{"id":319814,"date":"2024-10-03T14:29:56","date_gmt":"2024-10-03T19:29:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=319814"},"modified":"2024-10-04T11:03:56","modified_gmt":"2024-10-04T16:03:56","slug":"california-attorney-general-sues-catholic-hospital-abortion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/california-attorney-general-sues-catholic-hospital-abortion\/","title":{"rendered":"Catholic hospital sued by California AG for not aborting woman’s twins… but was abortion necessary?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Anna Nusslock was 15 weeks pregnant with her twins when her water unexpectedly broke in February 2024. She immediately went to Providence St. Joseph Hospital Eureka, where the emergency room staff reportedly detected the heartbeats of both babies. According to <\/span>various<\/span><\/a> media<\/span><\/a> sources, the doctors at the California hospital told her she needed an abortion in order to prevent a catastrophic infection, but that the hospital wouldn\u2019t do it because it was \u201cagainst policy.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Because the doctor narrowly focused on induced abortion as Nusslock\u2019s only option, he recommended she be airlifted to a hospital in San Francisco, but Nusslock decided it would be too expensive. Instead, her husband drove her to a hospital 20 minutes away. Before they left, Nusslock relates, \u201ca nurse came in, and she gave me a bucket full of towels, and she said, \u2018they wanted me to give you these in case something happens in the car.\u2019\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

When she was taken for \u201csurgery\u201d \u2013 a D&E abortion \u2013 Nusslock was hemorrhaging, and she gave birth on the stretcher to one of her 15-week-old twins, who died soon thereafter. The other twin was later killed by abortion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the <\/span>lawsuit<\/span><\/a> September 30th. The lawsuit alleges the hospital violated California\u2019s Emergency Services Treatment Requirement law, stating that \u201crefusing to treat an emergency medical condition because the hospital can still detect fetal heart tones puts the patient at an unacceptable risk of injury or death.\u201d Bonta said in a news release<\/a>:<\/span><\/p>\n

With today\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\n

Was induced abortion actually necessary?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Chillingly, although as of right now the state cannot <\/span>force religious institutions<\/span><\/a> to commit induced abortions (the intentional and direct killing of a preborn child), a motion for a preliminary injunction seeks to challenge that, citing California court decisions that have <\/span>forced Catholic hospitals<\/span><\/a> to violate religious beliefs for other reasons, \u201ceven when doing so is at odds with religious beliefs.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

However, Providence St. Joseph is denying that an induced abortion was necessary in this case. \u201cWhen it comes to complex pregnancies or situations in which a woman\u2019s life is at risk, we provide all necessary interventions to protect and save the life of the mother,\u201d a Providence spokesperson said, according to <\/span>CNN<\/span><\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n

However, Providence acknowledged serious problems with the doctor\u2019s approach, noting a lack of medical care that did not meet the hospital\u2019s standards.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe are heartbroken over the experience this patient had while in our care and reached out to her today in an effort to express our profound apologies,\u201d said Chief Executive of Providence Northern California Service Area Gary Olney in a <\/span>statement<\/span><\/a>. \u201cThis was a tragic situation that did not meet our high standards for safe, quality, compassionate care. We are immediately re-visiting our training, education and escalation processes in emergency medical situations to ensure that this does not happen again and to ensure that our care teams have the training and support they need to deliver the best possible care for each patient we serve.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Induced abortion vs. early delivery<\/strong><\/p>\n

A<\/span> D&E abortion<\/span><\/a> is a gruesome procedure, typically performed in the second trimester of pregnancy, that involves the direct and intentional killing and dismembering of the baby limb-by-limb to extract her body parts from the womb. Contrary to what abortion advocates say, a D&E abortion is not medically necessary<\/em> to save the life of the mother, even in Nusslock\u2019s case. She had already delivered one of her twins<\/span><\/p>\n

Instead, as <\/span>Live Action News has reported<\/span><\/a>, the best approach to serious situations like Nusslock\u2019s involves aggressive medical interventions. As pro-life OBGYN and Vice President of Charlotte Lozier Institute Dr. Ingrid Skop has <\/span>explained<\/span><\/a>, a patient in this type of situation should, at a minimum, be admitted and administered antibiotics to prevent infection, with mother and babies constantly monitored.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

If these interventions fail, delivery of the preborn baby will then become necessary \u2014 but intentionally killing that child is not medically necessary. Early delivery is not<\/strong> the direct and intentional killing of a preborn baby and it is not an induced abortion. It is, however, a treatment for infected amniotic fluid (chorioamnionitis). Nusslock had a D&E, which dismembers a child in utero while he or she is still alive. Her other twin had already been delivered and passed away.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"D&E

D&E abortion: the facts in pictures<\/p><\/div>\n

What no hospital should do<\/strong><\/p>\n

According<\/span><\/a> to a guide from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), \u201cIt is acceptable to deliver a patient before the gestational age at which the fetus could survive outside the womb only if the mother\u2019s life or health is in danger, which is proportional to the danger the fetus\/neonate will face at birth\u2026 Previable induction of labor is justified in cases of intrauterine infection\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Dr. Skop also notes that ACOG, the notably pro-abortion advocacy organization, also states that expectant management may be part of care, but agrees with AAPLOG that separation of mother and baby must occur to prevent the loss of two lives.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What is <\/span>not<\/span><\/i> permitted, however, is the <\/span>direct<\/span><\/i> killing of the preborn baby; meaning, if the intended outcome is not just that the baby is delivered but that he or she is killed and delivered dead \u2013 or in the case of the demands of the California AG, gruesomely dismembered through a D&E. While a certain percentage of babies born too early this way survive, there are <\/span>almost<\/span><\/a> no survivors of D&E abortions.<\/span><\/p>\n