"Even though medical experts expect their baby to survive only 20 minutes to a couple of hours, the Dorberts say their doctors told them that because of the new legislation...

"... they could not terminate the pregnancy.... 'The doctors already told me, no matter what, at 24 weeks or full term, the outcome for the baby is going to be the same.' Florida’s H.B. 5 — Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality... bans abortion after 15 weeks with a couple of exceptions, including one that permits a later termination if 'two physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality' and has not reached viability. It is not clear how the Dorberts’ doctors applied the law in this situation. Their baby has a condition long considered lethal that is now the subject of clinical trials to assess a potential treatment. Neither Dorbert’s obstetrician nor the maternal fetal medicine specialist she consulted responded to multiple requests for comment...."

I'm reading "Her baby has a deadly diagnosis. Her Florida doctors refused an abortion. Florida abortion ban includes exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. But her doctors told her they could not act" (WaPo).

I wonder... are the doctors interested in getting the chance to figure out how to treat the condition, which is Potter syndrome?

Without working kidneys, newborns are unable to rid their bodies of deadly toxins and go into renal failure. Without amniotic fluid in the womb, they are born unable to breathe.

The article describes the woman's psychological suffering as people talk to her about her visible pregnancy and assume good fortune. There is physical suffering as the baby's movement lacks the "fluid cushioning" of amniotic fluid — suffering of both the mother and the doomed child.

The doctors may simply fear that the law will apply to them and choose to interpret it expansively to protect themselves rather than to do what they and the woman feel is best for her. That choice may be augmented by the prediction that the story of this case will strengthen political opposition to the new law.

I have noticed how few stories like this have appeared in the press. I tend to think there will be political acceptance of the new statutes unless there is a constant stream of reports about suffering like what we are seeing here.

The woman's father, a Catholic, is quoted, saying, "I asked her, ‘Would you mind if I put my hand on your stomach?’ I wanted to feel the life. It’s hard to comprehend there won’t be life.” And: "I believe in life and all that. But [when] two doctors, three doctors say this is this, they should be able to terminate early to save the mental life of the mother."

The ambiguity about the law lies in the language about viability. Does viablity refer to the number of weeks that marks the viability point in a healthy fetus or can you say that a baby with a lethal defect never reaches viability and therefore fits within the exception for the entire length of the pregnancy?

Here's the relevant statutory text: "the fetus has not achieved viability under s. 390.01112 and two physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgment, the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality."

If you have trouble reading that — which requires click through to the other statute — then you should see why the doctors are so cautious.