California woman sues Catholic hospital chain over emergency abortion denial
A Eureka woman who nearly bled to death while miscarrying twins last year is suing the Catholic hospital chain that she claims refused her life-saving abortion care.
Anna Nusslock, a chiropractor who sued Providence St. Joseph Hospital Eureka and its parent companies in Humbolt Superior Court on Tuesday, said she hopes the action will force the company's California hospitals to follow state law.
"The work that we're doing is going to protect people today and it's going to help people survive," she said. "I'm hoping to hold the whole Providence healthcare system accountable."
The hospital says it already complies with the law.
"The experience described in this lawsuit is deeply saddening and troubling," a spokesperson for Providence South Division wrote in a statement. "We are fully committed to delivering care in accordance with federal and state law, as well as our mission as a faith-based organization. This includes providing emergency life-saving medical interventions that may result in indirect fetal death."
Read more: Beverly Hills seeks $400,000 in legal fees from abortion provider blocked from opening
The suit builds on a September action filed by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, accusing the hospital of violating the state's emergency services law.
"There is an existing injunction in the attorney general's case, but it's only against the hospital and it is limited just to while the litigation is pending," said K.M. Bell, senior litigation counsel for reproductive rights and health at the National Women's Law Center, which brought the lawsuit with Nusslock.
Tuesday's suit seeks to make the injunction permanent and binding for all St. Joseph hospitals in California.
"I've been really surprised at how healing the process has been," Nusslock said. "We need to be putting pressure on these hospitals."
Nusslock and her husband had been trying for years for a baby when she got pregnant with twins in late 2023. After her water broke late last February, just 15 weeks into her pregnancy, she rushed to the emergency room fearing the worst.
Yet, despite clear signs Nusslock's life was in peril and her twins could not survive, the ER's attending physician told her she was not "sufficiently close to death," to receive emergency abortion care, according to court papers.
"I remember saying to somebody, 'But this is California!'" Nusslock recalled. "But it's a technicality when the only hospital you can have a baby at won't help you."
Read more: 'League of Justice': California AG part of group gearing up for court battles with Trump
On the advice of the St. Joseph emergency room doctor, a hemorrhaging Nusslock drove herself 12 miles to Mad River Community Hospital where both twins were delivered dead, one spontaneously and the second via an abortion procedure.
"'If you try to drive [to UCSF], you will hemorrhage and die before you get to a place that can help you,'" the St. Joseph doctor told her, according to the suit.
In December, after Mad River closed its labor and delivery department, another woman sued the Eureka hospital, alleging she was denied similar care during three separate miscarriages.
In the first incident described in her claim, she traveled five and a half hours to San Francisco "in active labor" for help. The second time, she required two units of blood to recover from a preventable hemorrhage. In the third, she alleges she was left to deliver her dead baby into a hospital toilet.
The woman now suffers from post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression "from being denied care at the only major hospital—and now the only labor & delivery unit—in her county," the suit said.
"Because Plaintiff desperately wants to have a baby, Providence St. Joseph is certainly the hospital where she will go for her next delivery," the suit said.
The hospital has denied wrongdoing in court filings.
As American hospitals consolidate, an ever-growing number are now run by Catholic groups. According to the Catholic Hospital Association of the United States, one in seven patients in the U.S. receives care at one of their facilities. More than 15% of American babies are born in Catholic hospital delivery rooms.
After the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the right to abortion in the 2022, about two dozen states restricted or outlawed the procedure, about half of them with narrow exceptions for life or death cases.
But Catholic hospitals in many abortion-protective states such as California also deny terminations in cases such as Nusslock's.
"These refusals of care unfortunately are not new," Bell said. "But the situation is more dire now post-Dobbs."
Read more: Trump's axing of L.A. federal prosecutor part of broader war on perceived legal enemies
Although St. Joseph's agreed last fall to provide emergency abortion care, the hospital has since reversed course, seeking to have the state DOJ suit dismissed on the grounds that compliance infringes on its 1st Amendment right to religious freedom.
"SJH could not comply with such an order without forsaking its Catholic identity—the ultimate burden in a religious freedom case," the motion said.
Bonta said the hospital was flouting the law.
"The stakes of this could not be clearer: having acknowledged that they have, and will continue to, violate a law which requires them to adequately care for patients experiencing life threatening medical emergencies, SJH now asks this Court to condone their conduct by dismissing this action,' the state wrote in opposition to the motion.
The court is set to rule on the issue May 15.
In the meantime, Nusslock said the hospital's actions have stiffened her resolve.
"It felt cruel and it continues to feel cruel," Nusslock said. "You're placing this religious policy over my actual life."
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Bangor man sues hospital, Covenant Health over data breach
Jun. 11—A Bangor man has filed a class-action lawsuit against St. Joseph Hospital and its owner, Covenant Health, over a recent data breach he says compromised confidential patient information. In a complaint filed Monday in Penobscot County Superior Court, Michael McClain says he is suing on behalf of himself and others whose sensitive private information was impacted by a data breach in May. Covenant Health — the nonprofit owner of St. Joseph Hospital, St. Mary's Health System, St. Andre Health Care in Biddeford, and nursing homes in Lewiston and Bangor — disconnected from all of its hospitals' data systems on May 26 because of a "cyber incident" that it said was initiated by an outside group. A spokesperson for Covenant said shortly after the incident that the Catholic organization was working with outside parties to determine what happened and to get its computer systems restored. The lawsuit says Covenant and St. Joseph failed to properly secure private information that was entrusted to them. Because of the breach, access to documents systems, online patient portals and patient services were disrupted, according to the lawsuit. "Unexpected connectivity issues linked to a cyberattack on hospitals and medical facilities serves as a strong indicator that private information stored on the breaching entity's IT network was likely compromised because of the cyberattack," the complaint says. Karen Sullivan, a spokesperson for Covenant, said Wednesday that the organization is aware of the filing but does not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit alleges that Covenant failed to implement and maintain reasonable network safeguards against threats, maintain data retention policies, train staff on data security and comply with industry-standard data security practices. It also says Covenant did not warn patients about its inadequate data security practices or encrypt private information, and that the organization failed to recognize that its networks had been compromised. The lawsuit says the plaintiff's and class members' identities are at risk because of Covenant's "negligent conduct" and is "now in the hands of data thieves." "As a result of the data breach, plaintiff and class members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and class members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their medical and financial accounts to guard against identity theft," the lawsuit reads. The lawsuit claims that impacted patients have incurred financial costs to mitigate the risk of identity theft, have experienced delays in experiencing medical care, and are at a continued risk for further breaches as long as Covenant fails to undertake adequate steps to protect private information. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs and injunctive relief, including improvements to the system's data security systems, annual audits and long-term credit monitoring. A jury trial has been requested. The plaintiffs are being represented by Portland law firm Murray, Plumb & Murray. A reporter's calls and emails seeking comment Wednesday afternoon were not returned. Copy the Story Link We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others. We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion. You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs. Show less
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Kettering Health Cyberattack: Here's what is being done for patients with sensitive info on dark web
Kettering Health has announced that they have resumed normal operations after key services were knocked out by a cyberattack for nearly three weeks. [DOWNLOAD: Free WHIO-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] They say they are working to identify what data was impacted in the cyberattack. 'Our investigation is ongoing, and we will directly notify any impacted individuals,' Kettering Health said in their press release. 'Notifications may include fraud protection resources, such as identity theft or credit monitoring.' >>RELATED: Kettering Health officials acknowledge impacts of cyber attack are 'extremely frustrating' TRENDING STORIES: New evidence raises more questions in search for father accused of killing 3 daughters Brand new aviation video shows man throwing wood at deputies, causing wrong-way crash on I-75 'Long and difficult process,' Pastor speaks on restoration efforts after fire at Catholic church Kettering Health says services such as surgery, imaging, retail pharmacy and physician office visits are back to normal. MyChart, which was restored Monday, is functional for patients. According to an update from the network, patients are now able to view upcoming appointments, schedule appointments, view prescription lists, message their providers and view test results. >>PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Kettering Health cyberattack; Hacker group claims responsibility, sensitive info put on dark web Kettering Health says their cyber security and employee security training will 'effectively mitigate future risks.' News Center 7 will continue to follow this story. [SIGN UP: WHIO-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Catholic employers can't be forced to provide gender-affirming care, federal judge in ND rules
The Quentin Burdick federal courthouse in Fargo, North Dakota. (Jeff Beach/North Dakota Monitor) A North Dakota federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission cannot force a group of Catholic employers to administer or pay for gender-affirming medical care. The case concerns two rules published by the federal agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services rule bars businesses that provide federally funded health programs from withholding medical care to someone just because they are transgender. Doing so would violate an anti-discrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the rule states. The lawsuit also challenged a similar rule published by the EEOC implementing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws workplace discrimination for employers with more than 15 employees. The rule holds that such employers cannot refuse to cover medical services to a transgender staff member that they would otherwise cover for other employees. Federal judge in North Dakota rules in favor of Catholic employers on abortion protections The Catholic Benefits Association — which represents Catholic employers — filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in North Dakota alleging the rules will force its members to violate their religious beliefs. The association said the rules could require Catholic hospitals to perform gender-affirming surgeries or a Catholic ministry to cover an employee's hormone replacement therapy, for example. The Catholic church teaches that providing gender-affirming care to transgender people is immoral, the association states in its complaint. The Department of Health and Human Services and EEOC defended the rules as necessary to protect Americans from gender-based discrimination, and further argued that the policies won't harm religious exercise because employers can ask for religious exemptions from the rules on a case-by-case basis. U.S. District Court Judge Peter Welte found these options insufficient because they do not guarantee exemptions to religious organizations, leaving them 'unable to predict their legal exposure.' Welte in an order last week sided largely with the Catholic Benefits Association. Welte found that the rules violate broad protections for religious exercise established in the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. That act states that the government can only limit religious exercise in service of a 'compelling government interest,' and must make every effort to be as minimally restrictive as possible. Welte said that the Department of Health and Human Services and EEOC rules don't meet these standards. The policies force Catholic organizations to decide between going against their beliefs and being subject to discrimination investigations and lawsuits, he wrote in the order. He ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot interpret the Affordable Care Act in a way that requires the Catholic Benefits Association to administer or provide insurance coverage for gender-affirming procedures. He similarly found that the EEOC cannot interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require the association to provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures. The lawsuit also challenged other protections in the rules related to abortion and fertility treatments, though Welte dismissed those claims. The Catholic Benefits Association filed the lawsuit as a successor to a previous case it joined with other Catholic groups against the Department of Health and Human Services and the EEOC. Welte also sided with the plaintiffs in that case, though an appellate court in 2022 found the Catholic Benefits Association didn't have standing to be part of the suit. In another case involving the Catholic Benefits Association, North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Traynor in April ruled that the association is exempt from provisions in two separate EEOC policies — one meant to shield workers from LGBTQ-based workplace harassment, and another that sought to protect workers' access to abortion and fertility treatments. Other federal judges have since issued rulings vacating parts of both rules nationwide. A federal judge in Texas in May vacated portions of the workplace harassment rule that pertain to sexual harassment and gender identity. Later that month, a federal judge in Louisiana struck down the abortion access protections. The decisions come as President Donald Trump's administration is rolling back services and legal protections, including by restricting access to gender-affirming care for minors and implementing a blanket ban on transgender people serving in the military. Trump signed an executive order in January establishing a two-gender policy for the federal government. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX