@Carlos Santos. Each case is different and diagnosing at a distance risky. Her doctors felt she was in danger and appealed to the Supreme Court for permission to perform an abortion early enough to prevent possible loss of life or long lasting complications. Anibal Faundes, a leading expert from the International Federation of Gynecologists wrote of Beatriz: she "has the misfortune of suffering systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus), an autoimmune disease. Pregnancy often exacerbates lupus, with adverse effects on kidney function, potentially leading to accelerated progression to end-stage renal disease. In addition, pregnancies in women with lupus are at high risk for spontaneous abortion and premature delivery, intrauterine growth retardation, and a maternal complication called superimposed pre-eclampsia.
These were the exact conditions Beatriz faced in her first pregnancy two years ago when she experienced complications of hypertension so severe she had to undergo a cesarean section at 32 weeks, and was then forced to spend several days in intensive care. Several complications arose post-partum in her premature baby, a son, but he survived in good condition and was back with his mother after 32 days under neonatal care. Beatriz, however, was not as lucky, and as result of the pregnancy she was left with chronic hypertension and a kidney dysfunction called lupus nephritis." http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/05/31/is-the-life-and-health-of-a-young-rural-woman-of-any-value-in-el-salvador/
From a medical, not religious view, one does not wait till such a patient is on death's door to act, but acts early enough to prevent disaster. A doctor acts on science, not religious belief.
Open societies have not always needed defending in the determined way that they do today. But the tide turned against them after the 2008 global financial crisis, and, more than a decade later, the threat posed by authoritarian nationalism continues to rise.