Chamorro v. Dignity Health (Religious Refusals)

  • Filed: 12/28/2015
  • Status: Closed
  • Court: Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco
  • Latest Update: Dec 28, 2015
Placeholder image

Chamorro v. Dignity Health is a case that challenges religious refusals of reproductive health care to patients.

The ACLU and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP filed a lawsuit against Dignity Health for the hospital chain’s use of religious directives to deny basic reproductive health care to its patients. Filed on behalf of patient Rebecca Chamorro and Physicians for Reproductive Health, the suit argues that withholding pregnancy-related care for reasons other than medical considerations is illegal in California.

Chamorro, a patient at Mercy Medical Center in Redding, decided with her doctor that she would get a tubal ligation during her scheduled C-section in late January. But the hospital refused her doctor’s request to perform the procedure, citing religious directives that classify sterilization procedures as “intrinsically evil.” The refusal creates a clear conflict between the best interests of patients and the directives written by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Catholic hospital chains have rapidly expanded over the past 15 years and their interference with the doctor-patient relationship presents a real threat to women’s ability to access basic healthcare across the country.

On April 25, 2022, the trial court ruled that the California law on when hospitals could deny sterilizations permitted hospitals to deny tubal ligations based on religious reasons. However we were able to obtain information during the case that revealed the extent to which Dignity Health permits religious rules to interfere with medical decision making.

Case Developments

[RULING]April 25, 2022[/RULING] Statement of Decision from the Court.

[FILING]September 13, 2021[/FILING] Respondent's Post-Hearing Response Brief.

[FILING]September 13, 2021[/FILING] Petitioners' Post-Hearing Response Brief.

[FILING]August 6, 2021[/FILING] Respondent's Post-Hearing Opening Brief.

[FILING]August 6, 2021[/FILING] Petitioners' Post-Hearing Opening Brief.

[FILING]May 5, 2021[/FILING] Respondent's Reply Brief, Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate.

[FILING]May 5, 2021[/FILING] Petitioners' Reply Brief, Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate.

[FILING]October 7, 2020[/FILING] Respondent's Open Brief, Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate.

[FILING]October 7, 2020[/FILING] Petitioners' Open Brief, Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate.

[FILING]March 1, 2017[/FILING] Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate.

[FILING]April 27, 2016[/FILING] Read the CMA Intervention Complaint.

[FILING]April 27, 2016[/FILING] Read the Memo of Points & Authorities in Support of CMA's Motion for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention.

[FILING]March 2, 2016[/FILING] Read the amended complaint.

[FILING]December 28, 2015[/FILING] Read the complaint.

Case Number:
CHC 15-549626
Pro Bono Firm:
Covington & Burling LLP

How "evil" is getting your tubes tied, really?

Rebecca Chamorro’s doctor said yes. Her hospital said no.

By Ruth Dawson

Placeholder image

Related News & Podcasts

News & Commentary
Jan 20, 2016
Placeholder image
  • Gender, Sexuality, & Reproductive Justice Project

How "evil" is getting your tubes tied, really?

Rebecca Chamorro’s doctor said yes. Her hospital said no.