The article describes a really important point, that the actual access can be very different from what the law says. I think the article might still underestima

The article describes a really important point, that the actual access can be very different from what the law says. I think the article might still underestimate this issue, especially political polarization around the topic. It's a very different situation in a country where protests near clinics that perform abortions are common and doctors are at times named and vilified for this. There are a lot of ways to add barriers within the legal rules, and that is not easy to compare. I think the focus on the specific time limit is a bit misleading. I'm not sure about the exact statistics, but the vast majority of abortions are performed early. There are some laws like the "heartbeat" laws that set impossibly short time limits, but a time limit does not have to be an unreasonable limitation as long as it provides very robust exceptions for cases like health complications. That part is tricky of course, physicians do need to feel safe to make reasonable medical decisions here without having to fear legal consequences from overly vague or restrictive laws.