The heavily-funded OB-GYN, Ron Paul, has been getting flack from liberals for opposing legal abortion. Yesterday, Dana Goldstein was aghast that Andrew Sullivan had chosen to endorse Paul. Her post is.... hilarious.

his tribute to Paul lionizes the Texas congressman as a classic "live-and-let-live" libertarian without ever mentioning the deep contradiction in his platform: Ron Paul is virulently anti-choice. First Dennis Kucinich said he would appoint Paul his V.P. And now Andrew Sullivan, defender of gay rights, idealizes the guy. Earth to liberals and moderate conservatives who value individual rights and liberty: Ron Paul is not your guy, at least not if you believe women deserve the same freedom as men.  - Dana Goldstein

Don't get too close to Paul! He might infect you with his virulent platform. Don't you believe "women deserve the same freedom as men"? We don't want to go back to the bad old days before Roe v. Wade when only men were allowed to get abortions.

Continuing:

What is "freedom and toleration" without a woman's right to control her reproductive destiny? What is an "ability to grasp that not all human problems are soluble" without the acknowledgment that unplanned pregnancy, and the havoc it brings, are features of human life that can not be eradicated? What candidate who stands against "Christian meddling" would strengthen the theocratic movement by allowing states, in the name of religion, to repeal women's rights over their own bodies? 

Nice use of "destiny". Why, Ron Paul, won't you allow women to determine their pregnancies by allowing the stars to pre-determine them? Also, is it smart for pro-choicers to defend themselves by saying that "unplanned pregnancies" involve features of "human life that can not be eradicated." Presumably you can eradicate the "features of human life" that are in-utero.

But it isn't just Goldstein who loses all grasp of the English language and self-awareness when confronted by pro-lifers. Christopher Hayes, in an otherwise excellent article on the divisions of libertarianism, talks about Ron Paul's "full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq and a radical vision of a stripped-down state (though, oddly, one that still forces pregnancy)."

You heard first it in The Nation. He may want to bring the troops home, but the Paul regime will still "force pregnancy."  (What will that Cabinet Department be called, Mr. Hayes?) Funny, most women I know aren't "forced" to become pregnant. (Sometimes they like a few drinks and a Dido record. Other times they ask for love and marriage)

Ezra Klein joined in on the enforced pregnancy meme as well: 

it's a bit hard to square the immense affection Ron Paul receives from putative civil libertarians with his intensely restrictive attitude towards such issues as whether a woman will be forced to use her body as a vessel for childbearing. -Ezra Klein

Ron Paul, why you gots to be so harsh with your "intensely restrictive attitude"? Can't you have casually unrestricted attitudes? Like Ezra Klein. "Vessel for childbearing--" how precious!!