When 39 Democratic members of the House of Representatives - many of them theoretically "pro-choice" - voted in favor of Bart Stupak's now-infamous amendment that makes it illegal for any federal dollars to be spent on insurance plans that cover abortion, we were told it was OK. Those of us that care about women having access to one of the most common medical procedures in America were assured it was just some political calculus, and that it would be undone in the Senate. We were also told it was in the service of the greater good - preserving a public health insurance option.

Right.

That must be why the Senate just passed a bill with almost exactly the same ban. Plus, it restores previously removed funding for the morally bankrupt failure that is abstinence-only education. Oh, and no public option.

Let's do some math ourselves. Our government - our overwhelmingly Democrat-majority-run government - doesn't want you to know about how to prevent pregnancy. But if you do get pregnant, they're refusing to help you choose abortion. So basically, in the middle of the worst recession in recent memory, if you can't afford to fund your own abortion, or buy your own separate abortion insurance with your own money, you have no right to choose what happens to your body if you get pregnant. Even simpler: if you're female-bodied, unless you're rich, one of the risks of sex will now be forced birth.

It's time for drastic action. And considering we won't have the chance to vote these fools out of office for nearly a year, we're going to have to get creative. Possibly, a little Greek. And so I humbly submit to you the question: WWLD? What Would Lysistrata Do?

The thing is, I like sex too much to suggest a full-on sex strike. And honestly, I don't want to perpetuate the idea that sex denial hurts men more than it hurts women, because I don't believe that's true. But it's half-past time for drastic action, so here's what I propose:

Stop having sex with partners who think your reproductive health is negotiable.



Sure, that rules out all Republicans, but you weren't sleeping with Republicans anyhow, were you? What I'm really interested in is getting the attention of all of the so-called democrats and liberals and progressives who are all for Lady Issues in theory, but who are willing to expend exactly zero political capital to make sure the law treats women like free, complete human beings whose rights to bodily autonomy and health care are no more debatable than mens'.

Stop having sex with partners who think it's fine to use your body as a bargaining chip.

Is this gonna get awkward? Sure. It means that couples who've agreed to disagree about this issue are going to have to really get into it, and couples who've never discussed it are going to have to start. As for more casual affairs, I know: it's hard enough to bring up STDs and safe sex with that hottie you're trying to take home at a party, let alone to find out where ze* stands on Stupak.

But imagine the impact: you're flirting up a storm, maybe making out in a dark corner, when one of you suggests taking things to a more private location. That's when you say, in your sexiest voice, "I totally want to, but I have to know something first..." Ze, of course, will respond, urgently, "Of course. I'll tell you anything..." And then you, in a growly whisper, your lips just inches from hir lips, will ask, "What do you think about the compromises Congress has made on abortion coverage in order to pass health care reform?" (Here there will likely be a confused pause as the object of your affections tries to route some of the blood in hir* nether-regions back to hir brain. Be patient.) If your would-be paramour answers "God, I'm so angry that the Dems are willing to treat being a woman as a pre-existing condition...," jump hir bones. Talk about positive reinforcement! And if ze answers, "Oh, come on, the Dems didn't have any choice if they wanted to get health care reform done at all. Feminists really need to just take this one for the team..." Game over. Imagine the shock on your suitor's face as you walk away to find a new plaything, or go home to your trusty vibrator. Now imagine the dawning panic if this happens to the same person again and again. Now imagine it happening repeatedly to every "compromise" apologist out there. Now imagine them starting to get the message.

Stop having sex with people who only care about your body when they're touching it.

At first, this isn't going to affect the people in power, the people who are actually doing the compromising. But we've got to start somewhere. Consider it a grassroots movement. Start by denying sex to that lefty political know-it-all who casually accuses you of being too focused on a single-issue to see the "big picture." Then consider denying sex to your "compromise"-friendly neighborhood political blogger or the columnist for your college paper - or encourage their existing sex partners to join the movement. Soon we'll be closing our legs against congressional interns, legislative aides, and the editorial board of the New York Times, who gave their precious op-ed space to Bart Stupak himself, but refused to favor several prominent writers defending abortion funding with their precious ink. Anybody who helped sell out women's bodies is fair game, as is anyone who makes excuses for the sellouts. Maybe you'll even take it further, and refuse to pleasure anyone who hasn't actively worked to protect abortion and sex-ed funding. Eventually, if we (refuse to) play our cards right, our ranks could, er, swell to include a smart and powerfully political woman named Michelle, who surely still remembers a time when she wasn't so well off, and knows that her daughters' rights to make decisions about their own bodies would have been just as inviolable even if her husband had remained a poorly-paid community organizer.


*"Ze" and "hir" are gender-neutral pronouns. I'm not assuming that all people who are willing to compromise on women's reproductive health are men, because it's sadly not true.