Kellyanne Conway's Daughter Issues One-Word Response to Her Abortion Post

[RandySF]

Kellyanne Conway has come under fire from her own daughter after calling for a "15-week national standard for abortion" on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.

Conway, who served as a senior aide in the Donald Trump White House from 2017 to 2020, shared an article in The Washington Post that she co-authored which called for a "national abortion limit of 15 weeks, with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother." Her 18-year-old daughter Claudia Conway hit back on X, reposting her mother's message and simply adding "No".

Claudia has emerged as a vocal critic of her mother's politics, having accused Trump of making racist statements during the COVID-19 pandemic and putting "protect reproductive rights and bodily autonomy for all" in her X bio. Her father, George Conway, was a founding member of anti-Trump conservative group The Lincoln Project. In March, George and Kellyanne announced they were divorcing after 21 years of marriage.

On Friday, Kellyanne Conway shared a link to a Washington Post article that she wrote with anti-abortion campaigner Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of campaign group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.



https://www.newsweek.com/kellyanne-conway-daughter-claudia-abortion-x-1822646

[multigraincracker]

1. Can you come up with any other rights

that need a 15 week limit?

[rpannier]

7. She probably can

She'd call them "Alternative Rights"

[azureblue]

11. it's still a religious belief

they are forcing on others. Even if their own Bible says that life begins at first breath.

[multigraincracker]

14. See Numbers 5:11-31

Test for an unfaithful Wife. The priests aborts the fetus if she cheated. Uhmmm.

[Skittles]

19. it's a religious delusion

these sanctimonious assholes don't care about "life", not at ALL

[betsuni]

2. I really like a simple "No" response to bullshit.

[Lonestarblue]

3. While most abortions do happen within this limit, even having a limit masks a very important fact.

Tests that are performed at around 20 weeks are the ones that begin showing fetal abnormalities, and with abortion bans at 15 weeks in place women would be forced to carry nonviable fetuses to term, often at a huge risk to their own health. One of the women in the Texas lawsuit was carrying twins when tests revealed that one had died, but she could not get that one aborted in Texas, which was the only way to save the second baby and perhaps the mother’s life because sepsis would have followed. Late-term abortions are rarely just because a woman suddenly decided she didn’t want to be pregnant. They’re because of severe complications.

[ShazzieB]

8. +1000!

[jaxexpat]

9. From this, I surmise two absolutes*:

1. Your opinion about women's reproductive options is irrelevant if you have no uterus.
2. Republican legislators are too hopelessly stupid to write legislation, especially in Texas.

* The most universally obvious "absolute" is the coincidence of the sun rising in the east every morning, so far.

[JohnSJ]

13. Whether you believe it is irrelevant or not, all genders vote. According to Pew research, 39% of

the electorate that were women voted for trump in 2016.

No one, regardless of gender, should mandate a person's reproductive options.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/

[jaxexpat]

15. Huh? Is it an official policy that women's reproductive options......

are to be addressed by elections? My position is that men should remain mute on this subject.

I shall then mute myself.

[JohnSJ]

16. I said nothing of the sort, and you are offended by my comment that NO ONE should dictate decisions

to someone about their body, regardless of gender.

The fact that there were a significant number of women in 2016 who voted for trump, which helped give us the SC we have today that deny those rights validates my point, NO ONE, regardless of gender should tell someone what to do with their own body.

Should I mute myself because you don't like my comment on a discussion board?

A strategy that insults people who are obviously for pro-choice and pro women's rights on a progressive forum, seems pretty counterproductive.

[Silent3]

21. Since people with uteri come in both pro-choice and anti-choice varieties...

...having a uterus clearly doesn't lead to unanimity of opinion. I'd think a pro-choice uterus-lacking person is more your ally than an anti-choice uterus-possessing person.

[jaxexpat]

22. Of course that's true. It is step one toward a progressive society.

My point is that men have no right to control women's reproductive options. Their attempts to do so speak of the fact some in their cohort would enjoy a return to a society based on women as chattel and wifedom as an idealized/idolized slavery. The whole struggle of reproductive control would best be worked out by women among themselves. Even if that is contentious, it's a better basis for resolution than to invite or allow men their opinion on the matter.

[Silent3]

23. "allow men their opinion"

So men need permission to have an opinion on this matter? Aren't you blurring merely having an opinion with having control?

You wouldn't be happy with the situation anyway if a majority of women were anti-abortion anyway. It wouldn't feel any more fair for a bunch of uterus-possessing religious fanatics to impose their religious beliefs on uterus owners who don't hold those religious beliefs.

As a practical matter, because we don't have a political system where people and legislators are only allowed to vote on issues that, by some arcane method or other, are determined to be relevant to that voter or legislator, you better hope than men have opinions on abortion, and that those opinions favor choice.

[jaxexpat]

24. Men's opinions on this issue should be irrelevant.

The sooner men realize this fact, the sooner it will be resolved in favor of choice. Women, free to choose their own paths. When men's opinions are considered, women's rights become a public lightning rod for a mixture of feudalism and pornography. When their conclusions on this issue are forced on the population by statute it is ALWAYS a stupid blundering mess which takes multi-decades to walk back.

That some women vocally support anti-choice is a case of the exception which proves the rule. Psychosis and self-destruction is not the exclusive purview of men.

[Silent3]

26. Only the opinions of factory owners and workers are relevant to factory working conditions?

Last edited Sun Aug 27, 2023, 02:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Non-factory-owning office workers should just shut up and mind their own business?

Your position about men's opinions on abortion also inherently presumes a particular, and uncommon, pro-choice position as the foregone resolution of the argument.

Part of the debate over abortion, whether you like it or care to acknowledge it, is whether or not the unborn have any value whatsoever, and deserve any protection under the law whatsoever.

That part of the debate, obviously, cannot be represented by the unborn. Men are just as qualified as women to weigh in on that part of the debate.

Also, whether you like it or not, the rough consensus in the US, including the positions of women, does recognize a growing degree of legal personhood for the unborn as a pregnancy progresses. Very few people support condition-free third-trimester abortions. Yes, I know those cases are rare, but how to handle rare cases is often one of the most fraught aspects of the law, and is always a valid thing to consider when creating laws.

I'm personally a strongly pro-choice man. I also totally understand how disgusting it is when we see images of committees and legislatures debating abortion without a woman in sight.

I'm not, however, going to nullify the value of my own opinion to satisfy a common pro-choice talking point. Of all of the pro-choice arguments out there, the "no womb, no say" is the weakest of them, and the one least likely to convince opponents.

Do you also tell women who've had hysterectomies, or who are otherwise infertile, to butt the hell out of the abortion argument?

[Joinfortmill]

4. Kellyanne sucks, bigly.

[rubbersole]

5. And I've heard from reliable sources...

..that like a fly, she eats shit and bothers people.

[Think. Again.]

6. Here's an idea...

...how about limiting abortions to only pregnant people and their doctors?

[Farmer-Rick]

10. Wow, that's cutting it close even for an ectopic pregnancy

Most ectopic pregnancy are discovered at about 12 weeks but sometimes they are discovered 2 to 3 weeks later because the woman has no symptoms. Ectopic pregnancies are 100% fatal for both fetus and mother unless an abortion is carried out.

About 197 new cases per 100,000 persons happen a year in the US. That's almost 300,000 women's lives put at risk each year just for some imaginary superstitious nonsense about magical religious fetal tissue. There is no scientific reason to limit abortions to 15 weeks. It's all in the minds of the religiously insane.

In normal societies, where Catholic superstitious religious dogma has not become a right wing political football, abortion is limited only by the age of fetal viability outside the womb. But of course those are countries that don't bow down to imaginary super daddies in the sky. A lot of theocracies, but not all....yet, don't let women get abortions because they are abusive and don't give women any right to do most anything.

I think we should limit Kellyanne Conway's freedom of speech to 15 weeks. At least that law would have a real noticable improvement to society and is not supernatural, hocus pocus, hokum.

[Garion_55]

12. if abortion is murder

why is a 6 week or 15 week timeframe ok to murder but 15 weeks and 2 days is not ok to murder?

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

18. The Exceptions are Hypocritical nt

[Hekate]

20. Abortion is a medical procedure, not murder. At any time, it is part of the continuum of female medi

…medical care. Standard of care is to save the woman’s life and health and future fertility.

I can’t tell from how you posted this, but I hope you know that Roe had restrictions written in from the day it passed. There never was and never will be a woman who bops into a hospital at 8 months and says, “Well I’m done with this.” There are, however, women whose pregnancies are about to kill them, and need appropriate emergency care.

[JudyM]

17. I appreciate her daughter's wise Dem friends.

[Buckeyeblue]

25. So now Republicans want to negotiate reproductive healthcare?

Abortion, or any other medical intervention, should be left between individuals and their medical providers. We don't have laws around procedures to remove an appendix or a gall bladder. No laws around surgery to fix an ACL. I could go on.

Republicans have weaponized abortion and other reproductive health treatments because they were able to get poor religious people to vote for them.

It seems like now that abortion bans are a reality and we are seeing the impacts of non-medical professionals creating laws around medical treatments, some individuals that were reliable Republican voters are rethinking their vote. Or previous non-voters are thinking they might vote.

That's why we are going to hear Republicans over the next year talk about a "common sense" approach to abortion. They are going to try to sound reasonable. Whenever a deplorable approaches me trying to sound reasonable, I grab my wallet and run the other way.