I would argue it is a distinction without a difference. Women of means, even before Roe v. Wade, could obtain abortions. The whole fight to get access to safe, legal abortions was based on the problem of poor women perforating their internal organs attempting to perform their own abortions.

Frankly, we are arguably already back to the pre-Roe v. Wade position by default. It costs an extraordinary amount of money to pay out of pocket for an abortion now, and the people most likely to be uninsured are poor women. Abortion clinics are far and few between, requiring some women to travel hours, or even to take a week off of work (with the counseling, and the mandatory waiting periods, and all the other bs).

The Stupak amendment isn't limited to abortion, either, but can be read to apply to all forms of birth control.

The Senate compromise is absolutely garbage. I am beginning to think that President Obama found the most effective way to completely neutralize women's rights – he promoted the only person brave enough, with enough spine, to advocate for our rights.

In the last paragraph of your post you make some rather breathtaking statements. For example: "The government's position on abortion is closely analogous to the government taking a postion on matters of religion." With all due respect, Professor, this position is absurd.

The government has taken a position on abortion. With the thinest of textual support, the Supreme Court has found that women have a constitutional right to abort their babies. Under your logic, this violates the First Amendment because it promotes the views and beliefs of religions that practice child sacrifice. To be consistent, Professor, you should protest this governmental enactment of the precepts of Moloch as unconstitutional.