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.