She makes a point which is important:
Will pro-choice women finally be forced to accept the Stupak Amendment in order to get health care reform passed? I've been saying for a while that they probably would, not because I had any insight on how it would happen, but because I've known that the permanent political establishment would require that a large liberal interest group -- preferably women,racial minorities or gays --- sacrifice a matter of deep, fundamental principle to prove to them that they are not in charge of anything. Pro-choice women will get no sympathy and if they attempt to fight back, they will be vilified by the "serious" people for being foolish purists who only care about themselves. (Stupak and his gang, on the other hand, are widely seen as acting out of principle, which is admirable and unassailable.)
"Stupak and his gang" includes the Catholic bishops. Women cannot be Catholic bishops, but the celibate bishops can wear dresses and have power over women's wombs. Imagine explaining the reasons for that to an alien from outer space!
It's all mind-boggling.
Especially the bit about the values of forced-birthers being real and worthy of respect, whereas the values of pro-choice people are something to do with identity politics and up for compromises. I have come across this in several debates which end up being about how selfish pro-choice women want people to suffer with bad health care rather than give up something nobody really supports anyway, whereas the forced birth folks are seen as principled, however mistakenly.