Jennifer, asking anyone to address the "substance of the piece" implies that there is actually substance to be addressed

I'm going to try a different tack here. I'm troubled by the passionate nature of the article and its sources and wonder, if the argument is so compelling, why we need facile phrases like "gaining control over women's bodies", when it's as much about the child as the mother, or hyperbole such as this: "God's Own Party is determined to make America one country under God, and if you're a woman, and even more if you're a poor woman, you will be crushed [sic] in the righteous pursuit of the imposition of God's will".
And then I question the author's priorities, or at least Wendy Kaminer's, when she condemns the hypocrisy of refusing "treatment" based on gender when, she says, discrimination based on race would be abhorred. Presumably, pregnant women are not discriminated against, regardless of race? But more to the point, the US already discriminates on the basis of wherewithal! People are left to die if they can't pay for health-care and surely that's more offensive than expectant mothers being second guessed?
But beyond all that, I question the very notion of "freedom" that is putatively at stake. What is the quality of this freedom that women should be guaranteed? We can abhor the right-to-life zealots but all societies require moral codes to live by and untrammelled “freedom” is mere alienation, and not freedom at all. Wherein are we free? We’re bound hand and foot in our prescribed lives, and according to convention, good and bad. Are we to retreat narcissistically into our neurotic selves and our cherished bodies for the illusion, a consolation, of freedom?
In any case, is not our freedom, such as it is, paradoxically incumbent upon us as a debt to society? If not, it’s mere sociopathy—dressed in the elegant raiment of librertarianism. The fool’s freedom, more a species isolation and social-neglect! We’re only free within, and answerable to, society—outside, it’s “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”—“free” in a word.
This issue has far more depth and contingency to it than this eccentric and emotive article would have us believe.

"What is the quality of this freedom that women should be guaranteed?"

The same right that everyone should have: the right to individual religious belief; religious belief in this context means the right to find meaning in your life and death.

When this individual right causes the individual to lose connection with other individuals and society we call it a pathology.

Yet when a group of individuals who have unified under a collective religious belief seek to convert the rest of society to their belief we do not quibble with that at the psychological level even if that collective religious belief is patently insane in part or whole.

It is definitely time for a new analysis of what religion is and offers beyond the stale polarity of atheism and fundamentalism. That new discussion must still take place in a secular context because that is the only type of society which can accommodate such a discussion.

This article's motley cliches and typical cri de coeur offers nothing in that direction.

Really, Squeers, the right to safe and legal abortion is hardly “untrammelled freedom.” Talk about hyperbole. “People are left to die?” What people? Who is left to die? Where are you getting this information?

Your claim that it’s “as much about the child as the mother” tells me where you sit in the debate. You’ll have to try harder for a “different tack” – nothing at all “different” about what you’ve said so far.

Thank you, Progressive Pat, for elevating my importance to that of “a leading feminist who influences millions of modern women.” This article though, and indeed the situation, is not about feminists and feminism. One does not have to be a card-carrying feminist to abhor the events in the US at the moment. The article is also about abortion, not birth control. They are separate issues and ought not to be conflated because that does neither of them justice.

I’m surprised at the fear of emotion revealed in some comments. It is appropriate to express emotion, though I don’t agree that I, or the commenters I link to are unduly emotional about this very emotional topic. Ms Jones, for example, tells her story with dignity and does not deny her anguish. Why should anyone else?
Jennifer.

I also don't buy the argument of institutional misogyny Jennifer and the women she cites profess. The Christian right in the US and elsewhere has just as many women members as men, in some cases more! Are they misogynists too? And while the subjection of women within narrow fundamentalist constraints should be debated vigorously, so should the stereotyping of men and the masculine roles and constraints they're overtly and subliminally manipulated by.
Women aren't actually being forced to keep their babies, and all the reproductive freedom does still lie ultimately with them. The fact is it's a democracy and a percentage of the population have strong views about the sanctity etc. of the life of the child. The women who believe it's the woman's body, and she shouldn't be gainsaid in her rights over the foetus, have a strong argument, imo; but like it or not, the other side believes it has a case too, and it's a democracy--no doubt you'd rather let the markets decide, Jennifer?
I recently criticised democracy for tolerating denialists on the vital issue of climate change--an issue of national security, yet minimifidianists have just as much political influence as the right-to-lifers, more! I feel as precious about the planet as Christians do about unborn babies, but I was shouted down for daring to question the wisdom of the democratic process.

Jennifer, women "have" the right to "safe and legal abortion", just not to be indifferent about it, or see it as "treatment".
You are aware that healthcare has to be paid for privately in the US (though things have improved under Obama)? Ironically, it's the pro-lifers who'd rather “People were left to die": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037066/Ron-Paul-GOP-debate-Tea-Party-fanatics-say-let-uninsured-people-die.html
But you haven't read my post carefully, or you haven't understood it, or you don't want to know. Not surprising; I've tried to debate you in depth before, but you prefer the shallows.
I support pro-choice btw.

"I recently criticised democracy for tolerating denialists on the vital issue of climate change--an issue of national security,"

What garbage. Who are you, Clive Hamilton.

I suppose by national security you mean the threat posed by hordes of Pacific Islanders invading Australia from their rapidly sinking islands?

Dear god, when will this lunacy end! This planet survived an asteroid strike 65 millions bya which had the energy equivalent of about 10 million times the combined nuclear stockpile and you subscribe to the theory that a trace gas will destroy the planet?

Quick quiz; what anthropogenic source of CO2 emissions is the largest one?