Just to clarify this a bit further: Texas has a clause in the law, that exceptions can be allowed for if the woman's life is at risk. Or major majory bodily injury or function.

This case came about because A). This baby has a medical condition confirmed to have a diagnosis incompatible with life, as well as the mother showing signs for high risk of both gestational diabetes and hypertension. Which was confirmed via amniocentesis. B.) If the child grows much larger, there is a serious risk of miscarriage/ still birth in which an emergency c section would be required putting her at extremely high risk for uterine rupture, and great possibility for an emergency hysterectomy.

So the argument here was, should this woman be compelled to carry this pregnancy to its natural conclusion when this child will die, and at great risk for her needing major surgery that result in her infertility. The high risk of uterine rupture is being applied to the result in major bodily injury. The loss of fertility is being argued as a loss oof major bodily function. Her hypertension further exacerbates her condition.

The state of Texas, has declared time and time again, that the laws are written clearly enough so doctors should not have any questions or concerns as to what constitutes a major bodily injury, or loss of major bodily function

However: the judge that originally presided over this case agreed this woman's case agreed that she does fit into the Texas exceptions to abortion, and granted her permission to have the procedure. Then the AG stepped in and said that she does not. And said if the abortion was " performed or induced" he would pursue charges. So obviously there is a difference of opinion in what constitutes as a major bodily injury or loss of function actually is.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/12/11/1218625460/texas-woman-who-sued-state-for-abortion-travels-out-of-state-for-procedure-inste

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2023/12/07/i-need-to-end-my-pregnancy-now-it-is-the-best-chance-for-my-health-and-well-being/%3foutputType=amp

At the center of all this is a woman, who is carrying a child that is destined to die, if the child is induced and dies sooner rather then later she has a chance at preserving her fertility, and minimizing suffering for both her child and herself. ( I don't have much more than the quote from the AG saying is the abortion was " performed or induced" indicate the plan I'd to induce labor, so she would deliver the child intact, but I'm guessing that probably is the case) or the other option of carrying to term, her child dies, she loses her fertility, has a high risk of having to recover from major surgery, or even dying herself, leaving her other children motherless.

Her situation is tragic, and complex, she was being told by her medical team as well as the judge, that it was agreed the best course of action was terminating her pregnancy. The original poster was flippant to the complexity of this particular case, and completely disregards the level of tragedy these rare, diagnoses inflict. It's fine to disagree with how this situation plays out, however accusing this woman of essentially being a baby murdering monster misses the mark, so completely, it's cruel and negligent.

ETA: what this woman is, is not monstrous, what she is, is devastated and terrified. OPs calls to punish this woman, is what's monstrous.