Thank you, Mr. Reich for making the obvious patently clear, particularly with regard to this item:
"A strong moral case can be made that any society that respects women must respect their right to control their own bodies.
"There’s also an important economic case for effective family planning.
"Public investments in family planning—enabling women to plan, delay, or avoid pregnancy– make economic sense because reproductive rights are also productive rights."
This is about not just a dearth of respect for women, but how fundamentalists, in their idolatry of patriarchal beliefs, wish to retain women as dependents upon men. In several sickening instances, the adult woman was seen as nothing more than a mechanical petri dish... existing to harvest a fetus. The female--as sovereign person--is not even part of the equation.
As I often remark, the DAY that all of these anti women's rights (encapsulated as abortion, but going much further) advocates show similar passion for opposing war, natural resource despoliation, and war--by fiscal means--against poor children of color... will be the day that any iota of tolerance or respect should be allotted to their views.
The syndrome reminds me of some genius interviewed when that town clerk refused to offer marriage licenses to gay people. It was hilarious hearing the fool trip all over his own words in trying to paint as--his freedom--the right to block someone else's. THAT is what these morons are all about. They think they have 'god's' word and support in telling others how to live; and in their enthusiastic support of war, they also think they have the freedom to take others' lives: just not unborn fetuses.
I wonder if this same fundamentalist ilk would feel the same way about all the wars they send their kids to fight... if they saw RAW footage of pregnant women destroyed by drones, pieces of THEIR fetuses fused to the surrounding grounds littered, no doubt, in body parts?