Anna Nusslock never expected to be denied an emergency abortion by a hospital in California, a state with some of the strongest abortion rights protections.
In February, Dr. Nusslock, 36, a chiropractor in Eureka, Calif., went to the nearest emergency room, at Providence St. Joseph Hospital, after her water broke just 15 weeks into pregnancy. Doctors said one of the twins she was carrying would not survive and the other had almost no chance, according to medical records. They said that if the pregnancy was not terminated, she could face infection, hemorrhaging and threats to her future fertility.
But because fetal heart tones could still be detected, a doctor at the Catholic-affiliated hospital said the institution’s policy prohibited providing abortion unless Dr. Nusslock’s life was at risk, according to her medical records. After several hours, her husband drove her to the next closest hospital, where she arrived hemorrhaging and passing a blood clot the size of an apple. She expelled one fetus and was rushed into the operating room so the other fetus could be removed, records show.
“I thought I would be safe here from things like this,” Dr. Nusslock said in an interview, “from people taking away choices from me and leaving me in danger.”
Similar situations have occurred in states with abortion bans, but California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an interview that Dr. Nusslock’s case shows they can happen “even in California, a place that is very strongly pro-choice.”
On Monday, the attorney general filed suit against the company that operates Providence St. Joseph, charging that the hospital violated a California law requiring hospitals with emergency rooms to provide care to prevent not only death, but “serious injury or illness.”
Officials in the attorney general’s office say they believe this to be the first lawsuit California has filed against a hospital under the Emergency Services Law, which says hospitals have to provide care “necessary to relieve or eliminate the emergency medical condition.” The attorney general said he was doing so partly because of uncertainty about the fate of a similar federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act or EMTALA, which has become a lightning rod in the national abortion debate.
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned, EMTALA has been challenged by two states with abortion bans. One case, involving Idaho, was heard by the Supreme Court this year. The justices decided to send it back to Idaho’s courts, leaving unclear for now how EMTALA can ensure that hospitals provide abortions in medical emergencies.
“There were some written opinions by the conservative wing of the court that were very disturbing about whether abortion care, which is health care, will be provided under EMTALA in emergency situations,” Mr. Bonta said, “so unfortunately, EMTALA is not reliable right now, in our view, because of the limbo that is in.” As a result, he said, “states are on their own and need to rely on our own laws.”
In a statement, the 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.”
California, which also accuses the hospital of violating state laws concerning civil rights and business conduct, is seeking a preliminary injunction immediately stopping the hospital from following its policy while the case proceeds.
“We do not want another Anna,” Mr. Bonta said.