Rachel Harrison, a California woman from Sacramento, has filed a groundbreaking lawsuit against Dignity Health, one of the nation’s largest Catholic health systems, alleging that two of its hospitals denied her emergency abortion care not once, but twice, in violation of state law and at great risk to her health. The case, lodged in San Francisco Superior Court, is reigniting a fierce debate over the collision between religious directives in healthcare and the legal rights of patients seeking emergency services.
According to the lawsuit and reporting by CourtHouse News Service and NBC Los Angeles, Harrison’s ordeal began in September 2024, when her water broke at just 17 weeks of pregnancy—a condition known in medical circles as previable preterm premature rupture of membranes, or PPROM. This rare but devastating complication is considered fatal to the fetus and extremely dangerous for the mother. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states that in such cases, the standard of care is to inform the patient that the pregnancy is not viable and to recommend termination as the safest option. The risks of waiting for a natural miscarriage include severe infection, blood loss, permanent loss of reproductive function, or even death.
But when Harrison sought help at Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a Dignity Health hospital in Carmichael, she was told that because the fetus still had a heartbeat and due to the hospital’s Catholic affiliation, there was nothing more the staff could do for her. The complaint, as reported by Courthouse News Service, alleges, “Instead, Rachel was told that because of the hospital’s Catholic affiliation, there was nothing more the hospital could do for her.” She was discharged, sent home to complete what doctors described as a high-risk miscarriage without medical supervision. “Confused and distressed, Rachel was discharged and left to complete a high-risk miscarriage of a fetus ‘the size of an avocado’—as she was told by the physician’s assistant—at home, on her own, and without medical supervision,” the lawsuit states.
Harrison returned to a Kaiser hospital the following morning, where she finally received emergency care. But the trauma was far from over. In December 2024, Harrison became pregnant again, only to have her worst fears realized: her water broke at 17 weeks, and she found herself reliving the same nightmare. Her insurance, like many in California, only covered OB/GYN care within the Dignity Health network. She went to Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento, another Dignity Health facility, but was again denied abortion care because of the presence of a fetal heartbeat. As the lawsuit describes, hospital staff cited the same religious directives as before.
Desperate, Harrison scrambled to find care elsewhere, ultimately seeking help outside her insurance network. This time, the consequences were even more dire: she developed life-threatening sepsis and suffered heavy blood loss, requiring a blood transfusion. The complaint asserts that Harrison’s life was endangered because the hospitals prioritized religious doctrine over her safety and state law.
Harrison and her partner, Marcell Johnson, are now seeking not only compensatory and punitive damages but also a court order requiring Dignity Health hospitals to provide emergency abortions in compliance with California law. The lawsuit names Mercy San Juan Medical Center and Mercy General Hospital specifically, but its implications extend across the entire Dignity Health network of 24 Catholic hospitals in California, all of which follow a set of “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services.” These directives, created by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, influence care decisions in situations involving pregnancy, abortion, and reproductive health.
The legal complaint, as reported by NBC Los Angeles, accuses Dignity Health of violating multiple state laws, including California’s Emergency Services Law—which requires hospitals with licensed emergency rooms to treat patients suffering from emergency medical conditions like previable PPROM—the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Unlawful Competition Law, and Harrison’s right to privacy under the California Constitution. The lawsuit alleges, “While publicly touting their hospitals’ qualifications as reliable emergency services centers, Dignity Health prioritized its own religious directives over the best interests of Rachel’s health and well-being.”
In response, a spokesperson for Dignity Health issued a brief statement, declining to comment on the specific allegations but maintaining, “When a pregnant woman’s health is at risk, appropriate emergency care is provided. The well-being of our patients is the central mission for our dedicated caregivers.” The statement echoes Dignity Health’s longstanding position that its Catholic hospitals strive to balance religious values with patient care, a balance that is increasingly under scrutiny as cases like Harrison’s come to light.
This is not the first time California has seen such a conflict. In September 2024, the state filed a similar lawsuit against a Catholic hospital in Eureka after a woman whose water broke at 15 weeks was denied an emergency abortion. That hospital ultimately agreed to provide emergency abortions when a woman’s health is at risk, suggesting that legal pressure can prompt change. But for many patients, the process is fraught with confusion, distress, and—sometimes—dangerous delays.
Medical professionals and advocacy groups have long warned that religiously affiliated hospitals, which make up a significant portion of California’s healthcare infrastructure, may restrict access to abortion and other reproductive services even in emergencies. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the safest course of action in cases like Harrison’s is to terminate the pregnancy to protect the mother’s health. Yet, as the lawsuit details, hospital staff at Mercy San Juan and Mercy General repeatedly cited religious policies as grounds for refusing care, even as Harrison’s medical crisis escalated.
Supporters of religious healthcare institutions argue that these hospitals have the right to operate according to their faith-based principles, and that patients are informed of these policies. Critics, however, contend that when hospitals receive public funding and serve as essential emergency providers, they must abide by state laws and medical standards, especially in life-threatening situations.
The outcome of Harrison’s lawsuit could have far-reaching implications, not just for Dignity Health but for the broader landscape of reproductive healthcare in California and beyond. As legal, ethical, and medical lines blur, the case underscores the urgent need for clarity: when religious doctrine and state law collide, whose rights prevail?
For Rachel Harrison and many others like her, the answer is not just a matter of principle—it’s a matter of life and death.
