What it boils down to is what is ultimately in the best interests of the children. Is it in their best interests to perish prematurely, to have religious beliefs imposed upon them that they may not choose for themselves once they reach adulthood?
The Constitutional Rights that are at odds here are the parents' freedom of worship versus the children's inherent right to life. The parents felt strongly enough about the sanctity of life to not permit a selective reduction of the pregnancy. Yet, once the children are born, and their medical condition is deemed critical enough to warrant blood transfusions, their lives are no longer as "sacred" as the blood that is believed to be a "symbol" of life? The logic is so flawed that it's positively embarrassing that I ever bought into it. It boggles my mind that a conscientious JW woman would look after herself during pregnancy, knowing it will result in the best outcome for her child/children, and then deliberately refuse to do what it is in that child's / those children's best interests once they are no longer sequestered in her uterus and dependent on her placenta and umbilical cord for survival.
To borrow an axiom: A society is judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable citizens. If the group that is being referred to is the community of Jehovah's Witnesses, what does how these babies would be willingly sacrificed or martyred for the flawed ideology of the Watchtower Society say about the WTS? What right do these parents (or the Watchtower Society) have to decide that their "freedom of religion" takes precedence over their children's right to life? The audacity of the WTS to doom these babies to almost certain death is about as reprehensible as it gets.
The government took temporary custody of the children, and promptly returned custody to the parents once the children received the transfusions. I think it is important to have that kind of safety net in place for when parents make stupid choices that can seriously harm their kids.