I think you are still committing the tendency I described earlier. Correct me if I'm incorrect here, but your logic is as follows:
1) A consistent pro-life ethic entails reducing abortions as much as possible
2) SCHIP reduces abortion
3) Congressman X opposes SCHIP
4) Congressman X does not have a consistent pro-life ethic
The problem with that is that it assumes that conservative pro-lifers have to adopt a sort of utilitarianism about abortion, which conservatives reject. You assume then, that opposition to to SCHIP combined with a pro-life ethic must be due to misogyny, which neglects the possibility that socons hold a different set of moral principles (which obviously they do or they wouldn't be socons).
I think it could reduce abortions, and supporting SCHIP would also seem pro-life because it could save live children who need insurance for life-saving treatment. It's not just about abortions, but also a question about how pro-lifers want to help children who are already born. Conservatives such as Tony Perkins think that providing day care at schools for teen mothers is a bad idea, because girls need to get the message that pre-marital sex is a mistake. Teach the girl a lesson, but that also hurts her baby. I suppose one could make an argument that the government shouldn't encourage certain behavior by bailing pregnant girls out, and still oppose abortion, but this position seems to be rather tough-minded.
Not all people who oppose both abortion and government funding for poor mothers are necessarily bad people or hate women. It's hard for me to understand them, but I don't claim to understand everything. Again, nobody in this thread said that all socons are just mean or thoughtless, but there are people on the right (and the left) who are nuts, and are justifiably lampooned. Since they're good at getting attention, some people may unfairly conclude that they're typical of that ideology.
