“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.”

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yeah, I have to agree it’s basically assuredly not true, even when accounting for:

      • Wars, genocides, and individual people killed over religion.
      • Suicides linked to religious abuse by institutions and by zealots.
      • Religion stifling the advancement of medicine such as in the case of stem cell research.
      • The brand of “god’s will” bullshit that leads to preventable deaths in lieu of treatment.

      Undoubtedly religion is hugely harmful, and I’m its biggest detractor that I personally know, but we live in an era where heart disease and cancer exist. Even saying religion causes a plurality of deaths would be wrong; “more than all others combined” is bullshit on a level that I can’t believe it got so many upvotes.

      We can say that religion results in a fuckload of unnecessary deaths without lying.

      • Zexks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        So what about the hundreds of years where medical science was banned from studying the body. Where they had to steal corpses and learn in secrecy. How many deaths from cancer and heart disease could have prevented had we not been stifled.

        • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago
          • You want to elaborate on when and how this happened? Because it wasn’t “hundreds of years”; it was like 20 and limited to European Christians.
          • Do you have even vague figures grounded in fact that can make this comparable to current deaths by all other causes? That scientists during this 20-ish year period would have discovered something groundbreaking? Because by this line, I can say the leading cause of death – moreso than others combined – is Grug tripping over a rock circa 40,000 BCE and hitting his balls, thereby preventing the greatest scientist of all time from being born and curing cancer.