At 18 weeks pregnant, Tamesha Means’ water broke, an event that generally results in a stillbirth or the baby’s death. Means lived in a rural area, much like Humboldt, where she had access to one hospital: Mercy Health, a Catholic institution. The hospital sent Means home without treatment, despite her dangerous condition. Means had already suffered a painful bacterial infection that her physicians ignored, and later, her baby died during delivery. Without her knowledge, as a Catholic institution, Mercy Health had complied with strict religious regulations that prohibit abortions.
Means filed a suit against the United Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB), the entity responsible for the pro-life directives that prevented her from receiving the care she needed. The case was ultimately dismissed, repeating a well-known pattern where courts refuse to intervene with religious institutions due to separation of church and state — leaving patients to pay the price.
Up until last year, this hands-off approach has prevailed: Don’t regulate theology or religious practice in employment, medicine, education, etc. That is, until Anna Nusslock, a chiropractor from Eureka received similar treatment to Means from Providence St. Joseph Hospital. Straying notably from legal precedent, Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a suit against the hospital, claiming that it violated the California Emergency Services Law. For the first time, a state attorney general pursued legal action against a hospital for denying emergency abortion care under state law. In our regressive post-Dobbs era, in which 22 states have banned or heavily restricted abortion, Bonta’s actions represent a rare move in the opposite direction — one that could be a huge win for historically pro-choice California and maybe the country.
Catholic hospitals claim their adherence to the UCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services protect their values. But when one in seven hospital beds in America is Catholic, these regulations quietly and dangerously dictate care for millions of patients. Only 28 percent of Catholic hospitals explicitly explain how faith influences treatment. This results in women like Means and Nusslock entering Catholic hospitals unaware of what care they can or cannot receive. Religion has no place tying the hands of trained medical professionals — especially in emergencies where hesitation and uncertainty can be fatal. Nusslock’s case and the hundreds that have come before it are a glaring sign that religion should never have a regulatory hand in medicine unless it is the choice of the patient.
Now the courts face a pivotal question: Do religious hospitals get to deny emergency abortions, or must they follow the same laws as everyone else? However, the age-old issue is that compelling Catholic hospitals to act against their beliefs is unprecedented and constitutionally questionable per the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause. Even now, Providence claims it complies with both the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and California emergency care laws when fetal death is likely. Still, the ruling on this case could finally bring legal clarity to the ongoing conflict between religious doctrine and state medical obligations. A ruling for Providence would cement a dangerous precedent for letting institutions deny care under the guise of faith.
But if Bonta wins, every Catholic hospital in California would be required to provide emergency abortion care. And because many other states have similar emergency medical laws, a win for the attorney general could spark a national shift in the humane direction — establishing an emergency abortion access precedent despite federal tendencies to limit it.
While the New York Times, PBS, and the California Department of Justice may only recognize Humboldt as the county where a hemorrhaging, pregnant woman was given buckets and towels by a hospital “in case something happened in the car,” it is also the birthplace of an undeniably significant case that could carry landmark-level influence in the world of religion and medicine. A state win in this case would also serve as a beacon of liberal progress despite an administration that has attempted to gut not only healthcare, but freedom for millions.
To me, the thought that this case violates freedom of religion is irrational. What is freedom of religion if it allows institutions to withhold care that could save lives? As Providence’s lawyers stated before, the biggest obstacle Bonta faces is that the foundation of this case is unprecedented. But all the most revolutionary cases were, until someone took them to court.
Melanie Lauren Luh (she/her) is a student at Stanford University and an intern at the Women’s Foundation California.
This article appears in Red-Light Women.