As Americans have a lot of freedom to choose which state they live in, I don't see how this can possibly be described as "anti-choice". Being anti-choice would mean implementing a federal ban.
Abortion bans aren't about religious authority or "anti-individualism", even though most religions are against abortion. They exist because at some point the foetus transitions to become a person who themselves must have basic rights defended by the government and (possibly religious) morality. At that point the choice is by definition not an individual choice because it controls the baby's life, and the baby is an individual.
That's why it's totally normal for even very secular countries to have abortion bans in place after a certain number of weeks.
> This is Plato's Noble lie [3] and fundamentally anti-individualist.
You are misrepresenting his point very badly here and it feels deliberate. Ramaswamy isn't saying he opposes secularism. He isn't even passing opinion on the phenomenon in question. The statements you quoted are phrased as neutral observation. He's arguing that this outcome appears to be inevitable regardless of what he or anyone else personally wants.