The ironic thing about this is that she refused a perfectly allowable treatment with blood fractions four years ago, that would have prevented this situation from occurring. Even then, I am sure that fractions such these were acceptable:
"The babies mother has a Rhesus D negative blood group while her husband is Rhesus positive. Their last baby, now aged four and healthy, was Rhesus D positive. The mother was advised to take anti-D blood products to avoid risk to future pregnancies but refused, on religious grounds, to do so. "
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0424/breaking44.htm
It seems odd that she was so determined then to go the whole way in refusing things that were a "conscience matter" - but seems to be relaxed about the transfusion to the yet unborn twins - if I read between the lines correctly.
Perhaps time and circumstance have given her a "more mature conscience " on the matter