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 various media 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’t do it because it was “against policy.”
Because the doctor narrowly focused on induced abortion as Nusslock’s 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, “a nurse came in, and she gave me a bucket full of towels, and she said, ‘they wanted me to give you these in case something happens in the car.’”
When she was taken for “surgery” – a D&E abortion – 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.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the lawsuit September 30th. The lawsuit alleges the hospital violated California’s Emergency Services Treatment Requirement law, stating that “refusing 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.” Bonta said in a news release:
With today’s 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.
Was induced abortion actually necessary?
Chillingly, although as of right now the state cannot force religious institutions 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 forced Catholic hospitals to violate religious beliefs for other reasons, “even when doing so is at odds with religious beliefs.”
However, Providence St. Joseph is denying that an induced abortion was necessary in this case. “When it comes to complex pregnancies or situations in which a woman’s life is at risk, we provide all necessary interventions to protect and save the life of the mother,” a Providence spokesperson said, according to CNN.
However, Providence acknowledged serious problems with the doctor’s approach, noting a lack of medical care that did not meet the hospital’s standards.
“We 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,” said Chief Executive of Providence Northern California Service Area Gary Olney in a statement. “This 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.”
Induced abortion vs. early delivery
A D&E abortion 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 to save the life of the mother, even in Nusslock’s case. She had already delivered one of her twins
Instead, as Live Action News has reported, the best approach to serious situations like Nusslock’s involves aggressive medical interventions. As pro-life OBGYN and Vice President of Charlotte Lozier Institute Dr. Ingrid Skop has explained, 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.
If these interventions fail, delivery of the preborn baby will then become necessary — but intentionally killing that child is not medically necessary. Early delivery is not 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.
D&E abortion: the facts in pictures
What no hospital should do
According to a guide from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), “It is acceptable to deliver a patient before the gestational age at which the fetus could survive outside the womb only if the mother’s life or health is in danger, which is proportional to the danger the fetus/neonate will face at birth… Previable induction of labor is justified in cases of intrauterine infection…”
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.
What is not permitted, however, is the direct 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 – 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 almost no survivors of D&E abortions.
More abortion won’t help maternity care
Interestingly enough, CNN notes that “Eureka, in the northern reaches of [California], has just two hospitals with labor and delivery units within 100 miles, the California Attorney General’s Office said. Mad River Community Hospital, which provided Nusslock’s [D&E abortion] procedure, said it will close its labor and delivery unit this month, according to the complaint.”
This information flies in the face of pro-abortion claims that pro-life policies are the cause of maternity care deserts — and a lack of this maternity care isn’t something that more abortion can solve (something which certainly isn’t lacking in the state of California). Forcing religious hospitals to decide between intentionally killing preborn babies or shutting down labor and delivery units entirely isn’t likely to improve maternity care anywhere.
Nusslock’s case is the latest in a tragic series of medical negligence that abortion advocates have falsely tried to pin on pro-life ethics.
