Will the outcome of the 2012 election change much in reproductive politics?

I would say the answer is "no."

Most of the people I know who are interested in politics are still digesting and analyzing the 2012 election cycle, which, to many people's surprise (and, for some, despair), went Democratic/liberal on several fronts: President, Senate, state races, state initiatives on same-sex marriage and marijuana, and taxation in California. All of the Republican candidates who made controversial statements about abortion (Akin, Mourdock, Walsh, and Koster) lost their races. And so on.

Especially in the amplification chamber of the contemporary 24/7 media, it is normal to over-read election results. In this case, while I do think the election is a wake-up call to the Republican party-- or should be a wake-up call-- there is nothing that occurred in this election cycle that cannot be fixed-- fixed, that is, if the Republican party and conservatives don't under-read the election results.

Looking at reproductive politics specifically, people who are pro-choice would like the message of this election cycle to be the following: The pro-choice perspective is vindicated, and the 'war on women' is a loser.

In terms of the election cycle actually indicating this, and serving as an impetus for pro-lifers to alter their perspective and behavior, I think this is a big over-read.

Why?

1. Consider the House of Representatives. They are reelected in such high rates-- and are, as a whole, rather ideologically extreme-- because many of them are in safe districts. Over 90% of House districts are either in a very liberal or conservative part of the country or drawn in a way to make them essentially non-competitive, both in the conservative and liberal directions. Representatives elected in these safe districts have no incentive to moderate their views on reproductive issues, because that is not what the voting bloc that elects them to office wants. This is why, when it comes to budgetary and fiscal cliff issues, the House Republican caucus is not going to get any message from the 2012 election cycle-- their very conservative constituencies don't want them to play nice. 
2. For the same reason, one is likely to see just as many extreme pro-life legislative proposals at the state level as before, where state demographics combine with safe districting to create strong pro-life legislative bodies.
3. Outside of evangelical Protestants, most religious voters went for President Obama. Catholic voters, for example, went 50-48% for President Obama, according to Fox News exit polls. That does not necessarily spell long-term trouble for the pro-life movement or candidates, however. The exit polls indicate that there was a major split among white and non-white religious voters. White religious voters went very heavily for Mitt Romney, while non-white religious voters went very heavily for President Obama. Non-white voters, for example Hispanic-Americans, are not necessarily voting for President Obama because they are pro-choice. Instead, the main message of this election cycle regarding minority voters could be that the Republican Party is perceived as racially intolerant. If the Republican Party fixes its image problem with minority voters and learns how to frame life issues better-- or at least put a lid on the Todd Akins of the party-- then pro-life-leaning religious minority voters might vote Republican in higher numbers. That being said, consider point #1: Do Republicans in safe districts with a relatively small percentage of minority voters have an incentive to change?
4. Public opinion on reproductive issues has been remarkably steady for the last 40 years, a few exceptions notwithstanding. I am skeptical that Americans are shifting over widely to the full-scale pro-choice perspective. Instead, I think that, on specific issues and in specific election cycles, one party tends to do a better job of framing and selling than the other party. Democrats, in this election cycle, have done a good job selling the pro-choice perspective and masking the things about the full pro-choice perspective that Americans as a whole don't like (for example, legal abortion for any reason up to fetal viability). Republicans, on the other hand, have managed to emphasize all of the things that Americans as a whole don't like about the pro-life perspective-- apparent insensitivity to rape victims and apparent hostility to effective contraceptives, to name two. With better framing, the normal balance of things should be restored in later election cycles-- if Republicans have an incentive to do so. 
5. The pro-life "elite"-- people and organizations who lobby, do election work, engage in activism, and occupy media space-- are going to modify the packaging of their views a bit, but their core beliefs are not going to be shaken at all by the 2012 election. 

In short, the 2012 election cycle has not altered the variables that would effect changes in elite beliefs or behavior, and there is little evidence that American public opinion has actually shifted.

One way in which the 2012 election cycle might affect the Republican Party is to lay bare rifts in the incentive structures between different types of Republican elected offices. Relatively local officials (people elected in districts, like House members or members of state legislatures), as noted, usually pander to their safe districts and can be extremely pro-life without recourse. Officials elected state-wide and nation-wide (governors, Senators, and Presidents)-- in other words, in 'districts' that cannot be drawn more safely-- have to win over more diverse and moderate blocs of voters. They will have an incentive to promote a more moderate pro-life vision. This will put them in conflict with their district-based compatriots, as well as the hard-core activists of the pro-life movement.