Whit pregnancies there is always a risk. Even with the ones who apparently went well, sometimes women die giving birth. The risk is there, it should be voluntary.

You admit that texas is going the same road as Ireland. Latin America have even worse cases.

The "separate rule" for viable phoetuses (not pregnancies) is that once outside the womb, you can do whatever you can to make the phoetus survive. You can put the phoetus into an incubator, give it blood transfusions and hope for the best. That is it. The separate rule that doctors already apply is to use C-section most cases as a late term abortion method. That is all that you can do without forcing a woman to an unwanted gestation/pregnancy and birth. Which is painful and has a difficult recovery. And sometimes leave the woman with diabetes or medical problems for life.

Bannings end with cases like Savita or the ones like the raped child who needed to move states or women paying child support for their rapist children to their rapist.

I get it, you want to "assure that with enough protections and safeties" limiting women's body integrity won't be that bad. But what we keep seeing is horrifying cases where women keep dying and suffering.

Texas doesn't have "robust exceptions" because they doesn't want exceptions. The just want to deny a negative right "I don't want to continue the pregnancy, I don't want to gestate and I don't want to give birth". And to do so, they are limiting even more women's rights in that state. Now women aren't allowed to freely travel to other states if someone thinks they are pregnant. They are being monitored, spied on and if they miscarry (which acording you is a right they still have), they would need to prove it was a miscarriage and not a self induced abortion.

So, you know, maybe the "robust exceptions" should be applied to deny abortion, not the other way around. As in "you could have aborted easily within the 5th first months but didn't and now at 37 weeks the phoetus would survive even if we stract it with a C-section right now but we can't do a C-section because there is no incubators available so we would delay the intervention a week until there is an incubator available". For example. That could be a "robust exception" to deny abortion.

If the idea of applying "robust exceptions" to deny abortion doesn't apeal to you, is because "robust exceptions" need to be proven and their applications depends heavily on the ideology of the person who applies the exception. In texas case, the religious values that are imposed on their population mean that they are willing to let women die even for inviable phoetuses as a "price to pay" to end "all abortions". But at the same time, they won't pay the price of giving up their guns to save childrens lives reducing school shootings. Those are their values. the lack of "robust exceptions" are a feature, not a bug. And they are also saying that rape won't be an exception either because they would achieve "0 rapes" and other non sense. Do you actually believe that "robust exceptions" would change anything there? Because if I lived there I would already be moving to another state even if a lose money in the process.