I'm having a hard time building intuition behind some Bayes Theorem/Law of total probability problems and understanding why my attempts are incorrect in the first place, for this question in particular:
Question: It is believed that one percent of children have autism. A test for autism has been developed whereby 90% of autistic children are correctly identified as having autism but 3% of non-autistic children are incorrectly identified as having autism. A child is tested at two independent clinics. What is the probability that the two clinics have the same diagnosis?
Attempt at solving the problem:
Let $A$ be the event that a child has autism, and $B$ the event where a child is tested positive for autism (in a clinic).
We are given:
$P(A)=0.01$ (one percent of children have autism).
$P(B|A)=0.9$ and $P(B|\overline{A})=0.03$ (corresponds to 90% of autistic children having a positive test result and 3% of non-autistic children having a positive test result)
Let $1$ and $2$ denote the clinics for which a child is tested. Then the probability that both clinics yield the same diagnosis is:
$P((B_{1}\cap B_{2})\cup(\overline{B_{1}}\cap \overline{B_{2}})) = P(B_{1}\cap B_{2}) + P(\overline{B_{1}}\cap \overline{B_{2}})$(*)
where $B_i=B$ for $i=1,2$ (This should follow from the fact that both clinics receive the same probabilities for diagnosing a child)
At this point I had two different ways to approach the problem, I could either express (*) as:
$P(B_{1}\cap B_{2}) + P(\overline{B_{1}}\cap \overline{B_{2}}) = P(A)P(B_{1}\cap B_{2}|A)+P(\overline{A})P(B_{1}\cap B_{2}|\overline{A})+P(A)P(\overline{B_{1}}\cap \overline{B_{2}}|A)+P(\overline{A})P(\overline{B_{1}}\cap \overline{B_{2}}|\overline{A})$
(follows from the law of total probability)
(Knowing $B_1$ and $B_2$ are independent, it follows I can express $P({B_{1}}\cap {B_{2}}|A)$ as $P({B_{1}}|A)P({B_{2}}|A)$, where this approach leads me to the 'correct' answer)
or I could compute $P(B)=P(A)P(B|A)+P(\overline{A})P(B|\overline{A})$ and express (*) as:
$P(B_{1}\cap B_{2}) + P(\overline{B_{1}}\cap \overline{B_{2}}) = P(B_{1})P(B_{2})+P(\overline{B_{1}})P(\overline{B_{2}})$
(this follows from the clinics being independent and computing B from the law of total probability)
Why does computing the probability in this second approach lead to me to the wrong answer?
For your second method, if we were to expand just one of the two terms we would actually get: $\begin{align}P(B_1\cap B_2) & = P(A_1)P(B_1\mid A_1)P(A_2\mid A_1)P(B_2\mid A_1\cap A_2) \\ & + P(A_1)P(B_1\mid A_1)P(\bar A_2\mid A_1)P(B_2\mid A_1\cap\bar A_2) \\ & + P(\bar A_1)P(B_1\mid \bar A_1)P(A_2\mid \bar A_1)P(B_2\mid \bar A_1\cap A_2) \\ & + P(\bar A_1)P(B_1\mid \bar A_1)P(\bar A_2\mid \bar A_1)P(B_2\mid \bar A_1\cap\bar A_2)\end{align}$
Where $A_1$ is the event of having autism when visiting the first clinic, and $A_2$ is the event of having autism when visiting the second clinic.
But wait! It is the same individual, so $A_2$ certainly happens whenever $A_1$ does, and $\bar A_2$ whenever $\bar A_1$.
Hence, after removing redundancies, everything simplifies to being your first attempt:
$$\begin{align}P(B_1 \cap B_2 )+P(\bar B_1 \cap \bar B_2) & = P(B_1 \cap B_2\mid A )+ P(B_1 \cap B_2\mid \bar A )+P(\bar B_1 \cap \bar B_2\mid A)+ P(\bar B_1 \cap \bar B_2\mid A) \\[2ex] & = P(A)P(B_1\mid A) P( B_2\mid A )+ P(\bar A)P(B_1\mid \bar A \cap B_2\mid \bar A ) \\ & \quad +P(A)P(\bar B_1\mid A)P(\bar B_2\mid A)+ P(\bar A)P(\bar B_1 \mid \bar A)P(\bar B_2\mid A) \end{align}$$
That is it.
tl;dr: You can't claim complete independence, $P(B_1\cap B_2)= P(B_1)P(B_2)$, when the test results are known to be for the same individual. At best you can only claim conditional independence, $P(B_1\cap B_2\mid A)=P(B_1\mid A)P(B_2\mid A)$