> This simply removes liability without reducing objective risk

If that liability change kept more health care facilities and providers going in rural areas - then, compared to current trends, it would greatly reduce the risk.

> ...the solution imho is to incentivize people of reproductive age who intend to carry a child to move to urban areas where services are and will continue to be available...

Try talking to a few politicians from rural areas about just how unpopular this idea might be. (For anything beyond a tiny number of high-risk pregnancies.)

Rural areas need healthcare funding, funding that is not coming. Rural area politicians will talk (because talk is cheap and free versus action) until retired, out of office, or expired, but will not change the underlying structural issue of lack of funding needed to support a healthcare system needed for young people to remain in rural America. What outcome will this lead to? We can argue time horizon, but the trajectories in question are clear and remain on their paths until events occur that would change those trajectories, and therefore, future outcomes. That is my mental model on the topic of critical systems and infrastructure rural America requires to exist, and if at all possible, retain young people or encourage them to move there. 21 states now have more deaths than births every year, and this will only grow overtime to every state, for example.

I have a tracker I should probably just open source around the decline of hospitals, schools, churches, road infrastructure, farming, fossil aquifers, etc as it relates to the "Era of Contraction" in the US. Added to my TODO list.