Jim Rudd, Director of the “Christian Street Preachers Alliance” (abortion clinic harassers), makes the dangers of the anti-choice movement perfectly clear. He is convinced - in a roundabout and somewhat deranged way - that freedom of choice has “destroyed marriage” in America by - in his own words - undermining patriarchy, and the purpose of opposing choice is to restore hardline patriarchy to American families under the law.

OK - so it’s insane, but at least it’s clear. There’s no room now for misunderstanding what the anti-choice position is about.

Along with this, he’s (predictably enough) het up about gays, insisting that they’re part of the conspiracy because he can’t think of any reason for them to support choice other than that they share with feminists a desire to destroy families. Really.

When I started preaching in front of abortion clinics several years ago, I was perplexed by the large number of homosexuals who were “abortion activists.”

I asked myself then, “why are homosexuals so militant in their support of abortion?” “Why do they spend so much money and effort defending “a woman’s right to choose?” “What is the political connection?” As I searched for answers to these questions, I began to understand why feminists and homosexuals both defend abortion so vehemently. . . .

Before 1973 our civil laws recognized that when a husband and wife conceived a child that: the husband was the father; the wife was the mother; and together with their child they constituted a “nuclear family.”

However, with Roe v. Wade the Court ruled that there is no child at conception. Today, the State calls the child in the womb a “potential life,” and as long as the child is in the womb the husband is called the “prospective father.”

In effect, Roe v. Wade stripped the husband of his right to be legally recognized as the father of the child until the child is actually born. By doing this, Roe destroyed marriage and the family at their core by defiling the marriage bed at the moment of conception. . . .

The State strips the man of his God ordained authority both as a father and as a husband at the moment of conception. In effect, the State maintaining “…a woman’s right to choose” changed American society from being a patriarchal society to a matriarchal society. The father of the child is only the father of the child by permission granted him by his wife.

Aside from betraying his complete ignorance of the law (there is no legal status called “prospective father” or anything like it, and the law explicitly recognizes the interest of the father in the fetus - that was the whole point of Alito’s dissent in Casey that has gotten so much attention lately), and aside from the laughability of calling America a “matriarchal” society, he couldn’t be clearer about the connection he sees between male authority over women and the denial of women’s rights to control their pregnancies. This is exactly what feminists have been saying about abortion from the beginning, while the right wing has consistently tried to cast the issue in other terms. Here, though, an ultra-right Christian makes it perfectly plain: the anti-choice position is a matter of patriarchy - of male control over women’s fertility. And he not only favors that, he’s got a plan to restore it.

Both feminist and homosexual activists are very much aware of the political and legal ramifications of Roe v. Wade. Since 1973 they have made an extraordinary effort and spent huge quantities of time and money reinforcing the feminist/matriarchal agenda. . . .

While they funnel millions of dollars into political efforts and support candidates that they know will protect Roe from congressional override, their attorneys are systematically winning one court battle after another and are succeeding in redefining marriage and the family to accommodate their criminal sexual desires of fornication and homosexuality (i.e. domestic partnership benefits and same sex marriage).

Here is the key point: For the Church to pour resources into defending the Christian definition of marriage and family in our society without Congress first overturning Roe v. Wade is folly. It is meaningless to defend something that has already been destroyed. One cannot defend something in civil law if it does not exist. It must first be established in the law. The Christian definition of “marriage” and “family” in our society depends entirely upon the legal recognition of life at conception. . . .

[T]he Church can reclaim its “covenant-keeping” stewardship of the “moral order” in America if the United States Congress overturns Roe v. Wade by specifically instructing the Judiciary to recognize the “personhood of the child in the womb from the moment of conception.”

Once our society guarantees the child at conception “due process of the law,” abortion becomes illegal, the marriage covenant is “re-established,” and patriarchy is reinstated in the nuclear family and the extended social structure. Thus, Christian men reassume their covenant-keeping responsibilities in the home, the Church, and the civil society.

Again, he’s confused on the law and immersed in a bizarre and primitive theology - but he’s far from alone in either of those things. And that theology is aimed squarely at stripping women of their independence, most especially in any matter related to sex, but in all others as well.

Oddly, he could have resolved his own confusion about gays simply by listening to himself: it’s perfectly obvious why gays (especially lesbians) are strongly supportive of abortion rights - they have as much interest as straight women, possibly more, in not being forced to submit to patriarchy. It has nothing to do with “accommodat[ing] their criminal sexual desires” - they are motivated not to be straight men’s slaves whether or not they accomodate their criminal sexual desires. And lesbians have as much interest as other women in having abortion rights available when they need them, even if they need them less often. If he knew any gays, he might have asked them about this - it’s hardly a secret.

But the real message of this garbled and perfervid gibberish is that the extreme right wing has engaged a war against women. That fact is hardly new and hardly unknown, but occasionally they say it right out loud, and Jim Rudd has done so today. I can’t see why anyone would not be terrified of this movement, whether or not they think abortion is a good idea - or could fail to see the link between abortion rights and women’s freedom when the misogynists themselves state outright that destroying the former is necessary to, and the first step en route toward, destroying the latter.

If you hadn’t believed it before, believe it now.