The right to choose

Digby argues here that the new crop of Republican candidates are virulently anti-choice, speculates about possible policies they’ll push and worries that the Dems, as they have in the past, will consider trading away abortion rights a fair compromise in return for Tea Party support on some other matter.
I’m pro-choice. I think restricting abortion and taking the decision out of the prospective mother’s hands is wrong. And I think the argument taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for abortion—even if it’s a federally funded clinic discussing abortion—is bullshit. Lots of taxpayers oppose the death penalty. A majority (according to some polls) opposes waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don’t see any right-wingers suggesting we should take the public’s wishes as gospel.
Some right-to-lifers genuinely, if illogically, see abortion as murder: Illogical because many of them insist that mothers shouldn’t be prosecuted, that they’re mere “victims” of the abortion industry which manipulated them into rejecting the children they would otherwise have loved.
For others, however, it’s very much wrapped up with their general view of women: They should be home, barefoot, pregnant and submissive instead of out there having sex without “consequences” and being independent. Hence the assumption they’re just sheep being manipulated by the evil abortion industry. Hence the argument I heard back where I used to live, over and over: If some slut doesn’t want to have a baby, she shouldn’t have sex.
Not: She should have used birth control. Just that she shouldn’t have sex. Which is also a false argument: If that was a logical argument then presumably faithfully married women who got pregnant when the condom broke would be fully entitled to an abortion.
But it’s not logical, it’s emotional: For a lot of religious conservatives, women running around having sex outside of marriage are filthy harlots, whores of Babylon and the idea of letting them get away with it by abortion of birth control is infuriating.
One South Dakota state senator, for example, apparently thought it was perfectly reasonable to assert that rape victims were only entitled to abortion if they were virgins when the rapist struck, and if they were planning to remain virgins until marriage. Apparently for anyone else, bearing their rapists child was divine justice.
The point I’m trying to make is that even if they overturned Roe vs. Wade, or wrote so many obstacles into the law that it was effectively overturned, the religious right won’t be satisfied.
There are already groups who oppose birth control; some because they believe (erroneously as I understand it) that the Pill is an abortifacent, some because they object to birth control of any form. Some argue that using contraceptives encourages abortion because if you have sex with birth control, you’ve already decided you don’t want a baby.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum believes that giving the government the power to control everything people do in bed (not just gays, as frequently misquoted) is the only way to stop incest, polygamy, sex with animals, etc., etc. He’s not alone; I’ve read several right-wing columns vilifying the Supreme Court decision that said government had no right to proscribe the use of birth control by married couples (remember, when most right-wingers talk about being in favor of smaller, less intrusive government, they’re lying through their teeth).
So I think we could end up much, much worse than just losing the right of abortion (which would be bad). Conceivably as bad as El Salvador, where police doctors check out women who have miscarriages to make sure they haven’t aborted secretly.
Or maybe added restrictions on what women can drink, eat, or which jobs they can work at when they’re pregnant. Because they can’t be allowed to jeopardize their baby. It’s rights are not only equal to hers, they’re superior. Yeah. That would put those pushy broads in their place.
I’d like to think I’m wrong about how far they’ll go. But I wouldn’t bet one red cent on it.