The Backstory:

Under the rule, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) was expanded to ban protected health information (PHI) from being disclosed, if it was related to so-called “lawful reproductive health care in certain circumstances.”

It was to protect abortionists in pro-abortion states from giving information to a court or law enforcement official in another state investigating a potential violation of law.

A woman who lives in a pro-life state and is taken to a pro-abortion state to be forced into an abortion by an abuser, for example, could not be investigated under the rule. Pro-life states would also have less power to investigate out-of-state people suspected of illegally distributing abortion drugs by mail into the state.

“The new protections that my Administration is putting in place are an important step forward in our fight to protect access to reproductive health care and ensure patient privacy and peace of mind,” Biden said at the time in a statement. “By safeguarding patient information, the new rule will help health care providers give complete and accurate information to patients and improve the quality of health care.”

The Ruling:

The lawsuit was filed by ADF attorneys on behalf of Carmen Purl, M.D., who said the HHS rule could keep her from reporting the suspected abuse of a patient who may have been pressured into an abortion.

In December, Judge Kacsmaryk had issued a temporary injunction pending the outcome of the lawsuit, just one day before the rule was set to take effect. That decision, however, only exempted Purl from the rule; this week’s ruling blocks the rule nationwide.

Kacsmaryk ruled in favor of Purl, saying that the Biden administration “invoked HIPAA as a shield against abortion-restrictive states.”

Kacsmaryk said that, under the rule, HHS was attempting to protect politicized procedures only, adding that HIPAA does not allow HHS to “distinguish between types of health information to accomplish political ends.”

Commentary:

ADF director of regulatory practice Matt Bowman praised the ruling in a press release.

“As the court rightly found, doctors and states should be able to protect patients from abuse,” he said. “This unlawful rule change would have weaponized laws about privacy that have nothing to do with abortion or gender identity.”

He added, “The Biden administration attempted to undermine state laws that protect mothers and unborn children from the harms of abortion, and vulnerable children from dangerous and sterilizing procedures like puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and life-altering surgeries.”

Under the rule, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) was expanded to ban protected health information (PHI) from being disclosed, if it was related to so-called “lawful reproductive health care in certain circumstances.”

It was to protect abortionists in pro-abortion states from giving information to a court or law enforcement official in another state investigating a potential violation of law.

A woman who lives in a pro-life state and is taken to a pro-abortion state to be forced into an abortion by an abuser, for example, could not be investigated under the rule. Pro-life states would also have less power to investigate out-of-state people suspected of illegally distributing abortion drugs by mail into the state.

“The new protections that my Administration is putting in place are an important step forward in our fight to protect access to reproductive health care and ensure patient privacy and peace of mind,” Biden said at the time in a statement. “By safeguarding patient information, the new rule will help health care providers give complete and accurate information to patients and improve the quality of health care.”

The Ruling:

The lawsuit was filed by ADF attorneys on behalf of Carmen Purl, M.D., who said the HHS rule could keep her from reporting the suspected abuse of a patient who may have been pressured into an abortion.

In December, Judge Kacsmaryk had issued a temporary injunction pending the outcome of the lawsuit, just one day before the rule was set to take effect. That decision, however, only exempted Purl from the rule; this week’s ruling blocks the rule nationwide.

Kacsmaryk ruled in favor of Purl, saying that the Biden administration “invoked HIPAA as a shield against abortion-restrictive states.”

Kacsmaryk said that, under the rule, HHS was attempting to protect politicized procedures only, adding that HIPAA does not allow HHS to “distinguish between types of health information to accomplish political ends.”

Commentary:

ADF director of regulatory practice Matt Bowman praised the ruling in a press release.

“As the court rightly found, doctors and states should be able to protect patients from abuse,” he said. “This unlawful rule change would have weaponized laws about privacy that have nothing to do with abortion or gender identity.”

He added, “The Biden administration attempted to undermine state laws that protect mothers and unborn children from the harms of abortion, and vulnerable children from dangerous and sterilizing procedures like puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and life-altering surgeries.”

Cassy Cooke