Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A Marion County judge has extended the temporary restraining order preventing the Indiana Department of Health from disclosing certain terminated pregnancy reports that are exempt under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants in Caitlin Bernard, M.D., Caroline Rouse, M.D. v. Indiana State Health Commissioner, Voices for Life, Inc. presented their arguments during a preliminary injunction hearing on Wednesday.
On Feb. 7, Dr. Caitlin Bernard and Dr. Caroline Rouse filed a lawsuit against the health department and the anti-abortion nonprofit, Voices for Life, Inc., after the latter two reached a settlement over the terminated pregnancy reports. In the settlement, the health department agreed to release individual reports with redactions to protect patients’ identities.
But Bernard and Rouse argue the public redacted reports still reveal enough information to identify patients who had an abortion.
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgement from the court stating that the reports submitted to the health department are exempt from disclosure under the Access to Public Records Act, and that the act does not authorize the health department to grant members of the public access to the reports.
At the crux of the argument is determining whether these reports are classified as medical records and are therefore exempt from public access because they contain personal health information.
Attorneys for the defendants argued Wednesday that these reports are public record and can be likened to death certificates, as in the case Indiana Supreme Court in Evansville Courier & Press v. Vanderburgh County Health Dept. In the case, the Indiana Supreme Court held that a death certificate was a public record because it was made to provide information to public officials.
But the plaintiffs argue these reports contain too much personal information that could threaten the privacy and safety of both patients and doctors performing the abortions.
Under updated requirements for completing the reports, doctors must include the medical indication by diagnosis code for the mother and fetus. These codes, known worldwide as the International Classification of Diseases, could make women seeking abortions identifiable by people who know their diagnosis, the plaintiffs’ attorneys argued.
Other information included in these reports are the name of the doctor, why the patient is seeking an abortion, and the patient’s county and state of residence.
When the attorneys for defendants questioned how the release of the reports was any different from abortion doctors giving interviews to the media, both plaintiffs testified Wednesday that the interviews focus on abortion in a public health context, without getting into patient specifics. By releasing the reports to the public, the plaintiffs said they feel their patients are less likely to trust doctors.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys ultimately asked the judge to order an extended preliminary injunction to prevent the public release of reports until the case is complete.
Ultimately, the judge extended for a second time the temporary restraining order placed on Feb. 19 that prevents the health department from releasing the reports as public record. This latest extension expires on March 24, though the judge could come back with an order enacting a preliminary injunction.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.