Is the ultimate government agenda of antiabortion policies the mass sterilization of women?

As a general rule, governments have minimal interest in individual rights. Individual rights are not what governments are about, after all. Governments are about power, control and long term social trends. The individual as such is only significant to governments insofar as as he/she is useful to government leaders in terms of their long term agendas. Hence, we should be extremely skeptical about any government policy couched in terms to suggest a deep concern for individuals. In particular, we should be very deeply skeptical about governments presuming to protect the rights of the unborn. After all, in most cases these unborn entities scarcely resemble people at all, and are of no apparent use to governments. And, also, governments claiming a deep respect for religious rights generally are only interested in these religions insofar as they are of use to them. So, any religious strictures on abortion rights would only tend to interest government leaders when these religions proved to be of political use. In Communist China, the government actually has, at times, instituted mandatory abortion policies in order to curb overpopulation. And, overpopulation is definitely public enemy number one in most parts of the world, currently. Overpopulation threatens government power through social instability, crime, depletion of limited resources, mass starvation, war etc. So, it seems particularly puzzling in the U.S. at this time, to see such a strong tendency to curb abortion. Generally, this is couched in terms of protecting the rights of the unborn, or protecting religious rights, but, this is probably pure hypocrisy, something that government leaders are very good at indeed, particularly in the U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court has asserted that protecting women's abortion rights is "unconstitutional" -- somehow, the Supreme Court sees "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, for women, as in no way being inconsistent with women being legally compelled to bear the children of their rapists. Many, including myself, would see this as simply ridiculous. So, what exactly is going on here? Bear in mind, because of the emphasis on open public discourse in the U.S., and comparative freedom, virtually the only way to compel anyone to do anything is by very systematic disinformation. So, let's assume that in the U.S., like most places on the planet, overpopulation is a deep concern. But, in general, women still want to have the ability to bear children. In the U.S. forced abortion to reduce overpopulation would be considered an intolerable restriction on human rights. So, why not, instead, put forward a supposed defense of human rights, that effectively forces women to self-sterilize, in order to avoid the intolerable situation of being forced to bear unwanted children? If women are forced to bear any and all unwanted children by law, might this not be sufficient to compel a very significant portion of the female population to self-sterilize, hence yielding a very real reduction in the production of children that the government does not want or need? And might the U.S. government claim that it was defending the rights of the unborn and religious rights, and defending the U.S. Constitution, in doing so? You bet they would! Now, it is said that we should never believe anything the government says, until they officially deny it. Wise words. So, possibly the question should be put to SCOTUS: "Is the ultimate government agenda of antiabortion policies the mass sterilization of women?" And when they say, as they certainly will, "No, of course not!", then we will know that it is true.