State of CA sues St. Joe's, relief includes up to $2,500 for each violation of BP 17200

 

(Bonta's press conference)

The lawsuit filed today has already made national headlines.  contacted Providence's spokesperson Christian Hill with three questions. He is on vacation until October 7 so I have forwarded my request to his colleague Chambia Chambers. At 4:56 p.m. today, I heard from Providence National Communications Director and did a separate post.

If you don't want to read the lengthy complaint with legalese, California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office issued a detailed press release early a.m. with links to the court documents which is included in the post.

This was just filed today and nothing has been scanned into e court and a court date has not been assigned yet. On 10/3, State of CA is representer by Ms. Karli Eisenberg. No attorney entered in e court for Providence as of 10/3. There were three declarations filed in the case. I have added a list of those and the civil case cover sheet.

Do you believe LOCO or Google? Screenshots taken at 12:44 p.m. today? I accessed the press release twice, once to add to my post and then to take this screenshot through the State website which according to Google was up 4 hours ago which would be 8:44 a.m. and not after LOCO's post as claimed. 

New York Times reported about the lawsuit 3 hours ago. San Francisco Chronicle 2 hours ago. This is a local and California news story and it was reported first on the East Coast. LOCO regurgitating what had already been published and calling it "breaking news" without even bothering to make a call to get any original content is hilarious.

This is a lawsuit that was covered nationally and as of 3:12 p.m. on 10/1/24, there is no coverage in North Coast Journal or North Coast News?

Press Release from CA Attorney General's office:

California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced a lawsuit against Providence St. Joseph Hospital (Providence) in Eureka, California. In the lawsuit, filed in Humboldt County Superior Court, the Attorney General alleges Providence violated multiple California laws due to its refusal to provide emergency abortion care to people experiencing obstetric emergencies. One particular patient, Anna Nusslock, had her water break when she was 15 weeks pregnant with twins on February 23, 2024. Despite the immediate threat to her life and health, and despite the fact her pregnancy was no longer viable, Providence refused to treat her. She had to travel to a small critical access hospital called Mad River, 12 miles away, where she was actively hemorrhaging by the time she was on the operating table. In addition to filing the complaint, the Attorney General is moving immediately for a preliminary injunction to ensure that patients like Anna will receive timely emergency healthcare services at Providence, including abortion care.  

“California is the beacon of hope for so many Americans across this country trying to access abortion services since the Dobbs decision. It is damning that here in California, where abortion care is a constitutional right, we have a hospital implementing a policy that’s reminiscent of heartbeat laws in extremist red states,” said Attorney General Bonta. “With today’s lawsuit, I want to make this clear for all Californians: abortion care is healthcare. You have the right to access timely and safe abortion services. At the California Department of Justice, we will use the full force of this office to hold accountable those who, like Providence, are breaking the law.” 

In February 2024, Anna Nusslock was fifteen weeks pregnant with twins when she visited Providence in pain and severely bleeding after her water prematurely broke. At Providence, the doctor diagnosed Nusslock with Previable Premature Pre-labor Rupture of Membranes (Previable PPROM) and confirmed her twins would not survive. Her diagnosis also meant that without abortion care, she was at increased risk of permanent harm or death from infection and hemorrhage. Nevertheless, Providence informed her that hospital policy prohibited them from providing this emergency care as long as one of her twins had a “detectable heartbeat.” Only once there was an immediate risk to Nusslock’s life—which is to say, a more immediate risk than she already faced—would the hospital give her the treatment she needed. 

Instead of providing Nusslock emergency medical abortion care required by state law, Providence discharged her with instructions to drive to a small community hospital nearly 12 miles away. On the way out the door, Providence handed Nusslock a bucket and towels “in case something happens in the car.”  

Providence’s policy bars doctors from providing life-saving or stabilizing emergency treatment when doing so would terminate a pregnancy, even when the pregnancy is not viable. Not only does this violate California law, this policy discriminates against pregnant patients as the hospital chooses the decision for them. 

Today’s complaint alleges Providence violated California’s Emergency Services Law (the state level analogue to the federal EMTALA statute), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. Additionally, the Attorney General moved for a preliminary injunction, seeking a court order to guarantee that patients receive prompt emergency medical care including abortion care. This is especially critical because the hospital—Mad River Community Hospital—where Anna eventually received her abortion will be closing its labor and delivery (L&D) unit this October. In a month, Providence will be left as the only hospital with an L&D unit in all of Humboldt County. The next person in Anna’s situation will face an agonizing choice of risking a multi-hour drive to another hospital or waiting until they are close enough to death for Providence to intervene.   

This lawsuit enforces the crucial right to emergency abortion care under California state law, while the scope of federal protections for such care under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) remain uncertain.  Under EMTALA, every hospital in the United States that operates an emergency department and participates in Medicare is required to provide stabilizing treatment to all patients with an emergency medical condition.  When the U.S. Supreme Court upended decades of legal precedent establishing a constitutional right to an abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, EMTALA should have provided a critical backstop, guaranteeing that no matter what state a pregnant patient was in, they would receive the emergency care, including abortion care, they needed. But this past summer in Idaho v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court declined to confirm that EMTALA requires hospitals to provide necessary abortion care to pregnant patients experiencing access medical emergencies irrespective of any conflicting state law.  With EMTALA in limbo, states like California have to rely on their own state laws to protect pregnant patients.   ​ 

California Attorney General Bonta remains committed to ensuring that California continues to be a safe haven for those seeking essential reproductive healthcare including abortion care. For more on his actions, and for key resources to assist you in obtaining reproductive healthcare, visit https://oag.ca.gov/reprorights.

If you are looking for information specific to abortions, the California Abortion Access website provides a safe space to find resources and guidance. The privacy of those who visit this website is protected, and their information is not saved or tracked.

California law requires hospitals to provide emergency abortion care. Click here to learn more.  

If you were denied an abortion you needed in a medical emergency, or if you were denied any other emergency medical care, you can contact abortion.access@doj.ca.gov. 

A copy of today’s filed complaint and preliminary injunction can be found here and here.