Anti-choicers are trying to marginalize comprehensive health care for women basically to put us in our place, to demote us from the status of people and return us to the status of objects.
The debate over health care is basically about this ultimate fight over whether or not women are people.
If Amanda Marcotte has a modus operandi, it’s overgeneralization. Misogyny persists among some “anti-choicers,” and kudos to Marcotte for pointing it out where it exists, but it doesn’t adequately explain the opposition to abortion. Even if one could magically rid all misogyny from the world, there would still be a basis for an anti-choice movement: the belief or the conclusion that nascent human life deserves legal protection. This proposition needs no misogyny to originate or gain widespread assent. And assent it has. So unless you can show conclusively that this specific assent historically originated from and continues to originate from misogyny, then there’s no rational sense to think a desire to demean women explains “anti-choicers.” Anything less and you’re at best overgeneralizing and almost surely wrong.