I have had numerous people contact me to ask whether Rona Ambrose is an MP worth defending. Ie. is she pro-life? Is she a solid MP, a trustworthy Member of Parliament? Fern Hill, deeply opposed to all I stand for and believe in, has written in to point out Rona never answered any of Campaign Life’s questions.
I happen to think Rona Ambrose is a decent MP. I think she’s trustworthy. I think she is doing a more than competent job.
I do not think she is pro-life. Do not buy into the heightened rhetoric around this issue, either from pro-lifers or pro-abortion folks. (Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada is saying publicly that Rona Ambrose is “anti-choice.” I wish this were true, but it wouldn’t be the first time Joyce got something wrong.)
We are supporting her because we support freedom of speech. We are supporting her because everyone has the right to a free vote, even if the vote is considered, however nominally, to lean in a pro-life direction. We are supporting her because some exceptionally virulent pro-abortion (not pro-choice) forces are asking for her head. And we are supporting her to send a message to the Prime Minister’s office that turfing a Minister because she votes “against the Prime Minister” is perfectly unacceptable.
There are many good reasons to support Rona Ambrose, but it’s not because she is pro-life. We don’t know that. No one knows that.
Freedom of speech is good enough a reason to write the Prime Minister, so I hope you’ll still do so today.
[email protected] and [email protected]
by 
I agree with you 100% and I did write to the Prime Minister.
I agree with what you’ve said but I think there is another reason to support Rona Ambrose. I am thrilled that a Minister Responsible for Status of Women (a title I abhor–why do we need someone in charge of our “status”) has actually stood up publicly and voted to have a discussion, backed by scientific evidence, about life. By doing that, she is actually representing the millions of women who don’t think abortion is necessarily a good thing, who favour a real honest debate about the issue. Who knows? This might lead to another discussion, based on medical and scientific evidence and records, about how abortion affects women (and men). Imagine, a Minister in charge of “Status of Women” who actually cares about women, not ideology. Go Rona!
Thanks for highlighting the lack of necessity for a Status of Women department at all, Joanne. I’m with you on that. I don’t need someone defending my status. Talk about a view that never gets heard in the media! “Women who are too strong for a status of women department”. Someone should write that story.
Awesome!!! Thanks for sharing. I would write more but I am busy writing thank yous and responses to the MPs. Well done. I agree 100%
Here are some points that I would like to share. Rona is being scorned for not fufilling her duty as Minister for Status of Women. In response to this I am telling the PM and all no MPs that they have utterly failed us and contradicted their first and most important role as leaders in this country by not upholding and implementing just and truthful laws. They are also to vote by conscience. To say that a 9 month old baby in the womb is not a human being is an outright lie. Our consciences and 21st century knowledge prove that. So they have failed us not once but twice. To not change a law because of a chosen mindset of abortion, imagined thoughts and spinoffs of perceived future situations concocted in their individual imaginations is paranoid and deluded thinking. It is not relevent to the Motion which sought to examine our law and correct it as it is embarrassingly archaic. I am then conducting my own personal study by asking them this question…seriously…so when do you think that YOU became a human being and when do you think that your children became human beings. I will also tell them that I know that I and my children became human beings at the moment of conception. They will be asked why they took this shockingly, deeply dissapointing, embarrassing stand on 312, contrary to human logic, facts and 21st century knowledge. England, where the 400 year old law originated has corrected it. Then I tell them to take time to reflect on the implications of their decision given their role as leaders to implement and uphold just and truthfull laws.