In this article, I think the main argument is that the new abortion laws are negative in that they increase abortion regulations, and in doing so, force women to forgo abortion that may seem medically necessary. Another argument made in this article is that a woman's choice should always be valued above the baby's life. This argument is made when it says about the new laws, "doctors have repeatedly warned that cutting off access to medically necessary abortions could end up forcing women to carry nonviable pregnancies to term, risking their health and their emotional well-being." In saying this, the article shows that the risks to the woman's health and emotional well-being are more important than carrying the pregnancy to term and saving the child. Another appeal that is made in this article is that lawmakers are cold people who do not consider women's feelings and blame them for their baby's problems. This is shown when it says, "anti-abortion lawmakers have frequently responded callously to the personal stories from these women, even going so far as to suggest that fetal abnormalities are the woman's problem". In this statement, there is an implication that the woman should never take responsibility for the life of the child in her.
I think that these arguments are not altogether very convincing. I think they make a lot of assumptions about the value of a woman's life above a child's. I think that this article places a lot of emphasis on possible risks that a woman could incur if they fail to have an abortion, but it does not take into account the fact that most abortions are not medically necessary for the woman, but will always end the child's life. The article says of a woman who forgoes an abortion because of the law, "what if she gets a blood clot? What if she needs a cesarean section? Now you're putting this woman through risky medical procedures for no good reason." I just wonder how you can compare a c-section and a blod clot to the killing of an innocent child. And abortions can also be very risky medical procedures. I think overall, most of the appeals in this article are emotional and are only supported by basic assumptions that women should always have the final word and that many pregnancies should be easily terminated based on the fact that they are "nonviable", which is never clearly defined or explained. What type of "fetal abnormality" calls for an abortion? Are any abortions truly medically necessary and if so, how common is this? Why is the woman's convenience prioritized above the child's life?