This is not actually the case. All medical procedures have to be signed off on by the doctor performing them. Maybe someone shops around for a doctor with a more accommodating perspective but it will always need to be signed off by a doctor. if done in a professional medical environment.

The entire point is that the government shouldn't be deciding what medical procedures are necessary for you. The decision is between you and a doctor.

So the problem with a board is... Who is assigned that position? Elected? Chosen by the medical professionals at that hospital? Chosen by a single medical professional in the state? Who is allowed to be picked to that board? Only doctors? Admin? Hospital ownership? Licenced doctors that are not currently practicing, like the ones hired by insurance companies?

If you have the wrong set of people on that board, you can have a de-facto abortion ban in that area. Or a lot of expensive oversight on these boards.

I'm kinda splitting hairs here, but you seem to be using the terms "morality" and "ethics" interchangeably when they don't mean the same thing.

Ethics are social norms. Morality is personal. You cannot legislate morality because everyone makes those individual decisions anyway, and we will all rebel against rules we consider immoral. Ethical practices are those that balance everyone's divergent senses of morality in ways that allow us to actually function as a society. All legislation is ultimately legislating ethics.

Murder is unethical because we ban it. We ban murder because we believe it's immoral. But at least where I live, we can have a little ethical murder sometimes, as a treat -- if you call it capital punishment first. Many people, including myself, consider this immoral and would support changing the laws which inform (but do not define!) our system of ethics.

Also, I don't think you understand that abortion clinics are run by groups of physicians who are playing the role of this "medical board." It also seems you don't understand that limiting the incidence of DIY/back alley abortions is [the] major reason for making abortions accessible/legal. Telling someone they can't get an abortion in a clinic won't stop them from getting an abortion. It'll just stop them from getting an abortion in a clinic.

We legislate morality all the time. It is the premise of democracy. We ban murder because we believe it's unethical.
I'm perfectly happy for medical boards to decide whether abortion is medically necessary. I also believe they are best suited to decide that. The issue is that activists are arguing for no such oversight. They want the mother to decide, not said medical board.

That's not the only reason; a society where murder is legal wouldn't just be unethical, is not tenable. It would quickly fall apart as every minor dispute is solved by killing those who disagree.

Unlike murder, there is no ethical cost to terminating a fetus <24 weeks, when it is not yet capable of sentience. There is no need for a medical board to intervene before this point. Allowing abortion access leads to a better society, not a worse one, in terms of crime, generational wealth, resources and attention per child, and the obvious benefits of simply not having a society filled with unwanted, unloved, and resented children. Forced-birther moralistic arguments rely on ignorance regarding fetal development and apathy regarding outcomes of both mother and child. They are not comparable, morally speaking.