Some thoughts on the implications of the recent restrictions:

1. If life begins at conception, shouldn’t the father of the fertilized embryo be responsible for child support beginning with the act of conception? (Ewgeni Root makes a similar point in the comments here.)
2. If a woman who is of child-bearing age (and who engages in behavior that may have resulted in pregnancy) smokes, drinks, takes a carnival ride, eats poorly, etc. even before she knows she is pregnant, isn’t she still endangering the well-being of the fertilized embryo? Granted, she may not be intending to harm anyone, but (and my understanding of the principles of U. S. law is limited), intention is not necessary in certain cases of negligence or endangerment. Thus, in the interest of protecting the fertilized embryo, the state may control significant actions (extending far beyond reproductive choices) of any woman who is capable of becoming pregnant. As I understand it, some of the anti-abortion laws may penalize a woman for having a miscarriage. And someone who gives a cigarette etc. to a woman who may be pregnant even if the donor doesn’t know the woman is pregnant can be prosecuted as an accomplice.
3. If protection of the fertilized embryo is paramount, then abortion in the case of rape is clearly out of the question, but so is abortion to protect the woman carrying the fertilized embryo. If you need a kidney in order to survive, you are not permitted to kill someone else in order to take their kidney. You are not even permitted to take their kidney without the other person’s permission if you keep them alive.
4. Once a theocracy is established, what would keep it from defining life as occurring before conception (i.e. criminalize the “killing” of the potential life-form)? In Catholicism, not only have traditional non-abortifacient birth control methods like condoms and iud’s have been forbidden, but so has the withdrawal method ( https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-sin-of-onan ). In its attempt to establish the earliest possible date of conception (in order to set the strictest limit on when a late-term abortion can be performed), Arizona Republican legislators in 2012 attempted to designate the date of conception as occurring up to two weeks before fertilization ( https://www.huffpost.com/entry/az-abortion-bills-arizona-gestational-age_n_1415715 ).
5. If the proponents of present-day anti-abortion laws were able to protect the well-being of fertilized embryos without limiting the actions of women, would they be so keen to pass these initiatives? Many on the right seem to believe that “thoughts and prayers” are a viable solution to senseless gun violence. Why not simply hold the well-being of the fertilized embryos in their thoughts and prayers?

Although many of my points are based on the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum, any rational person should be aware since 2016 (if not previously) of the tolerance — predilection even — of large segments of the voting public for laws and violations of laws that run counter to reason. In short, I agree with the premise of the original article here — that the goal of the anti-abortionists is not the protection of the innocent but the control of everyone but themselves.