I've never said I'm opposed to C-section at 37 weeks in the case where the mother has decided she doesn't want the child. You just invented that. I also never said I was opposed to abortion--you invented that, too.

When people eat sweets, is it because they want to get diabetes and have an early death?

When people drive quickly, is it because they want to die in a car crash?

When people don't exercise, is it because they want to raise their risk of cancer, heart disease, and stroke?

It is simply not the case that when people do something that may have an additional effect that they always wish for the additional effect.

So no, you're flat-out wrong that you can conclude that because abortion restrictions sometimes cause the death of the mother that people who want restrictions want the death of the mother. Maybe they really wish it could be avoided but cannot figure out how and think the other priority is greater ("I ran into the burning building and saved my child because I wanted to suffer third-degree burns" is not a correct description of affairs); or maybe they think (rightly or wrongly) that it can be avoided while still achieving the other goal.