The "goal" here is to respect the rights of both the mother and the child. The mother has a right to her body, but the fetus also has a right to life. Usually it's easy to craft policy such that "my rights end where yours begin," but they overlap in this case.

It doesn't make sense to me to give the woman priority just because she can communicate her wants and needs. I think pro-life people generally go way too fast in prioritizing the rights of the unborn, and pro-choice people go too far in prioritizing the rights of the mother. So that's why I have this compromise, it:

• prioritizes the woman's rights at the most important time - limits harassment about miscarriages, allows confidentiality in cases of rape and incest, and provides a backup plan for those who cannot afford to be mothers
• retains the mother's discretion in handling medical issues
• prioritizes the fetus' rights at all other times
• errs on the side of the mother if there's a conflict (e.g. mother's life is at risk)

I think it's a fair balance. It does prioritize the mother, but only when the alternative involves likely harassment of many innocent innocent people (like in the article), so I think it's a fair compromise.

If they want an abortion, they get one

I agree, but only for the first half of the pregnancy.

If the doctors believe that the pregnancy is non-viable or carries an extreme risk to the parent, then the decision to terminate should be made only by the pregnant person.

Also agree. Abortion for medical necessity should be allowed for the entire pregnancy.

And the doctors now risk getting arrested

Only if they violate the above. Doctors can already get arrested for malpractice, and I see this as essentially euthanasia of an unwilling patient. Police would need to prove intent to violate the law.

I think it's incredibly unlikely that doctors would actually be arrested unless they're knowingly doing a lot of illegal abortions.