The question and answer you presented is missing important context. The original question was is a woman obligated to have a c-section to save the life of her fetus. A totally different issue to what we are discussing here.
-1, previous context below:
Jewish Review: What is the Jewish view of requiring a woman to have a caesarean section to save the life of the fetus in the womb?
Rabbi Tendler: The courts in eleven states of the union have actually subjected a woman to a caesarean section in order to save the life of a fetus when the woman had objected to the use of a caesarean section.
In what is known as the ?District of Columbia Case,? a pregnant woman who was dying of lymphoma was ordered by the court to have a caesarean in the hope of saving the baby. The woman was dying and had, perhaps, only a week or two to live, but she knew that the caesarean, though it might save the baby, would kill her. She was fully conscious and she opposed the caesarean, and said she wanted to live as long as God gave her days. The court ordered the caesarean, and it was performed. The woman died and unfortunately, the baby died as well. Now, this kind of total disregard for maternal life which was part of the Pro-life opposition in the Klein case, actually has its origins in these types of cases. In the D.C. case the judge, who happened to be Catholic, imposed his theological beliefs on the mother, ignoring the Judaeo-Biblical heritage in favor of the Christian point of view.
Jewish Review: Would there be any circumstances under which the halakha would require a woman to have a C-section, or is a caesarean enough of a threat to her life to prevent such a requirement from ever being imposed?
Rabbi Tendler:
It would never be required. There are circumstances where we might suggest, even urge the woman to have a caesarean, explaining to her that the danger to her is minimal and that there is a very good likelihood that the baby would survive but, because there is a danger to her life, her right of privacy in such matters is absolute even more than itis under the United States Constitution,
I think it is fair extrapolation to interpret Rav Tendler's statement of "never" requiring a c-section to mean "never" quite literally. Your case is similar to the first response, though with far less risk to the mother. He could have easily qualified he statement of "never" requiring a c-section with a case where we do (extremely low risk to the mother, possibly equal risk to an abortion), but he does not do so - he leaves never in an absolute case.
At this point I have provided a medical source and a Halachic source saying that there might be a valid reason not to mandate c-sections over abortions. You disqualified my medical source by saying that it is leftist spin (which could just as easily be flipped back on one of your sources, who are unambigous in their affiliation:
DONNA HARRISON, M.D.
Donna Harrison, MD, is Executive Director of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
).
The fact that there are Drs who disagree means that there is at least a Leidas HaSafek on the issue, and that legislating in this area is dangerous - it should be up to women to discuss with their Drs and poskim.
I'm not going to belabor this anymore if you are locked into a medical conclusion you read online and won't believe any other evidence.
I'm also not going to get into which poskim allow what because it is besides the point, other than to say that many would consider the Tzitz Eliezer as both Charedi and Israeli. The reason debating which poskim are and are not qualified to opine is because my point is, and continues to be, that given that these extreme cases ought to be litigated by familes, doctors, and Poskim, rather than by lawmakers.
