I agree with Chaos that this needs to be looked at more generally as a botched surgical procedure--one that the patient paid for. Take out the issue that it was an abortion.
This is a 45 year old woman who felt she could not afford to have the child. That includes the medical costs of having the baby. That also might explain why she didn't consider adoption--she would still have the medical costs with no guarantee of an adoptive family to pick them up.
As for abstinence. Come on, let's not be naive. I envy her for having an active sexual life
. And at the age of 45 she may be going through menopause, which could make one think they can't get pregnant anymore because of irregular or missed monthlies.
Bottom line is she paid to have a medical procedure done, the procedure was botched so now she is suing for malpractice and to recoup the future costs associated with the mistake. IMO, no different than other such lawsuits where a procedure was not done correctly and the lawsuit includes on-going medical care.
ETA: My guess is that the fine print about not being 100 percent effective may be for preventive measures such as vasectomies and tube ligations.