Moral responsibility and choice

Law professor David Schultz recently testified against two MCCL-backed bills in the Minnesota Legislature. On his blog, he writes that "MCCL [doesn't] trust women" (and other question-begging claims). One passage is so confused that I want to specifically address it:

I find it interesting that this group [MCCL] talks about ethics. One can only be held morally responsible if one has a choice. Their aim is to take choice away. With no choice there is no moral responsibility. Hmm.

This is quite remarkable coming from a law professor who presumably has developed basic critical thinking skills. People are indeed morally responsible for the choices they make, but clearly that fact does not require anarchy (no government), as Schultz's logic suggests. The truth of moral responsibility does not preclude a role for government to regulate behavior, such as by prohibiting rape and murder; in fact, it helps account for why government must exist -- to restrain the wicked, ensure justice, etc.

Try inserting into Schultz's comments an example other than abortion:

I find it interesting that this group [those who want to prohibit spousal abuse] talk about ethics. One can only be held morally responsible if one has a choice. Their aim is to take choice away [namely, the choice of whether or not to abuse one's spouse]. With no choice there is no moral responsibility. Hmm.

Prof. Schultz would surely agree that spousal abuse is something that should not be allowed. But then the issue isn't "choice," is it? The issue is whether abortion is the sort of practice that should not be permitted, like spousal abuse. Schultz's "defense" of permitting abortion is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or not we should in fact permit abortion.