In essence yes. Because there’s no infringement on bodily rights based on the neutral state of being (provided you aren’t raped or forcibly impregnated).

The vast majority of people are pregnant as a result of their own choice or an accident stemming from their own choice. The removal of a legal option to abort (whilst not morally correct in my opinion) is not the same thing as enforcing a medical procedure by gunpoint - bodily autonomy is being misused as an argument here. Should people have the right to an abortion (I think so) but does the removal of that choice constitute an attack on bodily autonomy? I don’t believe so.

It gets complicated with rape as it is a direct violation of bodily autonomy - I am pro choice regardless, but think legal precedents should be set down in stone that abortions must be offered at all times in these incidents - outcomes for women and the children that stem from rape are never good.

In short, removal of options is not the same as enforcement of action.