Couple issues on this...
Personally, I'm Pro-Life with exceptions. Politically I'd likely go Pro-Choice with limitations.
As I've said in other issues here, this comes down to me as a matter of faith. No, not "faith" as in religion. Faith in regards to when one BELIEVES that life truly begins. The issue here is there's no real definitive way one can say with absolute 100% definitive certainty without a shadow of a doubt that [blank] is a point that the fetus can be considered human. ANY designation of such is an artificial label placed on by society to fit its own purposes. As such, I believe you must give reasonable protection BOTH to the woman and her rights over her own body AND the unborn child and their rights over their own body as well.
- In the first half of pregnancy, IE up to the first four and a half months, a woman may elect to have an abortion up to two times. After that point it follows the same rules as during the second half of pregnancy.
- In the second half of pregnancy, IE the last four and a half months, a woman may ONLY elect to have an abortion if there's clear evidence the mother's physical life is in danger.
In regards to the "clear evidence" of the mothers life being in danger, I think there should be a certification that is given to doctors to determine this situation. I believe that every situation where that call is made should be reviewed by a board, and if that board finds that the doctor acted negligently they could lose their certification and potentially their liscense. This prevents instances like Tiller where he declares the woman in danger for flimsy reasons to go forward with the act.
Additionally, since there is an escape clause for the essentially "pro-life" second half that errs on the side of the fetus, so too is there one for the essentially "pro-choice" first half that errs on the side of the female.
Finally, in regards to punishment I'm not as concrete on. My thinking currently would say that performing late term abortions BY A THIRD PARTY should be treated as murder. I believe that incidents where it can be clearly proven the mother perpetrated the illegal abortion herself could fall under manslaughter, with forced counseling or forced scheduled birth control injections being the typical penalty. I think in the latter case it should not be persued by law unless there is ample evidence from the beginning that it is likely that the mother intentionally forced miscarriage. However as I said, I'm not positive my views on this.
I think in general and in theory this should be a state issue, and is what I would be fine with on a state level, but I think realistically at this point the likelihood of this going to the states rather than federal is slim.
Also I think there should be a way in the first half of the pregnancy that the man can rescind all legal rights to the child and reduce child support to 25% of what it would normally be. If the man honestly is not made aware of the child until after that point then he has 1 month to make his decision regarding the child. I think if its found that the woman had willingly hid the pregnancy from him until after that point then he has the ability to opt out 100% from paying child support if he wishes.
This way men, similar like women, have an ability to divest themselves of a portion of the responsability of the child during that first half of the pregnancy. However, with acknowledgement to the needs of the child the man is not able to remove himself fully from the equation unless the mother is found to be fraudulent regarding her situation. Additionally it still puts the woman in greater control as she can still choose to have the child if the husband pulls out where as the husband has no real ability or say if the woman pulls out. If we ever get to such a point that it is a reasonably safe surgery to remove a fetus and transplant it into a male or artificial surrogate then my stance would change. However since technology is not near that right now my stance would be as stated above.