It is an example of draconian and ill advised right to life law giving doctors the choice of risking the patient's life, or risking their own careers and liberty. It is an example of unintended consequences of overly harsh laws, and of what happens when laws are based on religious beliefs.She deserved treatment. Abortion was by no means the only or best option. Again this is not proof that protecting the rights to life of a living human baby harms mothers. The law after did clearly stated that her life was equally important as the baby's - it is very reasonable to protect two lives equally. This is an example of a over burdened bureaucratic and confused health care system failing the patient.
If you read the article, then you understand that aborting a living fetus would have placed the doctors in jeopardy of life in prison, and that the fetus spent a lot of time dying. Had it been aborted sooner, even if it had still had a heartbeat, then the mother would have survived.
And there are people who want to pass similar laws in the United States. How ill advised is that?