I don't buy that syllogism at all. That conclusion does not necessarily support the premise. You call for a hyper-enforcement application of the law based on a distorted concept of what constitutes equal justice. I'm no legal expert, but we obviously make just distinctions between arguably similar crimes in the law all the time. Relative motives, intent, state of mind, harm to the community, all apply to just distinctions in how the law is applied. (The greater punishment is generally reserved for the doctor who illegally prescribes medicine than for the patient who consumes, for example; the drug dealer more than the user, etc.)
I have a hard time believing that you genuinely can't see how a just distinction in culpability can be drawn both legally and morally between an abortionist and an abortive mother.
But let's move beyond your theory of what constitutes equal application of the law to the realm of historical fact: Until Roe v. Wade in 1973 it was abortionists and abortion providers who were prosecuted and imprisoned, not abortive mothers. Now you may believe that was unequal and unjust, but the U.S. judicial system at state, local and federal levels clearly supported the constitutionality of those laws for many generations. Contrary to your thesis, it seems we could return to a time when abortion was illegal without having to enforce manifestly silly and unjust draconian laws which would force the imprisonment of rape-victim abortive mothers.
I'm sorry that you can't accept that I see the woman seeking the abortion as being just as guilty as the doctor who performs the abortion. If the criminal justice system proves that illegal abortions are occurring, then the women seeking those abortions will each have fewer total counts of the crime against them than the doctors who have provided multiple abortions. However, the notion that they should go free after contracting with someone to kill their unborn children is wrong.
Bill