from John Holbo.

Okay, let me try this one more time. I take the Scott Lemieux argument to proceed as follows: 1) Partial-birth abortion bans do not protect fetal life but instead change the method of abortion, in some cases to a more dangerous method. 2) These bans are therefore designed to regulate female sexuality. My point was (and is) that even if one accepted the first point, the second wouldn’t follow. In truth, bans on partial-birth abortion are unlikely to have any effect on female sexual behavior, I’ve never met a pro-lifer who believes otherwise, and it’s a bizarre way to go about changing female sexual behavior if that were your goal. (The ban is far more likely to reduce the abortion rate than to have any effect on sexual behavior.)

The larger question of how differing views of sexual morality affect both sides of the abortion debate is an interesting one, but it doesn’t affect my point that the Lemieux argument makes no sense.