It's not that much of a stretch to think women could be convicted for using alcohol or tobacco, or eventually for any reason the right wants.
Anti-abortion laws could also make doctors wary of treating women for miscarriages, lest they be accused of actually inducing abortion [2]. Women could also easily be falsely accused of breaking anti-abortion laws when they have a miscarriage ("you didn't have a miscarriage, you were perfectly healthy!" etc, despite many perfectly healthy women having many miscarriages). This is all but a guarantee, as people are already being denied care due to this issue.
Unfortunately you are incorrect even though I wish you were right.
"Of the 22 states with abortion bans that will instantly take effect if the landmark Supreme Court ruling is overturned, 10 have passed laws that make no exceptions for rape or incest: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas."
Having to carry a rapists child to term would likely cause some level of psychological trauma. Psychological trauma is a valid medical reason for attaining a medical marijuana use case in many states. So I would argue that state level governments have already accepted psychological trauma as a medical need.
It's not hyperbole - an induced abortion ("chemical abortion") is identical, medically, to a spontaneous abortion ("miscarriage"). 25% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. When abortion is a crime then any person experiencing a miscarriage is a suspected criminal. If someone experiencing a miscarriage is unlikable enough, weird enough, or ever expressed any doubts about their pregnancy to anyone else, then a prosecutor can just assume that person must have caused their miscarriage. There's no way to disprove any specific action didn't contribute to a miscarriage.
When you criminalize abortion you criminalize miscarriages. Not every miscarriage, but definitely some.
This actually varies greatly by age, as older women have higher rates of miscarriage due to things like amniotic insufficiency, and genetic abnormalities which also cause predispose towards miscarriage
>an induced abortion ("chemical abortion") is identical, medically, to a spontaneous abortion ("miscarriage")
This is not medically correct, and it sounds like a political talking point.
Many spontaneous abortions fail to implant due to genetic abnormalities, and come out like a period. Minimal pain or impact. Similarly, genetic abnormalities can cause spontaneous abortions that happen early pregnancy in the first trimester, causing the fetus not to grow, and then to abort.
There are several different chemicals used for an induced, chemical abortion such as salt, Prostaglandin, Urea, as well as steroids like mifepristone [1], or Misoprostol[2]
Chemical abortions on the other hand can be much more catastrophic, and involve intense enough contractions to cause permanent damage to the uterus and vagina. As you can see from the safety data sheets, these are non-trivial risks associated with these.
As a pregnancy involves signficant hormone changes, a pre-implantation spontaneous abortion without implantation would not change estrogen levels significantly. A fully implanted pregnancy would change estrogen levels as the breasts increase in size and prepare for milk production. Some studies have shown 90% increases in breast cancer rates post-abortion, while others contend no change.
Regardless of your political stance on abortion, I don't know of any proposal in any state that would prevent it in cases of medical need.
It varies by state, but there are also exceptions for rape, age, and several others.
There's no need for a straw man here, the issue is complex enough without the hyperbole.