion debate could determine next premier
Who would have thought, in 2017, the abortion debate might determine the next Saskatchewan premier?
Clearly, the intent here was to throw a hand grenade into the Saskatchewan Party leadership bunker where the obligatory vilifying of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax and obsequious praise for Premier Brad Wall has left room for candidates to distinguish themselves.
Maybe it worked. Maybe the Sask. Party’s great abortion debate has already fizzled out.
Even those candidates (read: Three male candidates) somehow still struggling in 2017 with the notion that abortion is anything other than a matter of federal law and the exclusive personal choice of a woman were heading for the higher, safer ground by Thursday afternoon.
But as reporters waited with bated breath Thursday for a response from Scott
Moe (the second-highest scoring behind Ken Cheveldayoff ’s 89 per cent in the RightNow survey ranking candidates on who’s most anti-abortion) one could only wonder if the wheels had already been set in motion.
Let us rewind to the beginning of this week that saw some big pronouncements by Cheveldayoff that included proclaiming he never witnessed racism while growing up in Blaine Lake. That was followed by his comments during and after the RightNow survey where he declared he would “support anything that protects the unborn child.”
After the expected political heat, Cheveldayoff said in a scrum and statement he was only expressing his “personal beliefs” and wouldn’t push for changes as premier, but “wouldn’t shy away if a caucus member wanted to bring that up.”
Moe also said he personally opposed abortion, but would welcome “fulsome caucus debate.” And even newcomer Rob Clarke — who mused about using the notwithstanding clause to block access to abortions in Saskatchewan — was walking back from the notion that his “personal views” represented those of all Indigenous women.
But while the abortion debate may be fatal for a politician facing a broader electorate, is proclaiming your pro-life support all that problematic in a confined audience like the Sask. Party?
Did Cheveldayoff lose many party votes with either his pro-life proclamation or saying the rural Saskatchewan he knows wasn’t racist? Add in his comments on prohibiting marijuana possession for anyone under 25 years and one suspects he’s endeared himself to the older, conservative crowd.
Moreover, consider that RightNow’s website describes how the group identifies supportive voters and mobilizes those voters to elect antiabortion candidates. In fact, it boasts of its role in electing federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer. (It’s also noteworthy that Cheveldayoff is supported by antiabortionist MP Brad Trost and enjoys support from those who were on the team of social conservative Alberta United Conservative Party Leader Jason Kenney.)
Of course, the Sask. Party is much more than an antiabortion party. Already, there has been nasty backlash, including a Twitter account taking square aim at Cheveldayoff. It’s become a rather nasty contest, folks.
Full marks for Gord Wyant and especially Tina BeaudryMellor (who minced no words on her pro-choice views) and Alanna Koch (who initially chose not to dignify RightNow with a response, but then make her prochoice views clear) for their strong reminders that this not a political football, but a women’s rights issue settled decades ago.
Accepting abortion was thrown into the Sask. Party debate as a wedge issue, it may actually backfire and give Koch the premier’s office.
But what if Cheveldayoff has mobilized an anti-abortion army in a leadership race requiring only a few thousand votes to win?
And if Cheveldayoff finishes no higher than third behind Koch and Moe, where do his supporters go on the final ballot Jan. 27? Has this move just given the keys to the province to Moe, who, sources say, had to navigate a potential uprising on his own team that has pro-lifers like Greg Ottenbreit and strong women like Donna Harpauer?
Who knew the abortion debate could have this much impact?