Er… what? The whole "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" / "you just want to CONTROL women's BODIES!!!" / "pro-lifers won't be happy until they REDUCE women to CHATTEL for the STATE!!!" &c. &c. &c. line of high dudgeon for the pro-choicers has remained essentially unchanged since the late '80s, at the very least. I guess by this point I'm a veteran of the abortion debate, which is why I also find attempts at generational grandstanding- "THIS GENERATION will not STAND for ATTACKS on a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE!"- so amusing, since I can't remember any time the pro-choice movement has been less electrified. There is nothing fresh about the rhetoric, or about the people issuing it; rather than attempt to seriously negotiate the actual moral complexities of the issue, they'd still rather rail against these mythical rich white male politicians who get their jollies from controlling women's bodies just for the sake of controlling women's bodies.
We were supposed to have bought the car in 1973, but they keep selling us the undercoating. Women don't have the right to choose until they have the right to abortion, and- oh yeah- until they have the morning-after pill, and- oh yeah- until minors can get it without parental consent, and- oh yeah- until it's all paid for by someone else, &c. &c. &c. If all this is necessary for the "right to choose", what exactly was legalizing abortion meant to accomplish in the first place? A reasonable person would conclude that complete control over our bodies is as much an unobtainable theoretical abstraction as absolute zero, but these people will still verbally rain holy hell over anyone who dares to second-guess any of their ad hoc attempts at defining this completely undefinable "right". Then there are the patronizing and misogynistic implications of deeming something a women's issue in order to open it up to all manner of special pleading that protects it from all existing standards of what actions are permissible in society, and what justifications for those actions are adequate. This patronizing attitude is apparent in the sine qua non of their entire movement-- the infantilizing moral logic that says an action is morally unassailable entirely by virtue of the fact that it is something that can be chosen.
As for the advocates of "bodily sovereignty", I wonder how they feel about the actions of the captain of the Costa Concordia. After all, he was compelled by law to put himself at actual risk physical injury or death in order to potentially save the lives of others. A pregnant women, however, is under no legal compulsion not to actively seek the death of her fetus, even though the fetus poses no danger to herself. If the bodily sovereignists were at all consistent in their beliefs, they would conclude that, by leaping into the lifeboat prematurely, the captain was actually performing a heroic reclamation of his individual rights.