"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
The government is not infringing on her First Amendment rights. They allow the JWs to exist and they are not stopping her from getting bloodless surgery in line with her religious beliefs. Refusing to pay for an out of state surgery when there is a viable, local alternative != not allowing her to get the surgery.
"But in court papers, state lawyers noted that Stinemetz acknowledged that she could redeem herself if she did receive a blood transfusion and was 'truly repentant.'"
Hopefully the court will take her statement into account and find that the state does not have to pay for her bloodless surgery. I'm sorry, and I don't want to sound heartless, but standing up for your beliefs sometimes requires sacrifice. The WTBS will fight for this woman to have bloodless surgery on the taxpayer's dime, when there is a viable alternative, but will tell parents to let their kids die rather than have a transfusion when there is no alternative. What is wrong with these people?
I'm all for bloodless surgery when possible. If I need surgery I would prefer the surgeon try to minimize blood loss so that a transfusion is not necessary. But if during the procedure he or she decides I need blood to save my life, then by all means fill me up.