PREVIOUSLY

• Providence is In the Wrong,’ Attorney General Rob Bonta Says Ahead of Tomorrow’s Court Hearing on Emergency Abortion Care

###

Press release from Providence:

At Providence St. Joseph Hospital Eureka, we are unwavering in our commitment to high-quality emergency care for pregnant patients. We have and will continue to fully comply with California’s Emergency Services Law (ESL) and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Both state and federal agencies have found no violations that relate to patient care. We have also recently enhanced our training, education and escalation protocols to ensure the health and safety of pregnant patients who are miscarrying or facing life-threatening situations. 

On July 22, 2025, we filed a motion to clarify a stipulation – a type of legal filing – that was drafted by the California Attorney General’s office and entered into court in October 2024. We took this action because we believe the stipulation, as currently written, goes beyond the scope of the ESL by mandating specific procedures we are to perform in pregnancy-related emergencies. By contrast, the ESL does not mandate or dictate specific procedures. It only states that hospitals are required to provide essential emergency care, including screening, treatment and surgery to address emergency medical conditions. 

The stipulation also fails to recognize our right, as a faith-based organization, to evaluate each case individually. This is a critical part of how we deliver care. Under the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERDs), we are permitted to provide life-saving treatment to a pregnant patient, even if that treatment may unintentionally result in the loss of the pregnancy. These decisions are never taken lightly and must be made thoughtfully and respectfully on a case-by-case basis. 

Without acknowledging this approach, we are concerned that the Attorney General’s office is overreaching and seeking to require us to provide abortions in situations that fall outside the scope of emergency care. We are also concerned that the stipulation disregards a 2016 agreement with the state, which affirmed our right to follow the ERDs as a core part of our Catholic identity. 

To be clear, we are not seeking to reduce or restrict the emergency care we provide to pregnant patients. Our intent with this motion is to ensure our concerns are clearly addressed and that our right to evaluate clinical and ethical decisions on a case-by-case basis is protected. 

Again, our care teams provide a full range of medical interventions to ensure the health and safety of pregnant patients. We take this responsibility incredibly seriously and remain deeply committed to delivering the best possible care to every patient. We are grateful for the trust our community has placed in us for more than 100 years and will continue to provide updates as this legal process moves forward.