“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,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said.

A Catholic hospital in Northern California is facing a lawsuit by the state’s attorney general after it reportedly refused to perform an abortion on a woman whose pregnancy was not viable and whose life was in danger.

Anna Nusslock was already in severe crisis when she and her husband Daniel arrived last February at Providence St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka, according to the suit, which AG Rob Bonta filed Monday in Humboldt County Superior Court. A doctor examined Nusslock, who was 15 weeks pregnant with twins, and told her they would not survive, the suit explains.

Without a dilation and evacuation procedure, or, what is commonly known as “an abortion,” Nusslock was also at risk of death, the complaint contends.

However, it goes on, “Providence refused to allow Anna’s doctors to treat her, as the hospital’s policies prohibited them from terminating a pregnancy so long as they could detect fetal heart tones. The only exception was if the mother’s life was at immediate risk, a high threshold that Anna apparently did not yet reach. Only at some poorly defined point in the future, when Anna was close enough to death, would Providence permit her doctors to intervene. Until then, Anna and her physicians could do nothing but wait, worry, and hope.”

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    2 months ago

    Faith is less than nothing when weighed against observable, measurable fact. Religion should never be allowed to overrule science.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I believe in freedom of religion, but if your religion prohibits you from the practice of medicine, you are not allowed to have a hospital. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientologists don’t have hospitals either.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Religion is like your dick: keep it to yourself in public, only share it with the consent of others, and you’re solely responsible for any consequences arising from its use.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        if your religion prohibits you from the practice of medicine, you are not allowed to have a hospital.

        That should be obvious, but to the religious it’s apparently not.

        Freedom of religion is an overused term, to allow special treatment for religion.
        Religions should have no more rights than ideology, because they are nothing more.
        They should have no more protection against discrimination than ideology, because they are nothing more.
        That means a harmful religion can be banned, and it is NOT discrimination but civilization.
        We have freedom of thought, but religion should not have priority or privileges over other types of thought.

    • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      Nearly all our hospitals are run by church folk, so their beliefs are applied to all patients. Certain elective or life saving procedures alike have seen this story in some form.