I understand and respect your perspective. However, this feels a trap. It jumps off the page. Here is why I say that.
This sentence is bugging me: "Under this law, coercion to abort includes threatening to discontinue financial support, threatening divorce, assault or threats of physical violence."
Discontinue Financial Support: So, say you have a female who has had a casual encounter, has been raped, or simply has a steady boyfriend. There are no inherent financial commitments in place in such situations. The way this reads it would only be actionable to married couples, where there are already such rules in place.
Threatening Divorce: How is the court system to know that divorce wasn't already discussed? People who don't care for one another still engage in sexual activity. Also, there are arguments such as, the female got pregnant to keep the marriage together even though they had agreed to divorce when it could be afforded, and so on. There are numerous possibilities here rendering this argument non actionable. He said, She said, is not a valid argument in the court system.
And, the true danger ...
Physical Violence: This is already a crime in its own right. To tangle an act that is already a crime into financial responsibility and threatening divorce is a recipe for disaster. For victims of violent crimes the last thing they may want is to be financially connected to their abuser. This is just an open doorway for more abuse. A male who pays support is then entitled, by law, parental considerations - abusive or no. Moreover, if the abuser's end game is to threaten divorce most females, in the end, will discover that was a blessing. This spares herself from further abuse and protects the child from the behavior as well. Then there is the dangerous marital Catch 22 where the abuser brings victim to court to legally keep her in an abusive marriage.
This rule gives the air of sounding productive. However, it seems to me all its doing is tangling up the law system over the only actionable illegal act on that list (abuse/violence). Basically, it reads as a way to keep abused women ... abused, which works out great for the court system as it ensures job security.
Females would be financially obligated to capitulate to their abuser, potentially exposing a child in the process and if she is already married to her abuser it creates a loophole for the abuser to keep her in an unhealthy marriage.
This act resonates as a way for non pro choice lobbyists to generate a backdoor using (what they believe to be) pretty words.
Danger Will Robinson! Danger!