"would not be provided for her at that time"
This was just the beginning of the process.
To do so is not sick, depraved or spiteful, but a compassionate, noble and honorable act. Nor is it punishing a woman for having sex as you absurdly and ridiculously assert.
48.133 Jurisdiction over unborn children in need of protection or services and the expectant mothers of those unborn children. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction over an unborn child alleged to be in need of protection or services which can be ordered by the court whose expectant mother habitually lacks self-control in the use of alcohol beverages, controlled substances or controlled substance analogs, exhibited to a severe degree, to the extent that there is a substantial risk that the physical health of the unborn child, and of the child when born, will be seriously affected or endangered unless the expectant mother receives prompt and adequate treatment for that habitual lack of self-control. The court also has exclusive original jurisdiction over the expectant mother of an unborn child described in this section.
What is wrong here is that it does not appear that the mother's actions meet the underlined criteria.
There is nothing indicating she habitually lacks self control, especially not exhibited to a severe degree, as required. The opposite appears to be what is true.
So it seems it is more a misapplication of the law, or deliberate overreach.
It's application in this case is what I question.