Not many of them do. And this was a question I always asked post-abortion women in my 30 plus years of medical practice.
But that's not the issue with this bill.
These women could currently sue their abortion providers for negligence for failing to completely discuss emotional complications in their preprocedure risk-benefit discussion.
This bill's problem is that it could set a dangerous precedent creating a minefield of litigation possibilities in other areas of medicine. It's a litigators dream.
The argument will be made that, since in the case of abortion one can sue for predictable complications, why can't that same principle be applied to any other procedure? It will be argued that abortion is "medical care" (which it isnt) but the argument will be made anyway. Then it will be argued that, since the process of informed consent does not protect against litigation in the case of the recognized complications of abortion (which is equated to medical care), then it should not do so for other forms of medical care.
Therefore, your case of deep vein thrombosis following your hip replacement is open to litigation even though your orthopedist discussed this risk with you before surgery and you accepted it as a risk to gain the benefit of the hip replacement.
It seems to be a well meaning bill that fails to recognize unintended consequences.
What it does is begin to force feminists out of their "have your cake and eat it too" legal paradise!
The counter argument is that the abortionists do not provide the honest counseling required for informed consent.