Sorry, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what Ben Smith thinks he’s proved by revealing the shocking – shocking! – fact that one of the activists who pushed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act is also opposed to the use of condoms (“in Africa”!!). Like any other constituency, pro-lifers have views on quite a lot of issues, but that doesn’t show that even a plainly symbolic fight like this one is “about” anything other than what it claims to be about. (Or does the fact that many progressives favor a single-payer health care system show that any and all of their health care-related efforts are nothing but a stealth attempt to slip in a single payer system while we aren’t paying attention?) Clearly it could be argued that the text of the specific bill in question was designed to have an anti-Roe effect (this may be so; I haven’t really looked into it), but the nature of the billboards that Jill Stanek wants to hang in Africa has really got nothing to do with the issues at stake here.
[ADDENDUM: I have no problem with “pointing out Jill Stanek’s extremism”; my only gripe is with the idea that it alone is sufficient to show that the bill was an anti-choice subterfuge that deserved to be opposed. That’s just plain silly.]