The phony battle over certain kinds of birth control that are (often wrongly) called abortifacients is not about abortion. And much of the political fight about abortion isn’t really about abortion, either. It’s about whether women should be allowed to have sex.

Unfortunately, lawmakers and activists across the political spectrum have bought into the idea – some overtly, some tacitly – that good girls don’t have sex unless they are married and want to get pregnant, that there’s somehow something sleazy and immoral about a woman who has sex for its own sake. It’s a lie that’s supported in movie after movie – including ones allegedly directed at female viewers – that presents the false premise that men have sex because they enjoy it, and women have sex because they are in love. (Gentlemen: Nope. If a woman has sex with you, she may well be in love with you. Or she just wanted to have sex with you. Or she just wanted to have sex.).

It’s easier to try to force this double standard on females because most women cannot have sex without worrying about getting pregnant. That means they must have access to reliable birth control, and access to abortion, should they believe in it. But that’s something that still seems to make even purported liberals uneasy.

When Rush Limbaugh attacked then-Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, calling her a “slut” for wanting her birth control pills covered by her insurance, what was the defense of Fluke? People (understandably) went after Limbaugh for calling her a “slut.” Yes, it was offensive, but that’s not the point. The response should not have been, "she’s not a slut, don’t call her that." It should have been: "Who cares what you think? It’s not your place to judge her sex life. If she’s having sex once a year or six times a day, it’s none of your business."

Women use birth control pills because they want to have sex without getting pregnant; it’s that simple. But then, some other purportedly pro-women voices weighed in, noting that many women use birth control pills for medical reasons unrelated to avoiding pregnancy, such as dealing with bad menstrual cramps. Why even make that argument? Why feed the notion that “good girls” need birth control pills too, not just the harlots who want to have sex?

Men have Viagra covered under insurance. The question here is not, as Limbaugh posited, how much sex is Fluke having that she needs to take a daily birth control pill. The question is: Why should men have their pills paid for so they can have sex (as Limbaugh must know, as he was detained at an airport in 2006 carrying Viagra but no prescription for it), but women should not have their sex pills paid for.

On abortion, as writer Janet Harris brilliantly and importantly noted in a piece in the Washington Post, even supposedly “pro-choice” forces buy into the idea that shame is attached to sexual women. Abortion, Harris noted, is described as being a “difficult decision,” one that women struggle with if they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy. That is simply not true for most women. It’s not a difficult decision. If you don’t believe in abortion, it’s not a difficult decision because you’re not going to do it. If you think abortion is not wrong, it’s not a tough decision because it’s the only way to make sure you don’t have to go through an unwanted pregnancy and childbirth. Calling it “difficult” – or suggesting that women feel bad or guilty or conflicted about it afterward – merely gives ammunition to those who think women need to be counseled before considering abortion, as though they’re all a bunch of emotional, unstable creatures who couldn’t possibly understand what they are doing.

Women know exactly what they are doing when they have abortions. Agree with it or not, but don’t assume the only reason she’s having one is because she’s too confused or distraught to make a rational decision. Telling a woman she cannot have an abortion treats her as though she stops being an actual human being if she gets pregnant, and becomes just some sort of public incubator. Suggesting that a woman can have an abortion, but only if she wrestles mightily with the decision first, and feels guilty about it afterward, is not much better.

What has upset a lot of women is the Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to deny female employees coverage of certain kinds of birth control deemed “abortifacients” (meaning the company views the pill or device as effectively operating as an early-term abortion). This is a potent political issue, because while many people don’t like abortion, 98 percent of women will use birth control at some point in their lives. So how does the GOP political machine counter this? Republicans appeal to Democrats to “stop scaring women.” They say it in statements, and former Sen. Scott Brown said it to the woman who defeated him, Elizabeth Warren, in a debate. Again, the issue becomes not whether women have the right to birth control as basic health care, but about women’s supposedly unstable emotional states. Don’t scare the women! Who knows what they’ll do!

In reality, the women upset about the court decision are not actually “scared.” They’re angry. They’re not reaching for the smelling salts or scouting around for the fainting couch. They just want to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy. Using birth control is about the most rational thing a woman in that situation can do.

It makes you wonder what the GOP operatives think scares men – aside, of course, from female sexuality and female voters. Women are going to have sex, and they need to just accept that. But female voters – well, that’s something they should indeed fear.