The legal landscape in the wake of the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization continues to change. Dobbs repealed Roe v. Wade and removed the constitutional right to abortion access. Control was returned to the states, many of which enacted restrictions or outright bans. This has led to continuing legal battles over when and where abortions are allowed.
As a recent lawsuit filed in California indicates, uncertainty over what constitutes a medical emergency and religious directives limiting what doctors and staff are permitted to do or say in life-threatening situations is putting women with pregnancy complications at risk. On September 26, 2025, Rachel Harrison, along with her partner Marcell Johnson, filed suit against Dignity Health in the California Superior Court. Harrison, who suffered from the same pregnancy-terminating illness twice in seven months, alleges that the Catholic hospitals under Dignity Health refused to treat her condition both times and dismissed her to deal with a high-risk miscarriage at home or at another hospital. The latter instance developed into sepsis after an emergency medical intervention at a Kaiser hospital.
Harrison alleges that the Dignity Health Catholic-affiliated hospitals, which operate under strict religious guidelines, failed to alert her to the option of having emergency abortion care at a different hospital. The complaint alleges that Mercy San Juan Medical Center in Carmichael and Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento violated the standard of care expected under California state law.
PPROM and Fetal Viability
While all jurisdictions allow abortion if the life of the mother is threatened, exactly what that constitutes is ill-defined in state laws. There’s also confusion about exceptions permitted if the mother’s general or physical health is at risk. Doctors fear the significant penalties that could arise if the state considers them to have violated their abortion bans, which can include a substantial prison sentence. This fear has delayed emergency services when doctors were uncertain if they could legally perform an abortion, which increases the probability of dire consequences for pregnant women. The soaring rates of sepsis and other issues in pregnant patients became so prevalent in Texas that the state legislature passed a new law in June 2025 clarifying what physicians could and couldn’t do.
This was not an issue for the emergency room doctors at Mercy San Juan Medical Center and Mercy General Hospital when Harrison arrived. In both instances, she told them what had happened — she had her water break while she was at home. As she was only 17 weeks pregnant, this was well prior to when the fetus would have a chance of viability outside the womb. And in both instances, the doctors correctly diagnosed her ailment. Harrison was suffering from Previable Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes (PPROM).
The loss of her amniotic fluid meant neither fetus could possibly survive. In addition, Harrison was in danger of a hemorrhage or sepsis if the non-viable fetus remained inside her. Due to the potentially deadly danger presented by previable PPROM, both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine strongly recommend that patients experiencing it be given options for both expectant management and immediate delivery (abortion). Given the recent rise in maternal mortality for those choosing expectant management, ACOG is currently recommending immediate delivery for the mother’s well-being.
According to Harrison’s suit, neither Dignity Health hospital informed her that the immediate delivery option even existed. Because they follow the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services (ERD), Dignity Health hospital policy forbids physicians at any of their facilities from performing any abortion-related procedure on a patient if there’s any sign of fetal heart tones. After being told there was nothing they could do for her, Harrison was told to either go home or go to another hospital. She ended up in hospitals in a different health system both times before getting the obstetric care she needed.
Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed
Harrison’s suit charges that all emergency departments in California hospitals are subject to providing the same standard of care, which she feels shouldn’t be overruled by religious doctrine. By not informing her that an immediate delivery was considered the safest way to resolve her medical issue, she alleges they shirked the duty of care they owed her and all patients like her. Harrison felt she was forced to use Dignity Health facilities because they were in the same healthcare provider system as her gynecologist/obstetrician.
The claims in the complaint include violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, medical malpractice, and negligent and intentional infliction of distress. Harrison and Johnson are seeking damages along with an injunction blocking Dignity Health from prohibiting its medical professionals from providing emergency abortion care.
This is not the only lawsuit concerned with expectant mothers, their well-being, and their reproductive rights in the California court system right now. California Attorney General Rob Bonta is suing Catholic Providence St. Joseph Hospital on behalf of Anna Nusslock, a woman who suffered from previable PPROM while in week 15 of carrying twins. The lawsuit alleges that after doctors refused to perform an immediate delivery, it was suggested that Nusslock take a $40,000 helicopter trip to a hospital that would help her. With that not feasible and her doctor telling her she wouldn’t survive the drive there, she and her husband made it to the nearest clinic they could find.
There are no easy legal answers when religion and medicine find themselves on opposite sides of an argument. For the sake of expectant mothers with previable PPROM or other dangerous pregnancy-related ailments, hopefully some sort of agreeable middle ground can be reached soon.
Related Resources
- Medical Malpractice Overview (FindLaw’s Accidents and Injuries Legal Guide)
- How an Unsuccessful Surrogacy Can Become a Legal Nightmare (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- Proving Fault in Medical Malpractice Cases (FindLaw’s Medical Malpractice Law)
