I would disagree with some of your characterizations.
Williamson doesn’t say voting is useless, he says it’s of limited value:
As a procedure for sorting out complex policy issues, voting is of distinctly limited value … and though it is a necessary instrument of accountability in a democratic republic, voting properly plays a very limited role. For instance, we have a Bill of Rights, which could with equal accuracy be called the List of Stuff You Idiots Can’t Be Trusted To Vote On. A majority of Americans don’t like free speech? Too bad, Harry Reid.
It has value, it’s just not the fetish object people like Lena Dunham make it out to be.
The article isn’t about what women “can and can’t do with their bodies,” it’s about what services the government pays for. He thinks Lena Dunham is an idiot for urging women to vote for government-funded contraception while simultaneously telling the government to stay out of their bedrooms:
Those of us who have been working against various mandates imposed by the Affordable Care Act are as a matter of fact attempting to extricate ourselves from involvement in Lena Dunham’s sex life, the details of which we would gratefully leave to her own idiosyncratic management. It is the so-called Affordable Care Act that has involved us in subsidizing birth control, abortifacients, surgical abortions, and who knows what else, for the strong, powerful, self-actualized American woman who cannot figure out how to walk into Walgreens, lay down the price of a latte, and walk out with her own birth-control pills, no federal intervention necessary … I suspect that Miss Dunham does not know very many conservatives, so allow me to pass along the message: We really, truly, sincerely do not wish to be involved in your sex life.
He doesn’t argue that decisions should be “disconnected from one’s vote,” but rather that those decisions shouldn’t be funded by the public.
I don’t really understand this criticism. It’s an opinion piece. By design it’s meant to curry favor in one direction.