Attorney General Bonta Moves to Enforce Court Order Against Providence St. Joseph Hospital
An art installation depicting the founding nuns of Providence St. Joseph Hospital. [Photo by Ryan Hutson, August of 2021]
California Attorney General Rob Bonta [yesterday] filed a motion to enforce the stipulation and order requiring Providence St. Joseph Hospital (Providence) to comply with state law. The motion to enforce comes after Providence signaled its intent to modify its stipulation and assert exceptions to their clear obligations under California’s Emergency Services Law (ESL). In September 2024, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit against Providence alleging it 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.
“The terms of the stipulation and court order against Providence St. Joseph are clear. Providence must fully comply with California’s Emergency Services Law and ensure that patients can access life-saving health services including emergency abortion care – no exceptions,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Now, months after their stipulation and agreement to abide by the law, Providence St. Joseph is attempting to find wiggle room to shirk its duty to patients under the law. We refuse to let that happen. Even a single violation would be devastating, as no one should have to endure what Anna Nusslock and others experienced at Providence. We’re asking the court to enforce its order against Providence St. Joseph.”
To ensure that patients like Anna could receive timely emergency healthcare services, including abortion care, at Providence, Attorney General Bonta initially moved for a preliminary injunction in conjunction with the filing of the lawsuit. However, in October 2024, he secured a stipulation from Providence, enforceable by court order, to ensure the hospital followed California law while the case proceeds, with no exceptions or limitations. The stipulation resolved the Attorney General’s preliminary injunction motion, as Providence voluntarily agreed to comply with all the terms the Attorney General requested in its proposed injunction.
Now, seven months after entering the stipulation, Providence has asserted its intent to file a motion to modify the stipulation asserting that it does not require Providence to provide procedures to terminate a pregnancy that are prohibited by Ethical and Religious Directives. With this move, Providence is attempting to circumvent the unambiguous — and lawful — obligations it agreed to last year. Providence’s anticipated motion escalates a deeply concerning position: that the stipulation and order do not mean what they plainly state and that Providence only has to comply with them to an extent. Providence’s position raises grave concerns about the renewed risk of Providence violating the ESL and denying emergency abortion care. Therefore, Attorney General Bonta is asking the court to enforce its order and the unambiguous terms of the stipulation. Providence must follow the law and abide by ESL, without exception.
Under the stipulation and court order Providence must:
- Fully comply with California’s ESL, Health & Safety Code section 1317, et. seq. with respect to pregnant patients experiencing emergency medical conditions.
- Allow its physicians to terminate a patient’s pregnancy whenever the treating physicians determine in their professional judgment that failing to immediately terminate the pregnancy would be reasonably expected to place the patient’s health in serious jeopardy; result in serious impairment to the patient’s bodily functions; or result in serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part of the patient.
- Comply with ESL’s pre-transfer treatment requirements. In particular, Providence Hospital may not transfer a pregnant patient without first providing emergency services and care (including where applicable terminating a pregnancy) such that there is a reasonable medical probability that the transfer or the delay caused by the transfer will not result in a material deterioration in the medical condition in, or jeopardy to, the patient’s medical condition or expected chances for recovery.
- Follow the policy and protocol requirements of the ESL under Health & Safety Code section 1317.2. In particular, Providence Hospital may not “discharge” patients with instructions to self-transport to another facility and Providence Hospital must comply will all applicable protocols and regulations for transfers prescribed by the California Department of Public Health.
A copy of the motion to enforce is available here.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Proof that, once again, religion can be deadly.
Well, it is proof that evolution is arrested…
Churches have no business in Healthcare and religious views should never determine the Standard of Care…
I completely agree with your comment 100%.
Who died…???
“Who died…?”
Anyone whos needs a medically assisted abortion to save the life of the mother. St Joseph refuses to do abortions even in the face of death for the mother. Pure religious insanity. Maybe the new Pope will say they need to change.
I am a live-and-let-live person, However, when a hospital thinks their damn religion is more important than a mothers life it is beyond which I will withhold my contempt.
“Religion” is the most violent organization on the planet.
Once again Ca.’s D.A. thinks his powers exceed the U.S. Constitution.
I agree… we should remove Public Funding for that hospital !
That would put most of the er… ‘religious’ hospitals out of business.
Let’s go for it.
don’t like it, don’t use it. it’s like the ca. lottery, don’t play if you don’t like it, but some do. individually make the statement with your wallet, not someone else’s. you know , that freedom of choice thing.
Old guy,
I’m probably older than you. But, like George Burns said when asked about getting old… “It’s better than the alternative.”
“Don’t like it, don’t use it” … is not a choice if you are dying on the steps of the hospital.
Most people are choosing other medical care by going south. Doctors are hard to get in Eureka, and a lot of doctors have left already.
The big elephant in the room is that the alternatives- either for profit or public hospitals- rely on either having a good base of privately insured patients for the first or a government willing to fund a hospital for the second. Humboldt Co has neither. We have a disproportionate number of people on Medic-Cal and Medicare. The government has been unwilling for decades to pony up the money to fully fund the Medi-Cal services they make more expensive and the result is closures of rural maternity services across the country.
At present, “Many rural hospitals can no longer offset obstetric losses because they lose money on other services, its report notes. Meanwhile, cost reports indicate that nearly 40% of rural hospitals with labor and delivery services lost money on patient care overall in 2023, putting hundreds of communities at risk of losing obstetric care.”
Recently Medi-Cal did receive a boost in funding for rural maternity service but the accompanying DEI dog whistle language in that was it was for “underserved populations.” So not Eureka or most of Humboldt Co. And with Trump, even that is likely to disappear.
While religious hospitals frequently have a bias against abortions or birth control, they usually have a bias to support other maternity services and will keep having labor delivery services even if they are money losers. Fixing the problems with abortion services by eliminating religious hospital ownership seems simple but these days it’s likely to come with creating problems with losing services too.
https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2025/01/obstetric-care-continues-to-vanish-from-rural-areas/
This is a hospital network, as such this is a test case and will set a precedent that all of Providence Hospital must comply, unambiguous.
Fuck you Providence…
No more Medicare or Medi-Cal for you…
Get ’em Bonta…
Thank you A.G. Bonta for protecting the HUMAN rights of women.
Considering these comments I believe if Providence Hospital was forced to close down due to loss of funding or excessive fines the ultimate victim would be the citizens of our area.
I would be interested in any articles that convey Providence’s side of the story and their Drs. who believe these procedures violate their moral beliefs. In the big picture this is going to the Supreme Court
Zach, I am guessing that most of the doctors and nurses are not willing to speak badly of St. Joe’s, because they are scared of losing their jobs. I do hope it does go to the Supreme Court where everyone involved can speak their minds without fear. This stuff has dragged on way too long!
most locals leave the area for anything more than a band aid.
It depends on the provider. Some are quite good and a person is lucky to see them. Unfortunately these providers are either retiring or moving on. And they are not be replaced with equal abilities.
But no one, especially those in the northern part of the couny can count on being able to travel. In an emergency or for those with limitations on travel, the local medical care is it.
I keep fantasizing that the County government or even Providence itself will recognize the dire straits of its public and arrange some sort of reciprocal arrangement to take people to the services they can’t get here.
I would too. But if a lawsuit is pending, they will unwilling to explain anything as it will surely be dragged into court to use against them. I hoped that someone with actual knowledge might say something but no one has.
Where We Serve
https://www.providence.org/about/where-we-serve
Does anyone remember the old, defunct, “Northern California Hospital”, that was apparently defunct and completely closed down in Eureka, CA, WAY back when…???
If, not, it might be prudent, for judgement’s sake, to research;it, along with just exactly how it was “brought back to life”…
That’s right, folks, it was the religious, with their Catholic religion, that were actually directly responsible for resurrecting that old lifeless “Northern California Hospital”…
Imagine all the countless lives saved since then…
They didn’t initially come here to do Health Care, but that’s what they ended up doing…
They came here to teach school…
And they definitely didn’t come here to do abortions, that’s for sure…
They have been saving lives for over 100 years, just as a side gig…
I’d say that they need to be commended for what they have done, more than they deserve a reprimand, for what they haven’t done…
And I don’t even like Providence Hospital…
In my experience, they have some excellent health care providers, but they also have some awfully terrible ones…
That being said, if anyone thinks that they can do a better job of running a Hospital in Eureka, CA, or around here, generally, well, then, by all means, have at it…
Put all of your collective moneys where your collective mouths are, roll up your sleeves, wipe your brows, get to work, and then, let’s see it…
And be prepared, and keep in mind, that if you even make one single mistake, in order to maintain your personal ethics, the public will EXCORIATE YOU, and Bonta will take you all the way to the Supreme Court, just in order to make a negative example out of you, as his form of a narcissistic, grandstanding, political stunt, to make a name for himself..
Remember, The Catholic Sisters didn’t initially come here over 100 years ago, to perform Healthcare for the Community, AT ALL, THEY WERE ASKED BY THE COMMUNITY TO DO SO, BECAUSE OF AN EMPTY VOID THAT “EXISTED” IN HOSPITAL CARE, SO THEY DUTIFULLY AND WILLFULLY OBLIGED…
I’d say, that a little gratitude and appreciation would be in order, and not so much, an unhealthy, ungrateful ration of shit…
If anyone thinks they could do a better job on the Providence Hospital Ethics Committee, go for it, because, that’s obviously where the adjustment, if any, needs to be made…
It’s the ethics committee protocol for such emergencies, and whether such interventions are considered life saving, or life ending, depending of the circumstances, that needs to be more clearly defined, communicated, understood, and “religiously” abided by…
A healthy heartbeat is an appropriate indicator of sufficient development, and fetal age, in a healthy pregnancy, in my mind, of when it might no longer be considered ethical to terminate, by someone that was of that belief, however, also in my mind, a heathy pulse, in a healthy developing fetus, capable of eventual survival, should not be confused, nor compared with, nor considered, to being of the same kind kind of ethical significance, as far as being a signal of healthy vitality, as would unhealthy, terminal, decompensatory, end of life, “vital signs”, such as a heartbeat in a fetus, that although present and detectable, due to the fetus’s limited age development, has literally no potential for survival during miscarriage or other unforeseeable circumstances…
As soon as it becomes clear that the fetus cannot possibly survive, decompensatory heartbeat or not, I believe that the only ethical thing to do is to save the mother at all costs, as soon as is prudently possible, without further delay…
There might be other considerations at play, that I won’t hypothesize, but that might sway a decision one way or another, from a legal liability standpoint, that might be considered, as far as a transfer or admitting, but that is for another discussion, entirely…