Denied bereavement to employee who lost 3-day old fetus. Well?

(Last edited 17 JAN, updates at end)

Also IMBTA because I asked her how this is possible, as she lost the last fetus nine days ago (and took a week of bereavement PTO). She replied that though it's "none of my business", she and her husband got pregnant again the night before she RTW. That means she carried this child 3 days and lost it.

She lost a whopping 13 unborn children this way through 2024, all similar lengths of pregnancy. Took 13 weeks PTO, not including vaca/personal.

This year I'm putting my foot down. Today I was wrestling with updating our bereavement policy to add documentation requirements -- essentially, due to a single employee who is going to get the same answer, medical/funerary docs or not -- and decided "fuck it"

Update, 17 JAN

I certainly wasn't expecting this to blow up the way it did. Thanks everyone for your comments, questions and advice. I've only been able to read the first 200-300 comments, but I'll try to answer the most-asked questions with additional details. And given the amount of interest, some of you are probably expecting an update so I'll share about what's been decided so far.

"The math doesn't work" / "The frequency of occurrences is improbable, if not impossible"

I agree! I do need to point out here that the specific numbers I stated are intentionally inaccurate, for the sake of plausible deniability should the employee become aware of this post. However, even with the real numbers there is definitely something fishy with her claims.
I wasn't actually counting, but I did recently go through emails to find the exact number and dates. I knew the year total for 2024 was less than 13 times, but the actual figure is close. Since 2023, when the "miscarriages" started, the grand total has been a bit more than 13.
The reason I went with 13-in-a-year was to illustrate the suspicious timing being at odds with human typical anatomy, as some of these so-called pregnancies have occurred much less than a typical ovulation cycle apart. Some commenters noted that such an extreme frequency of medically confirmable pregnancies is theoretically possible with an atypical physiology; maybe that's the case with her, but I feel it makes no difference because of some details I've noted further down.

"What exactly does this employee believe about human reproduction/anatomy?"

I'm convinced (though I can't be 100% sure) that she believes life occurs at conception, and that conception and fertilization are essentially the same. She is - in her own words - a "devout, persecuted Christian" (read: fundamentalist). She's entitled to believe that, and in the interest of maintaining an inclusive work environment we appreciate it. Beliefs aside, it's quite clear (based on the many comments citing reproductive physiology) that she is assuming successful conceptions before she is actually testing for them. And that's where I first take issue. HR, their legal consultants, the department heads and myself are all on the same page, in that the medically accepted definition for pregnancy (and none other) shall be applicable, wherever said pregnancy is concerned in employee-workplace relations. So going forward, at least one policy change is granting managers the option of requesting proper documentation before excusing unscheduled absences or approving PTO.

"Why did she get away with abusing this benefit so gratuitously? Have you thought about going after her for previous claims?"

Many reasons, the main one being my failure to get involved before this got out of control. The employee doesn't report directly to me, but her manager began notifying me starting with the third instance, expressing concern that she may be taking advantage of the laxness in our benefit policies and making sure I'm aware of potentially excessive PTO. I had bigger fish to fry last year, etc. I could have made time to deal with it, but I was anticipating some fallout occurring at a particularly inconvenient time for the company. It's a shit excuse, but an explanation nonetheless.
I should also note that there isn't a pattern of this employee gaming us in other ways, no misuse of company time/resources or other common behaviors associated with dishonest employees; none that we've discovered, at least. It's possible that her abuse of the bereavement policy is to wage some sort of pro-life culture war, rather than (or in addition to) receiving the benefit itself.
She'll get away with it this one last time - at least the unscheduled absence - HR's legal folks will get back with us about withholding regular pay (assuming she doesn't surprise us with confirming medical documentation). As far as previous PTO claims, we've been told that there's little likelihood of that happening, as there's probably no way to apply the new required documentation policy retroactively.