By continuing to browse our site, you are consenting to the use of cookies. Click here for more information on the cookies we use.


Defending life
from conception to natural death


English bishops' election questionnaire does not challenge candidates

30 March 2010

English bishops' election questionnaire does not challenge candidates London, 30 March 2010 - The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has criticised a questionnaire for parliamentary candidates, published today by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, for failing to challenge candidates.  

The questionnaire says: "Here are some issues and questions which may help inform your decision on who to vote for. They are open questions with no single ‘right’ answer." [our emphases]  

The questionnaire also says: "Firstly in valuing life. That means opposing abortion and euthanasia, and life-cramping poverty, and the neglect of the elderly." The questionnaire then suggests asking the candidate: "What does respect for life mean to you? Do all lives have the same value? Older people and the infirm … the severely disabled … the unborn?"  

John Smeaton, SPUC director: "This questionnaire falls seriously short from a pro-life perspective. To suggest that there is "no single 'right' answer" to questions on pro-life matters is to suggest that candidates don't have a duty to uphold the right to life by voting against anti-life laws.   "Putting poverty in the same category as abortion is to equate the relative with the absolute. This question thus repeats the 'seamless robe' error of the bishops' pre-election statement, which also equated second-order social issues with first-order moral issues. Virtually all candidates will promise to fight against poverty, but many candidates will support and vote for abortion if elected.   "The questionnaire omits or fails to detail certain pro-life issues likely to come up in the new parliament, such as assisted suicide. A candidate in favour of assisted suicide, but asked instead a vague question about 'euthanasia', can thus easily leave the impression of being pro-life on end-of-life issues.   "By posing vague, open, multi-issue questions, the questionnaire fails to pin candidates down on how they will vote if elected. The questionnaire thus fails on its own terms, to 'help inform [a voter's] decision on who to vote for'", concluded Mr Smeaton.  

Notes for editors:  

SPUC has produced its own questionnaire for candidates. Please contact SPUC to order a copy on (020) 7091 7091.

Be the first to comment!

Share this article