There were no winners in the case of the People vs. Providence St. Joseph Hospital last week, as Judge Timothy Canning decided to move forward with the preliminary injunction hearing rather than side with either legal argument presented on Friday. Giving the hospital’s attorneys another opportunity to present their case related to gynecological emergency health care, Canning directed the California Attorney General’s Office to schedule a preliminary injunction hearing within 90 days, while keeping the existing stipulated agreement “in full force and effect” in the interim.
The unfolding legal battle could have broad implications for one of the largest not-for-profit Catholic-run hospital groups in the nation, as Providence angles for a First Amendment freedom of religion claim that, according to the AG’s office, puts a religious belief system above the immediate healthcare needs of California’s families and violates several state laws, particularly California’s Emergency Services Law (ESL).
Canning’s ruling effectively gives Providence St. Joseph another opportunity to present additional arguments against the state’s enforcement efforts, including its First Amendment right to freedom of religion.
The case, which originated from the hospital’s refusal to provide emergency abortion care to Anna Nusslock in February of 2024, now proceeds to a preliminary injunction hearing and then, potentially to trial. A case management conference and possible trial setting — expected to be set in late 2026 — are scheduled for Oct. 27.
Canning also instructed the parties to resolve ongoing discovery disputes prior to the next hearing, after deputy attorney general Martine D’Agostino said the state’s office had been “rebuffed” in formal requests for information and documents made in April.
The hearing opened with a minor disturbance when a court reporter asked a woman with a fussy baby to leave the packed courtroom. When an audience member loudly objected, saying, “No,” from the back of the room, Canning immediately addressed the interruption, asking attendees to respect the court’s process or watch via Zoom from the hallway.
Two lawyers for the AG’s office appeared in person, D’Agostino and David Houska. On behalf of St. Joseph Health LLC, the Los Angeles-based law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips LLP sent Harvey Rochman and another attorney to present the hospital’s case.
Lead attorney Rochman argued that the hospital is bound by Catholic religious canons as well as California state law, asserting that the prior agreement failed to include the Ethical and Religious Directives (ERD) by which contracted healthcare staff are bound. “Providence operates as part of the healing mission of Jesus Christ,” Rochman said, contending that the hospital’s religious principles only allow for abortion services in emergency life or death circumstances.
However, the Catholic ERD cited by Providence St. Joseph, it reads, “Abortion … is never permitted.” The hospital also contended that the Emergency Services Law does not specifically require abortion as emergency health care and that Nusslock’s life was not immediately at risk, according to her attending physician.
The AG’s team also addressed the medical circumstances of Nusslock’s case, noting that by the time she arrived at Mad River Hospital, she was “hemorrhaging at an alarming rate,” in stark contrast to St. Joseph Hospital’s characterization that she was “stable” when she was assessed in Eureka.
Rochman also argued that the agreement oversteps California law by asking more of the hospital than legally required, despite having voluntarily signed the agreement rather than proceeding with litigation. Here, he cited Bishop Robert Vasa of the Santa Rosa Diocese, who “reviewed the Stipulation after it was entered and determined that the Stipulation violates the ERDs and must be modified.”
State attorneys argued that the hospital’s ERDs were not incorporated into the original stipulation and therefore cannot be used to justify refusing emergency care. D’Agostino explained that the state took the hospital at its word, and having had an agreement and court order in place, the AG’s office saw no need for continuing litigation against the hospital.
Canning questioned both sides about whether the stipulation’s lack of an end date was purposeful and whether there had been any factual changes that would justify modifying the agreement. D’Agostino confirmed it was the AG’s office intent to have the stipulated agreement be enforceable even after a trial, adding, “the stipulation is enforceable as written.”
The AG’s attorneys argued that the hospital must comply with the stipulation as written. “People are entitled to the benefit of their agreement,” D’Agostino said, emphasizing that the original order was designed to ensure patients in Humboldt County receive necessary emergency care.
Ryan Hutson (she/her) is a freelance journalist based in Humboldt County.
This article appears in The Grand Jury Reports.