Connect with us

Politics

'Don't let me die' — California sues Eureka hospital for denying a woman an emergency abortion

Published

on

'Don't let me die' — California sues Eureka hospital for denying a woman an emergency abortion

California has sued a Humboldt County hospital after a patient said she was denied an emergency abortion earlier this year even as she feared for her life because of miscarriage risks.

Fifteen weeks pregnant with twins, Anna Nusslock rushed to Providence St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka in February, in pain and severely bleeding after her water broke far too soon, according to a lawsuit California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta filed against the Catholic hospital on Monday. The suit accuses Providence hospital of violating multiple California laws by denying Nusslock abortion care and seeks a court order ensuring that no other patients are denied emergency abortions.

At the hospital, Nusslock said she was diagnosed with a premature rupture of the membrane of the amniotic sac — a dangerous complication in which an abortion is a recommended treatment.

Doctors deemed that one of the twins would not survive, and that the other’s chances were extremely low. They agreed Nusslock needed an abortion as soon as possible to stave off an infection or hemorrhage, the lawsuit says.

Advertisement

But Nusslock said she was told that because of “hospital policy” an abortion couldn’t be done because her life was not at enough risk and since one twin still had traceable “heart tones.” A doctor suggested she take a helicopter to a hospital nearly 300 miles south in San Francisco and warned that she would die if she tried to make the nearly five hour drive instead, she said.

A nurse handed her a bucket full of towels for the road to help with the bleeding, the suit alleges, and she ended up spontaneously delivering one of the twins and hemorrhaging at Mad River Community Hospital, located 12 miles away on California’s rural North Coast.

“I’ll never forget looking at my doctor, tears streaming down my face, my heart shattered into a million pieces and just pleading with her, ‘Don’t let me die,’ ” Nusslock said at a press conference at the attorney general’s office in Sacramento on Monday. “My daughters deserved better, and I deserved better.”

The case exposes gaps in abortion care in California, home to the nation’s strongest reproductive rights protections, where abortion access is enshrined in the state constitution, even after the U.S. Supreme Court revoked a federal right to the procedure in 2022 that resulted in abortion bans in Republican-led states.

“Here in California, where we’re proud to be a beacon of reproductive justice, we’ve got a hospital policy reminiscent of heartbeat laws in extremist red states,” Bonta said Monday. “Even in California, a champion for reproductive freedom, we are not immune from practices like the one we’re seeing today, and we will not stand by as it occurs.”

Advertisement

Bonta alleges that Providence hospital violated California’s Emergency Services Law — which mandates care at emergency rooms regardless of any ethical concerns from providers — as well as business discrimination laws and fraudulent business practices laws.

A spokesperson for Providence said the company is reviewing the lawsuit’s allegations.

“Providence is deeply committed to the health and wellness of women and pregnant patients and provides emergency services to all who walk through our doors in accordance with state and federal law. We are heartbroken over Nusslock’s experience earlier this year,” said Bryan Kawasaki, director of national communications.

Religious affiliated hospitals cannot be forced to perform elective abortions, but California law requires emergency health care providers to provide medical services to patients “in danger of loss of life or serious injury or illness.”

The law makes no religious exception for abortion services when a hospital like the one Nusslock went to operates an emergency department.

Advertisement

Nusslock and her husband had been trying to have a baby for years — saying “there’s nothing more we want in this world” than to be parents. They experienced multiple miscarriages. After finding out she was pregnant with twins, she said they were cautiously optimistic. They bought matching baby outfits; decorated their nursery and dreamed of taking them to a pumpkin patch for holiday photos.

Her grief turned into anger once she recovered from the rupture and emergency abortion, and she reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union about what actions she could take to keep other mothers from experiencing the same. The ACLU directed her to the attorney general’s office.

“I am here today to tell my story for one simple reason, because I don’t want other people in my community to experience the same life threatening trauma that I experienced,” Nusslock said after she took a deep breath standing behind a podium alongside Bonta and her attorney.

Bonta — who called Nusslock’s case “tragic and infuriating” — urged the court to work as quickly as possible as Mad River Community Hospital, where Nusslock ultimately received her abortion, plans to close its labor and delivery units next month.

“The next person in Anna’s situation will face an agonizing choice of risking a multi-hour drive to another hospital or waiting until they are close enough to death for Providence to intervene,” Bonta said.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump calls for $1.5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

Published

on

Trump calls for .5T defense budget to build ‘dream military’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s budget. 

“After long and difficult negotiations with Senators, Congressmen, Secretaries, and other Political Representatives, I have determined that, for the Good of our Country, especially in these very troubled and dangerous times, our Military Budget for the year 2027 should not be $1 Trillion Dollars, but rather $1.5 Trillion Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday evening. 

“This will allow us to build the “Dream Military” that we have long been entitled to and, more importantly, that will keep us SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.” 

The president said he came up with the number after tariff revenues created a surplus of cash. He claimed the levies were bringing in enough money to pay for both a major boost to the defense budget “easily,” pay down the national debt, which is over $38 trillion, and offer “a substantial dividend to moderate income patriots.”

Advertisement

SENATE SENDS $901B DEFENSE BILL TO TRUMP AFTER CLASHES OVER BOAT STRIKE, DC AIRSPACE

President Donald Trump called for defense spending to be raised to $1.5 trillion, a 50% increase over this year’s record budget.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that the increased budget would cost about $5 trillion from 2027 to 2035, or $5.7 trillion with interest. Tariff revenues, the group found, would cover about half the cost – $2.5 trillion or $3 trillion with interest. 

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in a major case Friday that will determine the legality of Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy.

Advertisement

CONGRESS UNVEILS $900B DEFENSE BILL TARGETING CHINA WITH TECH BANS, INVESTMENT CRACKDOWN, US TROOP PAY RAISE

This year the defense budget is expected to breach $1 trillion for the first time thanks to a $150 billion reconciliation bill Congress passed to boost the expected $900 billion defense spending legislation for fiscal year 2026. Congress has yet to pass a full-year defense budget for 2026.

Some Republicans have long called for a major increase to defense spending to bring the topline total to 5% of GDP, as the $1.5 trillion budget would do, up from the current 3.5%.

The boost likely reflects efforts to fund Trump’s ambitious military plans, from the Golden Dome homeland missile defense shield to a new ‘Trump class’ of battleships. (Lockheed Martin via Reuters)

Trump has ramped up pressure on Europe to increase its national security spending to 5% of GDP – 3.5% on core military requirements and 1.5% on defense-related areas like cybersecurity and critical infrastructure.

Advertisement

Trump’s budget announcement came hours after defense stocks took a dip when he condemned the performance rates of major defense contractors. In a separate Truth Social post he announced he would not allow defense firms to buy back their own stocks, offer large salaries to executives or issue dividends to shareholders. 

“Executive Pay Packages in the Defense Industry are exorbitant and unjustifiable given how slowly these Companies are delivering vital Equipment to our Military, and our Allies,” he said. 

“​Defense Companies are not producing our Great Military Equipment rapidly enough and, once produced, not maintaining it properly or quickly.”

U.S. Army soldiers stand near an armored military vehicle on the outskirts of Rumaylan in Syria’s northeastern Hasakeh province, bordering Turkey, on March 27, 2023.  (Delil Souleiman/AFP via Getty Images)

He said that executives would not be allowed to make above $5 million until they build new production plants.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Stock buybacks, dividends and executive compensation are generally governed by securities law, state corporate law and private contracts, and cannot be broadly restricted without congressional action.

An executive order the White House released Wednesday frames the restrictions as conditions on future defense contracts, rather than a blanket prohibition. The order directs the secretary of war to ensure that new contracts include provisions barring stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance or inadequate production, as determined by the Pentagon.

Continue Reading

Politics

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Published

on

Newsom moves to reshape who runs California’s schools under budget plan

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday unveiled a sweeping proposal to overhaul how California’s education system is governed, calling for structural changes that he said would shift oversight of the Department of Education and redefine the role of the state’s elected schools chief.

The proposal, which is part of Newsom’s state budget plan that will be released Friday, would unify the policymaking State Board of Education with the department, which is responsible for carrying out those policies. The governor said the change would better align education efforts from early childhood through college.

“California can no longer postpone reforms that have been recommended regularly for a century,” Newsom said in a statement. “These critical reforms will bring greater accountability, clarity, and coherence to how we serve our students and schools.”

Few details were provided about how the role of the state superintendent of public instruction would change, beyond a greater focus on fostering coordination and aligning education policy.

The changes would require approval from state lawmakers, who will be in the state Capitol on Thursday for Newsom’s last State of the State speech in his final year as governor.

Advertisement

The proposal would implement recommendations from a 2002 report by the state Legislature, titled “California’s Master Plan for Education,” which described the state’s K-12 governance as fragmented and “with overlapping roles that sometimes operate in conflict with one another, to the detriment of the educational services offered to students.” Newsom’s office said similar concerns have been raised repeatedly since 1920 and were echoed again in a December 2025 report by research center Policy Analysis for California Education.

“The sobering reality of California’s education system is that too few schools can now provide the conditions in which the State can fairly ask students to learn to the highest standards, let alone prepare themselves to meet their future learning needs,” the Legislature’s 2002 report stated. Those most harmed are often low-income students and students of color, the report added.

“California’s education governance system is complex and too often creates challenges for school leaders,” Edgar Zazueta, executive director of the Assn. of California School Administrators, said in a statement provided by Newsom’s office. “As responsibilities and demands on schools continue to increase, educators need governance systems that are designed to better support positive student outcomes.”

The current budget allocated $137.6 billion for education from transitional kindergarten through the 12th grade — the highest per-pupil funding level in state history — and Newsom’s office said his proposal is intended to ensure those investments translate into more consistent support and improved outcomes statewide.

“For decades the fragmented and inefficient structure overseeing our public education system has hindered our students’ ability to succeed and thrive,” Ted Lempert, president of advocacy group Children Now, said in a statement provided by the governor’s office. “Major reform is essential, and we’re thrilled that the Governor is tackling this issue to improve our kids’ education.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending