It would be so ridiculously hard to prove that the woman had "intent to destroy evidence of the crime". I can't even imagine a situation where this would be possible. Intent is a very hard thing to prove in general, let alone a situation where the intent goes directly against the interests of the person in question.

No, you are definitely right. Everyone wants to jump to crazy conclusions without thinking about it. It would be near impossible for any prosecutor to prove intent to destroy evidence against the woman, and that is a requirement for this law. There are many valid reasons for having an abortion and nobody can prove…

Where does it say that? Specifically it says "compelling or coercing another to obtain an abortion". You can't compel yourself, it is clearly targeting a third party.

Her vascular artery was blocked. No reason to assume that would have impacted circulation to the babies until her heart actually stopped.

I agree that there is probably a valid malpractice suit here for the death of the babies, but it looks like they did what they could to save the mother. The obstetrician could not have done anything for her. You can't sue just because someone dies, no matter how tragic it is.

Totally. This one time I was with a girl who's parents performed a non-consensual cosmetic procedure on her when she was a baby and I was like, what a turn off, put your pants back on and get out of here.