The state of California has filed suit against Providence St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka for refusing to provide an abortion to a patient even though the pregnancy was not viable and the patient's health was at risk.
“We have a hospital policy reminiscent of heartbeat laws in extremist red states,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said at a press conference Monday. “We’ve heard tragic stories from across the country of women denied life-saving treatment, but it usually comes out of states that have outlawed abortion. We’re not immune from this problem.”
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Anna Nusslock, a chiropractor, states that St. Joseph's violated state laws for not performing an abortion on women experiencing miscarriages or “other obstetric emergencies.” Nusslock says that a doctor at the hospital told her she needed an abortion but that St. Joseph's doesn't perform them. She was then directed to another hospital 12 miles away that performs abortions. Nusslock says that a nurse gave her a bucket and towels for the trip, presumably to mop up blood "in case something happens in the car."
Nusslock says that the doctor told her that they couldn't perform the abortion as long as there was a fetal heartbeat.
Nusslock, who is 35, and her husband had been trying to have a baby for many years. She suffered several miscarriages in the past and in February, went to St. Joseph's after she began to bleed.
In the state's lawsuit, Attorney General Rob Bonta argues Providence has been violating multiple California laws by refusing emergency abortion care to women in need.
California is requesting a court order to force the hospital to perform prompt emergency care including abortions.
"Pregnant patients have the same rights to health care, including emergency care, that any other patient has," said Bonta.
Bonta claims Providence is barring doctors from providing lifesaving or life-stabilizing emergency abortion treatment even when a pregnancy is not viable and when doctors have determined that immediate abortion care is necessary to save the life of the mother.
"This policy, let's make no mistake, is draconian," Bonta said. "It has no place in institutions that are charged with delivering accessible and equitable healthcare."
Instead of condemning the hospital for "draconian" policies, perhaps we should get both sides of the story before going off half-cocked.
We have enormously incendiary statements by Nusslock and Bonta. As for the hospital, it claims that this is the first it has heard of the case.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Providence St. Joseph Hospital said, "Providence is deeply committed to the health and wellness of women and pregnant patients and provides emergency services to all who walk through our doors in accordance with state and federal law. We are heartbroken over Dr. Nusslock's experience earlier this year."
"This morning was the first Providence had heard of the California attorney general's lawsuit, and we are currently reviewing the filings to understand what is being alleged. Because this case is in active litigation and due to patient confidentiality, we cannot comment on the matter," the spokesperson added.
“In California, state law is clear: hospitals are required to provide emergency, lifesaving care. No exceptions,” said K.M. Bell, one of Nusslock’s attorneys and senior litigation counsel at the National Women’s Law Center. “Religious refusals to provide care are an increasing problem in this country, especially after Dobbs. Hospitals should not be allowed to discriminate or risk patients’ lives.”
For Catholic hospitals, it's a gray area. Though they are required to perform life-saving interventions for patients, hospitals must follow the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERDs) for Catholic Health Care Services written by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. These directives forbid Catholic hospitals from dispensing contraception or performing abortions.
Bonta is opening a can of worms and should be prepared for pushback from the church.
