Abortionist Caitlin Bernard, who committed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim and then exploited that victim to the press, has dropped a lawsuit she had filed against Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita.
The move is the latest in the back-and-forth saga that has unfolded since Bernard went public with her abortion on the young girl, who had traveled to Indiana from her home state of Ohio. Rokita launched an investigation into Bernard after learning that she may have gone to the press before alerting the authorities about the young rape victim. He also claimed that Bernard violated patient privacy laws in publicly detailing the girl’s situation.
Bernard then sued Rokita and filed an emergency motion in an attempt to stop him from accessing her patient records. Last week a judge denied that motion and ruled that Rokita could continue his investigation, but also deferred the case to the Medical Licensing Board. However, the judge also admonished Rokita for revealing that he was investigating Bernard.
Though the judge denied Bernard’s request and allowed the investigation to continue, Bernard’s legal team is framing their drop of the lawsuit as a win. “With today’s voluntary dismissal, we preserve our victory in court proving that the Attorney General violated Indiana law by publicly discussing the details of an investigation into Dr. Bernard which he was statutorily required to keep confidential at that stage,” said Kathleen DeLaney, Bernard’s attorney. “We are now shifting all our attention to the complaint Mr. Rokita has filed against Dr. Bernard with the Medical Licensing Board.”
Rokita’s office views the withdrawal as a win for the AG, as the investigation of Bernard is allowed to continue.
“Her decision to withdraw her suit less than a week after our win in court is further confirmation that she was putting her political agenda above the privacy and safety of her 10-year-old patient,” said a spokesperson for Rokita’s office. “At the same time any of the court’s extraneous verbiage about the attorney general’s comments didn’t have legal value as the court itself acknowledged.”