The first Lancet one has this as a finding:
> The abortion rate was lower in subregions where more women live under liberal abortion laws (p<0·05)
They don't seem to have corrected for other factors like rule of law, income, and level of economic development.
The second Lancet one also suffers from the same issue (though at least acknowledge the rule if income), and the authors reveal their biases very soon:
> We developed a new statistical model that jointly estimated unintended pregnancy and abortion that aimed to better inform efforts towards global equity in sexual and reproductive health and rights.
The last one's [1] conclusions seem like they could be broadly correct. If no abortion is allowed at all, you'd expect more maternal deaths. However, the actual amount is disputable as this is based on modelling not concrete data. Additionally, they seem to be assuming a total ban on abortion, which doesn't seem realistic to me.
> But go off and pat yourself on the back for fetuses having more value than the incubation receptacle they're within.
Finally, we need to avoid personal attacks if we are going to have a fruitful discussion.