1. This @DouthatNYT column tries to do something valuable (distinguish between reasonable anti-abortion case & Williamsonian bloodthirsty desire for retribution) but it's far too short & raises more questions than it answers.
2. I'd like to see @DouthatNYT write a full magazine length piece spelling out what sort of legal regime he'd like to achieve his goal of no abortions without substantially curtailing existing civil rights.
3. It's true, as Douthat points out, that in the pre-Roe v. Wade world, women who had abortions were almost never punished (as Williamson wants) like murderer. Williamson's position is not at all conservative but genuinely radical.
4. But the pre-Roe world was very different, had many more levers of paternalist control. And in meantime we've had decades of "abortion=murder" rhetoric. Williamson is the product of that.
5. I'm not sure Williamson can be dismissed as just outlier (although grant that most serious anti-abortion people wisely avoid talking about draconian punishments). He's the reductio ad absurdum of a common rhetoric.
6. Also, the historical record is that contemporary regimes that adopt anti-abortion policies do end up extremely punitive. El Salvador is a prime example.
7. Anyways, I'd like to see @DouthatNYT try & explain the mechanics of how his position works, perhaps ideally in debate with someone versed in the history & policies (like @KathaPollitt).
