While it’s true that women who don’t have sex with men may be less likely to require abortions, Milano isn’t really offering a pragmatic solution to the problem of misogynists in congress trying to force us to have children. She’s suggesting that women refusing to have sex is in some way a protest, akin to workers striking for higher pay or fairer conditions, withholding their labour because they are not being adequately rewarded for it and pressuring for change because their collective bargaining power is so much stronger.
This is not a case where people coming together will have an impact. Women are not about to achieve the power of 1970s trade unions any more than we can bring Lysistrata to life. To suggest this as a solution is not only misguided, but also dangerous in itself.
The analogy fails to acknowledge the possibility that women derive any standalone pleasure from sex – something feminists have been fighting until very recently to even have acknowledged by the social and medical establishment (the clitoris was essentially erased from female anatomy until 1998).