It’s probably instructive that the architect of the recent Texas abortion ban filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging the justices to overturn Roe v. Wade in a different court case to be argued soon.

What makes it so instructive is his claim that women are not harmed by anti-abortion laws, because they can always just choose not to have sex.

Sexual intimacy is clearly something he does not perceive as a basic human need. Maslow be damned, I guess.

To further drive this point home, he acknowledged that overturning Roe would leave same-sex marriage and Lawrence v Texas (which prohibits states from outlawing “sodomy”) hanging by a thread. He sounds quite sanguine in his brief, even a bit cheerful, about the probability that states would once again be free to outlaw same-sex marriage and same-sex sex.

He’s made it plain that for him it really is all about the sex. He clearly believes the State ought to be in the business of regulating private, adult, consensual sex.

Your obsessed language feels spot on to me.