Jay Michealson argues that a major reason that LGBT rights have gained so much ground over the past 10 years while women's rights have devolved is that the activism for women's rights has very much played to the base while LGBT activism has very much gotten all warm and fuzzy and palatable to the middle.

On the flipside, the reproductive camp has been almost dominated by the sorta non-intersectional feminist voices who argue for women's rights on reasons that are totally valid and make sense, but just won't fly with people who aren't already buying into the notion that reproductive rights are a women's rights issue.

Unfortunately, even the name "pro-choice" reinforces that the movement is about acts and not identity: freedom of choice, not equality of status. This may be a noble goal, and it is one which many more left-wing LGBT activists still hope to pursue, but it is also one that plays badly at the polls—as the mainstream gay rights movement learned in the 1990s. 'Thick' liberation appeals to the left but alienates the center. At present, many Americans oppose discrimination, but they're okay with restricting personal freedoms. Sucks, but there it is.

I think he makes a compelling argument 'cause often it seems like the people debating reproductive rights are very much talking past each other. I dunno if having a real discussion on the morality of abortion, with an emphasis on how letting women have abortions is the morally right thing to do, will shift the pendulum in any way shape or form, but pretending that people will get on board with the choice narrative if it's thrown at them a couple of more times hasn't been working well either.

But, like I said, I dunno if reframing really has a dint of a chance. As the classic "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion" shows, often times morality is very relative.

Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique — not like those "other" women — even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reason