Now I’m reading the relevant section of the full report [pdf]. That does mention abortion, though not (so far) under that name. It has a detailed timeline of events. She was admitted Sunday afternoon, and
Spontaneous rupture of membranes occurred at 00:30hrs.
At 8:30 that morning, she was reviewed by the consultant obstetrician in charge of her care.
Savita Halappanavar’s plan of care, following this consultant ward round, was that a fetal ultrasound scan would be taken with instructions to – ‘Await events’✝
That ✝goes to a footnote:
Await events refers to the conservative (expectant) management of miscarriage as opposed to the surgical or medical management of miscarriage.
So there it is. It’s somewhat obscured and secretive, but it’s there. They opted for expectant management instead of surgical or medical management – a surgical abortion or medical induction of labor.
Updated to add:
Then on the Wednesday morning, two days later, when her condition had deteriorated badly, a junior consulting doctor ordered IV antibiotics, but
however, at this time the evidence shows that her treatment plan was not changed.
Which, given what has gone before, means it was not changed from expectant to surgical or medical management. They went on watching instead of terminating the pregnancy.
At 13:00 that day
Diagnosis of septic shock, most likely secondary to chorioamnionitis was made.
A couple of hours later she delivered, but it was far too late.
It’s interesting – and disturbing – that the summary of the report omits the part about surgical or medical management as the alternative to expectant management.