Douthat implies that supporters of abortion rights have wrongly painted the anti-abortion crowd as misogynists instead of recognizing their sincere concern for the fetus. But the truth is, while plenty of pro-choice people are ready to spell out how they feel about the tension between women's choices and the rights of the unborn, the anti-abortion movement has never been able to acknowledge that abortion is profoundly a women's issue, unless they're pivoting to "protecting" women from it. It is still an inconvenient truth that someone has to carry that developing fetus, someone has to give birth to it, and someone has to care for it — all roles that are either exclusively or mostly female.
So while some ("plenty" seems to be an exaggeration) pro-choicers are able to admit the unborn are human beings and killing them (or "sacrificing" them as Mary Elizabeth Williams would say) should be legal, prolifers don't accept the idea that abortion is mainly about women. Instead, they believe it's mainly about the unborn. And this proves what exactly? This proves prolifers hate women? How?
Seems to me that Carmon is basically asserting that prolifers are misogynists simply because they're not pro-choice.
Then again, when you start a sentence with "But the truth is..." and then issue an assertion sans evidence, a valid argument won't be forthcoming.
Sure, if abortion is illegal, a woman will have to carry and give birth to her child. How does prove that the profound issue regarding abortion isn't what is about to be killed?
I could use Carmon's same argument to claim individuals opposed to mothers killing their infants are misogynists because they don't believe that killing infants is profoundly a women's issue.