To me, that depends on the motives of the people creating those laws. Are they trying to use regulate guns out of existence on purpose? If so, then yes the comparison is valid. If they are legitimately just trying to keep guns out of the wrong hands and improve safety, then no, it wouldn't be valid. As for pro-lifers and these abortion laws - It's painfully obvious that it has nothing to do with the well-being of the women as health professionals have told them time and time again that those regulations are not necessary and wouldn't help at all. Of course those Republican lawmakers know this, and it's easy to say "oh it's for the health of the woman" when it's blatantly not their purpose. Pretty much the same idea behind Republicans and their voting restrictions. When in doubt, claim they are for preventing voter fraud, even when what they are doing would have no effect on voter fraud one way or another.
Laws are created for humans by humans. They don't have to be rational and in fact, sometimes they should not be rational. If laws have to be rational, we should abolish federal holidays because they reduce our productivity. Most developed countries have tougher voter ID laws than most US states, and you don't see widespread moaning in those countries. Protecting the sanctity of the ballot box is important, regardless of whether there is widespread fraud occurring or not.
I agree that most of these restrictions are intended to reduce the number of abortions and are not designed to improve health outcomes. However, abortion laws in the US remain more permissive in general than Europe, so you cannot really argue that Republicans are taking away abortion rights. I support these types of restrictions, because while they might not be my first choice method of reducing abortions, they get the job done. When it comes to the defense of life, the end always justifies the means.
