Why would pro-choicers be against a site like Birthornot.com if it wasn't a hoax?

Pro-choicer Jeff Fecke has done a fair amount of research into Pete and Alisha Arnold, the couple behind Birthornot.com and it's clear as day that it's a hoax. But while I certainly don't condone what the Arnolds are doing, I think Fecke's conclusion is wrong. He writes,

But Pete and Alisha Arnold failed in their trolling, simply because they fundamentally misunderstood the pro-choice view. It's not surprising; being anti-choice means that you want to decide for others what they must do when faced with the decision to have a child. It's only natural for them to assume that pro-choicers must want to force women to have abortions against their will. After all, to an anti-choicer, "against their will" is how women should do pretty much everything; it's just a question of who's making the decisions for them.

First, they failed in their trolling because they didn't cover their tracks.

Second, who's Jeff Fecke to say that if a Alisha Arnold was actually considering an abortion and thought the viewpoint of the public would be helpful in making her decision that a web site like Birthornot.com would be "wrong."

Fecke writes, "Anyone who's truly pro-choice would understand why putting a woman's right to choose up for a vote is wrong" but then never really explains why.

From a prolife perspective, I know why I think it's wrong but I'm struggling to see why the "Trust Women" caucus would think so. If a woman chooses to rely on the public's help in making an abortion decision, then what's wrong with that from a pro-choice perspective? For years we've heard that a woman should be allowed to make an abortion decision with "her doctor and family." Why (from a pro-choice perspective) would it be wrong to include the public in this realm of influence?