They're not held liable for the death of the woman because of the opinion that she couldn't have been saved anyway, they're only charged with the death of the infants, to which they are countering that no, you can't hold them legally liable if the infants have not been granted personhood, which is true and is exactly the sort of thing they have been trying to change.
This is all well and good except for three unsettling aspects of the case:
1. The fetuses died due to unexplained negligence on the part of a resident physician.
2. Neither the physician, the hospital nor the NPO running the hospital has made any sort of statement about it.
3. There is no evidence that the organization plans to be held liable, financially or morally, outside of the legal system, or to make any sort of reparations.
Basically, they don't seem to be making the "we should be responsible even though we are not legally responsible" argument (which would be the position of somebody who cared), they seem to be making the "we should be responsible, but because you haven't made us legally responsible, we refuse to take any responsibility whatsoever" argument. It's half going-down-to-the-opponent's-level and half convenient wriggling, and generally it's being a bunch of cocks about the fact that they just killed two children.
It's odd, if not too surprising, behavior from people who proclaim to hold the rule of God higher than the rule of law, but it also draws into sharp focus the organization's priorities. The first priority is dictating a policy; a distant second priority is actually holding sacred the lives of unborn children. And when I say distant, I mean "failing to take a number of actions that any other medical organization, liberal or conservative, wouldn't have had to think twice about".
