Yep. The meaning is that a women gets to decide if they want to have a child or not. Thanks for playing.
The issue though is she could be essentially murdering what is an unborn child. The pro-choice crowd seeks to twist itself into pretzels to avoid admitting this, wanting to act as if the unborn is just a blob of tissue until the moment of birth (very ironically, many of these same types also reason that creatures such as fish, frogs, flies, etc...all are living creatures with feelings and that killing any of them willy-nilly is evil). Now it's a thorny issue of when the life in the womb is a child, but after a certain point, I think it pretty clearly is.
On the flip side though, you have the pro-life side of which a good portion want to ban abortion even in the cases of rape/incest/life and health of the woman, and some even would restrict birth control, and they believe that the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, it's now equivalent to a person.
Personally I think both sides are nuts. I think "reproductive health" is a rather bogus term but I think the idea of "abstinence education" is also not realistic.
My personal view is that abortion should generally be something we try to avoid. I think it is nonsense this idea of it being viewed as just a procedure and nothing more, it can be a lot more than that. THAT SAID though, I would not outlaw abortion and think the choice should rest with the woman.
However, I also believe that if the choice of whether to abort the child rests solely with the woman and the man gets no say, than the man should not be legally liable to have to pay for the kid if the woman decides to have it. My money, my choice.