There is plenty of post-veep debate around the Web to digest, but what stood out for me was the incontrovertible evidence that a Romney/Ryan administration is hell-bent on womb control, despite desperate maneuvers by Mittens to play all sides on an issue where there is precious little middle ground.

I’m glad that Paul Ryan made it clear that women 1) need an aspirin between their knees & 2) can look forward to the state in their wombs. It’s down to All Your Ladyparts Are Belong To Us. I think Amanda Marcotte hit the nail on the head when discussing the recent outlandish example of socially conservative Republican hypocrisy on this issue by Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN).

The point of banning abortion isn’t to end abortion, no matter how teary-eyed they get about “life” or how many disingenuous claims they make about ending abortion. They know—believe me, they’ve been told!—that abortion bans don’t end abortion. They’re counting on it! Keeping up the “family values” image without the ability of mistresses to abort inconvenient pregnancies is notoriously difficult to do.

If you assume that the belief that drives anti-choicers is the belief that women are the property of men, preferably conservative men, then DesJarlais’s alleged behavior in line with that belief. He believed that it was his right and not his mistress’s to decide what happened with her pregnancy. He certainly believed his right to hold on to his marriage trumped his mistress’s right to out their relationship with her pregnancy. According to the divorce documents, he really conducted himself like he was some old school patriarch, cheating whenever he wanted while trying to control his wife through violence.

In case you missed the exchange on abortion during the debate, it’s below.

***

RYAN: I don’t see how a person can separate their private life from their public life or their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, about how to make sure that people have a chance of life.

Now, you want to ask about why I’m pro-life. It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.

You know, I think about ten and a half years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy hospital in Janesville where I was born for our seven week ultrasound for our first born child, and we saw that heart beat. Our little baby was in the shape of a bean, and to this day we have nick named our first born, Liza, bean.

Now I believe that life begins at conception. Those are the reasons why I’m pro-life.

Now I realize that this is a difficult issue. And I respect people who don’t agree with me on this. But the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.

What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they’re doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They’re infringing on our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. Our churches should not have to sue the federal government to maintain their religious liberties.

And with respect to abortion, the Democratic party used to say they should be safe, legal and rare, now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding. Taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said he sympathized with, and would not second guess, their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That to me is pretty extreme.

BIDEN: My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life, and it has particularly informed my social doctrine. Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves. People who need help.

With regard to abortion, I accept my Church’s position on abortion as a de fide doctrine. Life begins at conception. I accept that position in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians, and Muslims and and Jews…I just refuse to do that, unlike my friend here, the Congressman. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people, women that they cannot control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor in my view, and the Supreme Court. And I’m not going to interfere with that.

With regard to the assault on the Catholic Church, let me make it absolutely clear. No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic social services, Georgetown hospital, Mercy hospital, or any other hospital, none has to either refer for contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.

Now with regard to the way in which we differ, my friend says that he…well I guess he accepts governor Romney’s position now, because in the past he has argued that there is rape and forcible rape, and that in the case of rape or incest, it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend.

RYAN: All I’m saying is that if you believe life begins at conception that therefore doesn’t change the definition of life. The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

***

And this SCOTUS reminder, via Think Progress.

Here are just four ways that Romney’s appointees would vote to effectively rewrite the Constitution if given the chance to do so:

• Eliminating The Right To An Abortion: Roe v. Wade is already on life support. The Court’s current majority weakened the longstanding rule ensuring that women may terminate pregnancies that threaten their health, claiming instead that a federal abortion restriction should be allowed in part because “some women come to regret” their own reproductive choices. If Romney were able to add an additional conservative to the Supreme Court, Roe would likely be forfeit.
• Judges For Sale: Romney named Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito as his models should he be allowed to pick new judges. All four said the Supreme Court should have done nothing when a wealthy coal baron payed $3 million to place a sympathetic justice on the West Virginia Supreme Court. That justice then cast the key vote to overrule a $50 million verdict against the coal baron’s company. Romney may even want his justices to go much further in permitting the very wealthy to buy elections — he previously endorsed allowing billionaires to give unlimited sums of money directly to his campaign.
• Government In The Bedroom: Only five of the Supreme Court’s current justices joined the landmark Lawrence v. Texas decision, which struck down Texas’ “sodomy” laws and held that the government cannot “demean” a couple by “making their private sexual conduct a crime.” An additional conservative justice would place Lawrence in jeopardy.
• Tossing Out The Constitution’s Text: As a top conservative judge who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from George W. Bush once explained, the legal case against the Affordable Care Act has no basis “in either the text of the U.S. Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.” Romney would appoint more justices who embrace this lawless legal theory.