Catholic hospital drops legal argument that a fetus is not a person

Catholic Health Initiatives-Iowa has dropped its argument in a medical malpractice case that the loss of an unborn child does not equate to the death of a “person” for the purpose of calculating damage awards.

The nonprofit, tax-exempt entity is one of several defendants in a Polk County malpractice case involving the death of an unborn child.

Last month, attorneys for CHI and MercyOne Des Moines Medical Center argued an unborn child should not be considered a “patient” for purposes of calculating damages in the case. They also argued that “finding an unborn child to be a ‘person’ would lead to serious implications in other areas of the law.”

That position appeared to clash with CHI’s mission statement and ethics guidelines, both of which are based on the concept that human life begins at the moment of conception.

In Iowa, court-ordered awards for noneconomic losses stemming from medical malpractice are capped at $250,000, except in cases that entail the “loss or impairment of mind or body.” Initially, CHI and MercyOne argued the cap on damages applied in cases where the “loss” was that of a fetus or an unborn child.

However, during a court hearing on Friday, an attorney for CHI and MercyOne, Christine Conover, informed the court it was withdrawing from the motion to cap damages in the case on that basis.

“We are a Catholic hospital and obviously the Catholic faith believes that life begins at conception,” Conover told Polk County District Judge Scott J. Beattie.

“To be honest, I had wondered about that stance,” Beattie told Conover, referring to the hospital’s previously filed motion seeking to cap damages. “It seemed like kind of an odd stance,” he added, noting that it seemed to contradict the position that CHI had taken in other legal matters.

In a written statement issued Friday, Bob Ritz, president and CEO of MercyOne, stated “we are heartbroken that our belief that human personhood begins at conception would ever be called into question. As a Catholic health system, the sanctity of life is not just a belief we hold; it is the foundation of every action we take.

“While the motion (to limit damages) was accurate from a purely legal standpoint, it has caused confusion and concern. That is why we have asked our counsel to withdraw the motion with respect to MercyOne. No courtroom argument should ever cast doubt on the deeply held Catholic values that guide MercyOne.

“At MercyOne, our Catholic identity is not something we set aside. It is central to who we are. It shapes how we serve and care for people in their most sacred and vulnerable moments. We are more than a health system. We are a health ministry. Our commitment to respect the dignity of every human life, from the very beginning, is unwavering. And it will continue to guide us in everything we do.”

The question of whether the cap on damages would apply in the case is still an issue for other defendants in the case, including Pella Regional Health Center.

Lawsuit stems from 2021 incident

The lawsuit involves the treatment provided to Miranda Anderson of Poweshiek County. Anderson was 34 weeks pregnant when, on April 13, 2021, she arrived at Pella Regional Health Center for evaluation due to elevated blood pressure, headaches and edema.

Citing concerns that she was experiencing preeclampsia — a condition that can lead to serious complications for both mother and baby and may require early delivery — Anderson was transferred to MercyOne’s Obstetrics Emergency Unit via ambulance.

According to the lawsuit later filed by Anderson and her husband, Landen, Miranda Anderson was discharged after two days of monitoring and testing. After further evaluations over the course of the next several days, she was again discharged to her home — until, during an April 21 evaluation, her doctor was unable to detect any fetal heartbeat. The next day, she underwent a cesarean delivery of a nonviable baby girl, Eloise.

The Andersons’ lawsuit seeks damages for negligence, alleging CHI, MercyOne and its physicians failed to recommend early delivery of the baby while it was still viable and Anderson showed evidence of preeclampsia. The defendants have denied any wrongdoing.

Citing the state’s $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in malpractice cases — a cap that was approved by state legislators in 2017 — the defendants have argued that while the cap on damages includes an exemption for cases that entail the “loss or impairment of mind or body,” that exemption should not apply to a case where a fetus or unborn child is lost.

They argue the Iowa Legislature did not intend for the loss of a baby prior to delivery to be included within the exemption. As evidence of this, they cite the fact that in 2023 — two years after the Anderson pregnancy — state lawmakers explicitly added “loss of pregnancy” to the exemption on the cap for damages.

Attorneys for Anderson argue the 2023 change was enacted merely to clarify the scope of the 2017 statute, not to expand the exemption on the caps for damages.

The case is scheduled for trial on May 12, 2025.

At Friday’s hearing, Beattie indicated he will rule on the question of damages, as well as other unresolved pretrial disputes, as quickly as possible.