Links about abortion that posters have found convinced them that Kellie Jay is going to roll back abortion:
Page 6, namochange makes a point about ‘working with far right’ and mentions abortion in context of far right. (Obvs we have constantly mentioned the whole ‘working with’ slippage of language so I shan’t digress)
Page 6. Namochang · 08/12/2022 21:37 :
“She also said that this was the predominant issue and worth setting aside a woman’s legal right to abortion for.”.
Page 7 AndyWarholsPiehole · 08/12/2022 21:41 posted :
“When did she say this? Do you have a link?”
To which namochange posts this link:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4586847-and-this-is-exactly-why-posie-parker-is-a-liability
The OP of that post contains that screenshot. I will read that thread again later. I will crack on with this one.
Page 7 teawamutu · 08/12/2022 21:53 posted:
“Found this, in which she says she doesn't care if people are pro-life or pro-choice, and it's a settled issue in the UK so not the chief concern. Which is true IMO, although obvs we've learned never to trust things will stay settled:”
https//youtu.be/u8Jk8RbkbIQ
Page 8 (Aww. Shucks!! Thanks Datun!!!)
Page 8 solsburyjill · 08/12/2022 22:49 posted this link:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=eDTITXwMYF0&feature=youtu.be
a link where she clearly is talking about the prioritising of reproductive rights over other issues. Not her saying she is going to remove or roll back abortion at all.
And FWR - you all rock! Really. The clarity of pointing out the misrepresentations, and I am only on page 8. The sleight of hand dishonest posts are already rife.
Page 10 - just read that fucked up Barbie post again. Fuck that is some fucked up thinking.
Page 11 - what the fuck is this sex fudge stuff?
Page 11- Onnabugeisha · Yesterday 10:53 Posted: “I’m not obsessed with toilets. KJK is so obsessed with toilets she thinks it’s more important than the right to a legal abortion.”
ahhhh… an acknowledgment at this point that it is prioritisation.
But here it gets interesting….
Page 12 - Onnabugeisha · Yesterday 11:04 posted: “You could, you know, read the thread. It’s been posted 3x on this thread how KJK is perfectly willing to sacrifice our abortion rights. This was her reply to the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the immediate roll out of abortion bans in several states. Is this someone you want in Parliament? Someone willing to pass a law banning abortion in return for what she wants? What kind of “feminist” is willing to throw millions of women and girls under the bus with forced birthing? Or die due to back alley illegal abortion attempts?”
And the cropped screen shot posted again.
See here the sleight of hand twist.
Prioritisation now becomes “willing to ban”…
Page 14- Onnabugeisha · Yesterday 11:54 Posted : ”That’s not the argument. The argument is that KJK has stated she is willing to sacrifice our right to a legal abortion in the pursuit of her objectives. And she has. I don’t want someone like her in Parliament willing to give up my daughters right to an abortion like some sacrificial lamb to her cause.”
ok. So we are back to prioritising. But there is a subtle twist again. This time is the aspersion that KJK would actively give up abortion rights, rather than simply stating that she is going to not focus on them.
Page 15 - solsburyjill · Yesterday 12:10 posted: “Transcript from the video that has been posted at least twice in this thread. ⬇️”
“i think if it comes down to reproductive rights for women or the right to say who we are and what we are i think the latter is far more important. i think you can win reproduction rights back”
yes. I agree this is the transcript. And it is clear she is talking about prioritisation over her actively working to have abortion banned or anything else.
Page 15- Onnabugeisha · Yesterday 13:05 posted “You can’t “win reproduction rights back” without giving them up first..so yes she has.”
And the screenshot again.
Page 15 - LangClegsInSpace · Yesterday 13:13 posted an interesting transcript.
Page 18 - Onnabugeisha · Yesterday 17:08 posted : “Yes-Alliance Defending Freedom. Tagged a hate group since 2016. But KJKs been collaborating with them since 2018. They are anti LGBT+ and anti-abortion espousing conservative Christian ‘values.’”
www.splcenter.org/news/2020/04/10/why-alliance-defending-freedom-hate-group
www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/alliance-defending-freedom
I can only assume this is an attempt at making these groups objectives KJK based on little solid evidence at all. Also… I am not going back 8 pages to find the weak evidence posted about ‘collaborating’. It is just trope at this stage.
Page 18 - Onnabugeisha · Yesterday 17:30 posted a post about them and others ‘proving’ stuff but really all they have proved from reviewing this thread is proving their own interpretations are based on narrow knowledge and recycled trope.
Which others obviously said at the time too!!
Page 22- Onnabugeisha · Yesterday 22:44 posted : ”How many women do you think would accept an abortion ban in order to preserve single sex spaces? How is it supporting biological women to take away our reproductive rights?”
Now that nuanced twist comes back. The emotive use of ‘ban’ is used again.
Page 27 Onnabugeisha · Today 14:08posted: “I think you are forgetting I was referring to the women who are willing to follow KJK’s lead to set aside womens’ right to an abortion.”
So now she is setting abortion ‘aside’??? Her?
And
“I am defending women of all ages by saying no to KJK & followers, the right to an abortion is not up for negotiation. It is not up to be “set aside” in KJK’s quest for political power.”
plus the screenshot again
So, these are now really bordering on significant accusations that she will participate in the changes in abortion rights in the UK. Completely so far unfounded.
Page 27 Onnabugeisha · Today 14:28 posted :
”She says “I genuinely do not care what anyone thinks about anything else” (as in I don’t care about abortion rights).”
“We are in a state of emergency” [regarding my nebulous cause with mention of mutilation of childrens bodies thrown in for emotional manipulation]”
So an acknowledgement I guess that this is this poster’s interpretation. Not necessarily the intention of KJK.
Page 28- Onnabugeisha · Today 14:41 posted : ”What is your plan if your glorious leader does what she has said she would do and has abortion rights set aside?”
Again, there is this doubling down that this is something that KJK has said she will do…
Page 28 Onnabugeisha · Today 14:42 posted ”Another poster posted a transcript where KJK doubled down on her post and confirmed she would sacrifice abortion rights as she felt they could be won back. It’s upthread.”
Again there is that nuance. She said:
“i think if it comes down to reproductive rights for women or the right to say who we are and what we are i think the latter is far more important. i think you can win reproduction rights back”
This is transcript and the cropped screen shot is pretty much it.
Bad faith interpretations of a woman declaring that she has prioritised clarifying in law that women have the right to say who they are. And endless catastrophising.
Page 28 Onnabugeisha · Today 14:47 “There are already MPs in Parliament that have proposed abortion bans and tighter abortion restrictions in recent years. Do you really want to add another MP to their number?”
page 28 Onnabugeisha · Today 14:53 posted : ”I think she would do what she has said. She would agree to and vote on an abortion ban or restriction in return for other MPs votes on her cause. That’s how politics works…MPs do the scratch my back and I scratch yours.”
Page 29 Onnabugeisha · Today 14:58 posted : “What is your plan for unplanned pregnancies if KJK agrees to have abortion rights set aside as she has said she would?”
Right. I have most of it. Posters can go and check for themselves. The evidence seems to have consisted of a snippet from YouTube, with a transcript (thanks to that poster) and a repeatedly posted image. Unverified and with out wider context.
Hardly “laid out on a silver platter”. But hey, interpretation of words and phrases is key, isn’t it.
I only did up to page 30. Has any new evidence been posted in the meantime????