Harmonie Perrone's third ectopic pregnancy should have been straightforward to manage. She had survived two before, knew the protocol, and lived in Illinois, a state where abortion is legal and protected. But when she arrived at Advocate Good Shepherd hospital with severe pain and bleeding, she was turned away without the standard treatment.
Perrone, 28, is now suing the hospital and an obstetrician-gynecologist for denying her methotrexate, the medication that stops ectopic pregnancies. The delays in care cost her the use of one fallopian tube and her ability to conceive naturally, she says in the lawsuit filed Monday.
The case exposes a gap in protections even in states considered safe havens for reproductive health. Despite Illinois law requiring hospitals to provide emergency care regardless of religious affiliation, religiously affiliated facilities can effectively impose their own restrictions, legal advocates say.
"What is so shocking about her situation is that it happened in a state where abortion is supposed to be among the most protected, where it is supposed to be the most accessible," said Molly Duane, litigation director of Amplify Legal, which is involved in Perrone's case.
When Perrone felt familiar symptoms, she knew time mattered. She had lost her right fallopian tube during her first ectopic pregnancy but managed to save her left tube during a second pregnancy by getting methotrexate quickly. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends the drug be administered as soon as possible, since complications can develop within hours.
At Advocate Good Shepherd, she was never seen by a doctor. Staff performed ultrasounds that revealed a mass on her left fallopian tube, then sent her home with an appointment for the next day at an outside clinic. That clinic visit became her second denial of care.
"I was crying my eyes out," Perrone recalled. "I wanted to get methotrexate. I knew that this was the standard practice."
She said the doctor at the clinic, identified as Dr. Dympna Coll, refused to give her the drug. According to Perrone, Coll suggested there was a 1 percent chance a viable pregnancy existed and said she would not be "bullied" into performing the treatment, even when Perrone invoked her legal right to abortion care under Illinois law.
Neither Advocate Good Shepherd nor Coll responded to requests for comment.
Desperate and increasingly fearful, Perrone went to another clinic, then to a second hospital. More than 24 hours after first seeking care, she finally received methotrexate. But the delay had already set events in motion.
Six days later, at a work meeting, Perrone felt intense pain. She knew what was happening. At the second hospital, surgeons found her fallopian tube already rupturing as they operated. She lost her remaining fertility.
"When they were opening me up, my tube was already rupturing. That was the end of my fertility," she said. "I believe if she had gotten methotrexate even hours earlier, her tube could have been saved."
Under Illinois law, ectopic pregnancy is explicitly classified as an acute medical condition requiring emergency stabilization. The state's Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which allows providers to refuse certain treatments based on religious or moral grounds, does not apply to emergency care. Federal law also requires hospitals to screen and stabilize emergency patients or transfer them.
"A hospital under federal law as well as state law has to both screen the patient and either stabilize them or to transfer them," said Allison Siebeneck, director of the Women's and Reproductive Rights Project at the ACLU of Illinois, which is supporting Perrone's lawsuit. "This is what makes sense in an emergency. You can't just say: 'OK, bye.'"
Legal complaints have been filed under both state law and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.
The ordeal has extended beyond the loss of her fertility. After Perrone shared her story on TikTok, where her videos went viral, Coll sued her for defamation. Now Perrone faces a choice between silence and legal battle.
She and her husband spent years trying to have a biological child. That dream is now gone. While in vitro fertilization remains an option, the cost and emotional burden feel insurmountable after the repeated trauma.
"If I save, and I maybe open a credit card and I go and do this for myself and it doesn't work, that's another letdown," she said. "I don't want to go through that again. That's a lot of hope to be crushed over and over and over again."
The relationship with her husband has strained under the weight of the losses. "He wants to have a family with me, and I can't give him that," she said.
The case underscores a vulnerability in reproductive protections even in states with strong legal safeguards. Patients traveling to Illinois from abortion ban states expect emergency care they cannot get at home. But whether they receive that care can depend entirely on which hospital's doors they walk through.
"These rights are protected under law," said Siebeneck. "You absolutely have the right to go into any hospital emergency room in the state and receive emergency medical care. But whether or not they are able to can depend on which hospital they walk up to."
Author James Rodriguez: "This case reveals the limits of state-level protections when religious hospital systems answer to no one but themselves."
Comments