Their argument was that since Beatriz's baby was "not viable" due to anencephaly, the c-section was actually a hysterotomy abortion, performed to deliver a baby and then just let it die of prematurity.
Thanks to Melissa for providing links to this Spanish-language article, and this one, which certainly add an interesting big of information: Beatriz had already gone into labor when doctors elected to switch from a vaginal delivery to a c-section to preserve her health. (Read the first one and the second one through Google Translate.)
Beatriz's pregnancy terminated -- the way pregnancies typically do -- when she went into labor. Doctors then chose the means of delivery -- vaginal or c-section -- most appropriate for the patient.
There not only was no abortion, there was no "pregnancy termination" that could be fatuously construed into an abortion.
What's the Spanish equivalent of "Liar, liar, pants on fire!"?
- The court specifically said that the baby's life was to be spared, and that the living baby was to be delivered at the moment that was best for both mother and child.
- The entire point of a hysterotomy is a dead baby. That is what distinguishes it from a c-section.
- Both scheduled and emergency c-sections have been routine means of delivering babies whose mothers health or life is at risk for nearly a century, and that includes delivering babies with fatal conditions.
- Even if the baby dies, be it from complications prematurity or from a terminal condition, that doesn't change the fact that a c-section performed for the mother's physical health is still a c-section performed for the mother's physical health.
- When a woman spontaneously goes into labor after 24 weeks, as Beatriz did, there's no way you can construe it as an abortion, even were the baby to be stillborn.
Beatriz now can go on with her life knowing that in spite of all the ugliness, her daughter was treated with respect and dignity, and nobody put that child's life to a violent end.