California AG files motion to protect abortion while suing Catholic hospital

California's Attorney General Rob Bonta announced that his office has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to protect abortion access amid the state's ongoing lawsuit against the Catholic Providence Saint Joseph Hospital (SJH) in Eureka.

Key Takeaways:

• California sued Providence Saint Joseph Hospital in 2024 after it refused to commit an abortion on a woman who went into premature labor with her twins.

• The hospital agreed to comply with California Emergency Services Law which requires all hospitals to commit induced abortions if the woman's health or life is at risk. It asked for the lawsuit to be dismissed because Bonta's requests "would substantially burden SJH's free exercise of religion."

• In June, Bonta filed a motion to force SJH to commit abortions despite claiming a religious exemption and in August a court ruled that a stipulation that SJH commit abortions to protect a woman's health would remain in place.

• Bonta's office says SJH changed course and will only commit abortions if the mother's life is at risk, not her health. The court ordered him to file the preliminary injunction.

• Induced abortion — the direct and intentional killing of a preborn child — is not medically necessary.

The Details:

After initially agreeing to commit abortions for both the life and the health of women, Bonta's office claims that SJH is not allowing abortions when the mother's health that is at risk.

"Despite previously assuring my office, the court, and the people of California that it would follow state law and allow women to access emergency abortion care, Providence is seeking not only to go back on its word, but to make things far worse by requiring 'certain death' before allowing doctors to offer treatment," said Bonta. "We refuse to let that happen. We are filing a motion for a preliminary injunction to ensure that Providence continues following state law."

The original SJH policy said abortion could be committed when a pregnant woman's "life is at risk." An updated SJH policy states that an emergency abortion may be committed when it is the "only alternative to certain death" of the mother. This policy has not been implemented due to the prior stipulation from the court, ordering the hospital to commit abortions to protect women's health. Bonta believes both policies are in violation of the Emergency Services Law.

In his press release, Bonta mentioned Anna Nusslock, who was allegedly denied an abortion at SJH when her water broke at 15 weeks, which is known as Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes (PPROM). Nusslock did need emergency care and treatment, but the standard of care for PPROM involves a watch and wait approach or preterm delivery, not induced abortion.

He also mentioned a second woman, 'Jane Roe,' who was allegedly harmed by the hospital in May, when doctors refused to intentionally kill her preborn child because her life was not determined to be at immediate risk.

Why It Matters:

When discussing his motivation for ensuring SJH is forced to commit unnecessary abortions against its religion convictions, Bonta argued, "This is not a game. It can be a matter of life or death."

Yes, abortion is always a matter of life and death because every abortion procedure carries the intent to ensure the preborn child dies. An abortion is considered unsuccessful if the baby is born alive.

In addition, forcing doctors — who took an oath to protect life — to kill preborn babies is horrifically unethical and a violation of their conscience rights. If a pregnancy must end due to an emergency situation, doctors can deliver the baby by induced labor or emergency C-section. Even if the baby is too young to survive, these procedures, as long as the intention is not to kill the baby, are not abortions.

Babies born as early as 21 weeks have survived when given proper medical care, and women deserve to know that they don't have to have their babies intentionally killed to save their own lives or health.