It's great that your husband is getting treatment, but he is not the only one here with an issue to discuss/resolve. He should definitely continue his treatment, but the two of you need to be in counseling so you can tell him in a constructive environment what the lack of intimacy is doing to you and your view of the relationship, and come up with ways to address.

It's plausible - probable - that the meds he is taking have killed off his libido, which of course would eliminate any interest in touching, snuggling and other physical intimacies that are usually pleasurable but now (for him) or not. However while lack of touching can create a lot of distance, there are other ways to bridge that distance. If he doesn't want to touch, perhaps the therapist can help the two of you come up with mutually agreeable that will enable the maintaining and building intimacy in the absence of the physical/sexual - talking about the abortion, what it means (if anything) to your feelings about being parents now, what his work means to him, what sexual intimacy means to both of you. He can avoid having sex with you but there shouldn't be any reason for him, if he loves you, to avoid wanting to understand how this makes you feel, and to want to respond to your desire for closeness in other ways.

For those attacking the LW for dealing with the subject 'superficially' - you can't force a man who doesn't want to talk to talk any more than you can force him to have sex.

Marriage is a contract, not a prison. You have an obligation to reach out and try to restore the intimacy. As a loving partner you should advance more than half way while he is mired in depression and trouble. But the obligation cuts both ways. He does not have the right to indefinitely suspend all intimacy, ignore the impact on you and the relationship, and expect you to hunker down and deal with a sexless life lacking in all affection. There are many nonsexual options he can choose to help maintain a healthy intimacy in the marriage, and he has as much obligation to discover those as you do.

Reading Wolff's article, I was struck by this passage:

The result is a consensus on sexual politics that is driven by women, striking in its asperity and lack of generosity. Men in public positions who have sneaky sex are weak. The very fact that they would risk their public positions for sex (just sex) is a sign of their weakness. They have forsaken logic and are thinking with their penises (said with particular venom). New York magazine, in an artful, if gutter, appeal to women readers, had a cover photograph of Eliot Spitzer with the word “brain” and an arrow pointing to his crotch.

Actually, men in public positions who deign to tell the rest of us how to live our sexual lives by proscribing laws about abortion, homosexual marriage, and the like and then engage in sneaky (i.e. illicit sex) ARE weak. I don't object to a man visiting a prostitute - except when that man is a man who sends other men to jail for illegal sexual conduct. Then he's not just weak, he's an asshole.

Given all the years that men denied women access to power for fear they'd be blinded by irrational emotion, or PMS, how can Wolff now be surprised at women for being aggravated that those same gatekeepers were thinking with their dicks and granting political favors to the people helping them get laid?

I don't see what these girls did as demonstrative of sportsmanship any more than I'd view a different action as a lack of sportsmanship.

Part of the game is scoring the most points to win - sure. Part of the game is also to be fit and trained enough to play without injury. Part of the game is also to know the rules.

I am uncomfortable with the way so many people want to view the opposing team's actions as 'lovely' and an example of what sportsmanship 'really' should be. What they did was well- intentioned but poorly thought out and unnecessarily dramatic - and the fact that women did it seems to make people want to view winning by the book to be somehow less than sportsmanlike, which is simply untrue.

...is absolutely correct, that is exactly what is going on here. All that rage those girls expressed had far more to do with Miley being more successful, in a single stroke, and getting attention, creating perceived competition for male attention, and having an opportunity (or getting away with something) they, not being celebrities, don't/won't have.