A 2024 federal rule that shielded reproductive health information from disclosure to law enforcement when care was legally obtained, such as in another state with abortion access, was struck down by a federal judge in Texas on Wednesday evening.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas’s decision applied nationwide, nullifying the rule immediately. Kacsmaryk had temporarily blocked its enforcement against Dr. Carmen Purl, who sued HHS because she said the rule created a conflict with the laws requiring her to report child abuse.
“Striking down this critical rule is cruel,” said Maddy Gitomer, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, in an emailed statement. “The 2024 HIPAA Privacy Rule has helped protect pregnant people and health care providers from invasive government intrusion into private medical information.’’
The rule did not allow disclosure of protected health information for criminal, civil or administrative investigations against any person for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, or facilitating reproductive health care, to impose criminal or civil liabilities for that conduct, or to identify the person involved in seeking or obtaining that care. It also applied to gender-affirming care.
Two other cases challenging the same rule are still pending in federal courts in Tennessee and Missouri, but it’s unclear what Kacsmaryk’s decision means for those cases, or another Texas lawsuit led by Attorney General Ken Paxton that also seeks to strike down a broader 2000 privacy rule.
Former Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration added the rule to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, a 30-year-old federal law meant to protect patient health information, especially when that information travels between providers. The law contains exceptions for when information can be disclosed to investigators, who can subpoena records for a law enforcement matter. After the 2022 Dobbs decision returned abortion regulation to the states, prompting more than a dozen to pass abortion bans, advocates worried that such records could be used by state officials and law enforcement to investigate and prosecute patients seeking an abortion and those who help them.
Lauren Paulk, senior research counsel for If/When/How, a nonprofit that provides legal support for reproductive health care, told States Newsroom on Wednesday evening that people are still protected by the federal HIPAA law, including the foundational 2000 privacy law that requires certain procedural steps to be met before records can be subpoenaed. The 2024 rule was meant to provide reassurance to patients who are afraid to seek abortion or gender-affirming care, even where it is legal, by specifically exempting those records.
Kacsmaryk’s decision, she said, will erode trust between patients and providers and potentially damage that relationship. And it could be a sign of more actions to come.
“There’s a laundry list of things that I think could start to be added here whenever the courts are saying there really aren’t protections for private reproductive health information,” Paulk said.
Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization, filed a filed a motion to intervene earlier in the case on behalf of the cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin, because attorneys said they no longer had faith that the U.S. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services would adequately defend the law under Republican President Donald Trump’s administration. Kacsmaryk denied that motion to intervene, and Democracy Forward appealed that decision to the 5th U.S. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeal is pending.
“Vacating this regulation will be detrimental to the privacy rights of pregnant people across the country, and will interfere with the ability of healthcare providers and patients to communicate confidentially and openly about a patient’s health needs,” Gitomer said.
Gitomer said Democracy Forward will continue to explore all of its options to defend reproductive rights from “political interference and anti-abortion extremists.”
Conservative law firm Alliance Defending Freedom represented doctor in Texas judge’s district
Purl is the sole owner of Dr. Purl’s Fast Care Walk In Clinic in Dumas, Texas. In court documents, she said:
“I consider both a pregnant woman and her unborn child to be human persons, and both are entitled to medical care and deserve the protection of the law. I believe … that elective abortions harm patients’ health and public health.”
The location of Purl’s clinic put her in Kacsmaryk’s district, where he is the only judge. Most federal cases are assigned randomly to a group of judges in a district, but since Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, is the sole jurist, some advocates and attorneys have accused law firms like Alliance Defending Freedom, who is representing Purl in the case, of “judge shopping.” That phrase refers to finding a plaintiff in a certain area for the purpose of putting it in front of an ideologically friendly judge.
In an earlier high-profile case, Kacsmaryk attempted to order the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to rescind its decades-old approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate early pregnancies and treat miscarriages. That decision was eventually returned by the U.S. Supreme Court to a lower court for consideration.
Officials in Texas have already attempted to investigate women who left the state, which has a near-total abortion ban and other abortion-related laws, to terminate a pregnancy.
In a 65-page opinion, Kacsmaryk said the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ leadership under Biden “invoked HIPAA as a shield against abortion-restrictive states.” He determined the rule unlawfully limited disclosures about abuse and public health to state authorities, and said it exceeded statutory authority because it employed HIPAA to impose special rules for abortion. Such action should only be taken by Congress, he said, especially because the issues at hand are of major political significance.
“People of good faith vehemently disagree on both these issues,” Kacsmaryk wrote, referring to abortion and gender-affirming care. “These issues transcend politics, implicating anthropology, philosophy, and concepts of self. … The 2024 rule creates special rules for information about these politically favored procedures that implicate fundamental and hotly debated questions.”
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Texas judge strikes down federal health privacy rule for legal abortion care )
Also on site :