No he's not. He's saying the 17th amendment had bad consequences for his beliefs. You can frame that in at least three ways: 1. He regrets the 17th amendment.

No he's not. He's saying the 17th amendment had bad consequences for his beliefs. You can frame that in at least three ways: 1. He regrets the 17th amendment. 2. He thinks libertarians haven't marketed themselves well towards women, and they should work on that. 3. A simple observation of fact and narrative of history, mentioned casually in a long essay otherwise unrelated to women's suffrage. My personal interpretation is #2. But we can't know unless he clarifies it, and until then it would be wise to reserve judgment.