= new reply since forum marked as read
Reproductive rights are important, but rights like suffrage and freedom of speech are also important. The reason is that any infringement on those rights would facilitate the curtailment of reproductive rights. Of course, the OP is correct to the extent that it goes both ways -- a prohibition on abortion (the "mandatory motherhood amendment"
would impair the ability of women to be effective in exercising their political rights.
From your exchange with Durham D, you've learned that DU is sometimes oblivious to nuance. The OP is in support of reproductive rights. You disagreed with one particular point in the OP. Therefore, you're a right-winger with anti-choice views. That kind of misreading happens here a lot.
Note that I began this post with "Reproductive rights are important..." I sometimes try to anticipate what misinterpretation might be put on a post of mine and pre-empt it. That shouldn't be necessary, but you might consider doing it on sensitive subjects. (I have to admit, though, that even that doesn't always work.)
On the subject of the broader political context of reproductive rights, it's interesting to think about what would happen if the right wing got what it says it wants. Let's just say, hypothetically, that at some point there are five Supreme Court Justices willing to sign on to a decision with the fateful words: "Roe v. Wade is hereby overruled." What would happen, with every state left free to regulate or even prohibit abortion? One result would be that women and men supportive of reproductive rights would be galvanized and mobilized as never before. Some states certainly would prohibit all abortions. In many others, though, anti-choice politicians would be driven from office.
I'll bet a lot of those politicians realize that. Publicly, they denounce abortion, but privately they're very grateful that Roe v. Wade makes it impossible for them to deliver the complete prohibition that they say they want.
