Providence St. Joseph Hospital has filed a motion asking a Humboldt County Superior Court judge to dismiss the bulk of the lawsuit brought against by the California Attorney General’s Office alleging it illegally denied abortion services to a local woman, while asking that the rest of the suit be stayed pending a state investigation.
The filing concedes none of the facts alleged in the AG’s case, but argues that even if they are true, they don’t provide sufficient grounds to bring the lawsuit. The demurrer argues that the hospital’s First Amendment right to the free practice of religion protects its faith-based policies. It also includes a footnote that seems to undercut a stipulation the two parties reached in October, under which St. Joseph pledged its care staff will allow physicians to terminate a patient’s pregnancy when necessary to protect a mother’s health.
Filed in September, the AG’s lawsuit alleges the hospital violated state law when it denied an abortion to Anna Nusslock, who was 15 weeks pregnant with twins when her water broke and a doctor at the hospital told her the babies wouldn’t survive and she needed immediate abortion care. But Nusslock alleges that because the fetuses still had detectible heart tones, the doctor told her she was not “permitted” to provide the necessary abortion at St. Joseph and recommended she be flown to the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center for the procedure. Ultimately, she alleges the hospital agreed to discharge her so she could be driven to Mad River Community Hospital, which would perform the procedure, saying a nurse gave her a bucket and some towels “in case something happens in the car” on the way.
By the time Nusslock was admitted to the now shuttered labor and delivery unit at Mad River, she says she’d passed “an apple-sized blood clot” and a doctor there described her condition as “not clinically stable,” saying she “appeared to be deteriorating.”
The lawsuit alleges Nusslock’s abortion was medically necessary to protect her health, and that St. Joseph’s refusal to provide it violated California’s Emergency Services Law, which requires hospital emergency rooms to provide care to prevent not only maternal death, but “serious injury or illness.”
In the recent filing, lawyers for Providence St. Joseph Hospital argue that the Legislature expressly gave the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) “primary jurisdiction” to investigate and determine potential violations of the Emergency Services Law. The lawsuit, the filing argues, “improperly seeks to usurp the statutory authority” of the department, and therefore should be stayed pending an investigation by CDPH, “the legislatively assigned expert agency, of any alleged violations.” The attorneys further argue that CDPH is authorized to penalize hospitals that violate the law.
The filing asserts that because resolving some of the questions in the suit — like whether Nusslock condition was critical enough that the delay in abortive services would put her in danger of serious health problems — require medical knowledge, they are better answered by the CDPH than a court.
The filing further argues the attorney general’s suit misapplies the law, and that it cannot use state and federal laws to prohibit a Catholic hospital from applying faith-based policies on a case-by-case basis.
“Like all Catholic hospitals, [St. Joseph Hospital (SJH) ] is required to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services issued by the United States Conference of Bishops,” the filing says. “The complaint fails to state a claim because, as a Catholic hospital, SJH has a First Amendment right to apply faith-based policies, which entail a case-by-case determination of the possible interventions.”
The ethical and religious directives followed by SJH include a prohibition on procedures “directly intended termination of a pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus,” according to the filing. The directives do allow procedures “that have as their direct purpose” the cure of a pregnant woman’s “serious” condition when they “cannot be safely postponed” until viability, “even if they will result in the death of an unborn child.”
In Nusslock’s case, the filing notes the hospital offered to transfer her by helicopter or ambulance to a facility that would abort her pregnancy.
A footnote in the filing indicates Providence St. Joseph Hospital intends to keep following all the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.
“To the extent that the AG contends the stipulation requires SJH to allow procedures that are not permitted by the [directives], SJH reserves the right to modify or vacate the stipulation if and when appropriate,” it says.
“SJH is committed to providing emergency care consistent with state and federal law,” the demurrer says. “At the same time, SJH also has a connotational right to comply with the [Ethical and Religious Directives]. The right to free exercise of religion is enshrined in the state and federal constitution. … Here, the AG improperly seeks to intervene in the faith-based processes of a Catholic hospital and seeks an injunction that would prohibit SJH from adhering to faith-based policies regarding the termination of a pregnancy. .. SJH could not comply with such an order without forsaking its Catholic identity — the ultimate burden in a religious freedom case.”
In the filing, attorneys for Providence St. Joseph Hospital request a Jan. 27 hearing date on the demurrer. The AG’s Office will have the opportunity to follow a written response.
The hospital also faces a similar suit filed Dec. 12 on behalf of an anonymous woman referred to as Jane Roe, alleging she was also denied emergency medical services in the form of a needed abortion under circumstances similar to Nusslock’s.
In a statement released to news outlets after the recent filing, Providence St. Joseph Hospital said the demurrer “raises several procedural legal arguments for dismissal while also affirming both our Catholic identity and our commitment to providing safe, high-quality emergency care for pregnant patients in accordance with state and federal law.”
“Our commitment to both the health of our community and our faith-based tradition remains unwavering,” it continued.
Related Stories
This article appears in Top 10 Stories of 2024.
