Thank you for the example, I do hope that they clarify that gray area in the law. It's a tough situation; they were dealing with probabilities (sometimes infections occur, and sometimes these infections lead to death) rather than a clear-cut "we can save one of these two lives if we perform an abortion".

Funny how treatment like this used to be a clear-cut decision made by the only experts who can make it (medical professionals), but now innocent people and babies are dying because of peoples random religious beliefs, that obviously have nothing to do with medicine.

It has nothing to do with medicine because there isn't a doctor in the world who would willingly let a patient die when they could have treated them - unless they believe they will end up in jail for it - which is exactly what is happening - and that blood is on your hands for defending this absolute crap.

Your calculus ignores the hundreds of thousands of unborn lives that will be saved by allowing states to democratically establish their own abortion laws. Since you do not recognize the massive benefit, you see only the cost... I can understand your frustration, but perhaps you can understand why I don't share it.