California Sues Hospital for Denying Patient an Emergency Abortion
The patient, a 36-year-old chiropractor, was 15 weeks pregnant with twins when her water broke prematurely. At the hospital, doctors determined that one twin would not survive and the other had a very low chance of survival. They warned of potential risks to the patient’s health, including infection, hemorrhaging, and threats to future fertility if the pregnancy was not terminated.
However, due to the hospital’s policy, which prohibits abortion unless the mother’s life is at immediate risk, the patient was not offered termination because fetal heartbeats were still detectable. After several hours, she was driven to another hospital, where she arrived hemorrhaging and in need of emergency care.
The incident has prompted legal action by California’s attorney general against the hospital company, alleging violations of state laws requiring emergency rooms to provide care to prevent serious injury or illness. This lawsuit is believed to be the first of its kind under California’s Emergency Services Law.
The case highlights that access to emergency abortion care can be complicated even in states with strong pro-choice laws. It also underscores the ongoing national debate surrounding emergency medical care and abortion rights in the wake of the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The patient, who had been trying to have a baby and had experienced previous pregnancy losses, described the experience as deeply traumatizing. She came forward with her story partly out of concern for other women in her community who might face similar situations.
The lawsuit seeks to immediately stop the hospital from following its current policy while the case proceeds. The state argues that laws ensuring equal access to medical care should outweigh religious objections in such emergency situations.
This case raises important questions about the balance between religious beliefs and medical necessity in emergency healthcare settings, particularly in relation to reproductive health.