(The Washington Stand) Abortionists are going to court in an effort to block the Hoosier State from publishing abortion statistics. Earlier this month, the Indiana Department of Health (IDOH) agreed to publish Termination of Pregnancy Reports (TPRs) in response to a lawsuit from the organization Voices for Life. However, abortionists Caitlin Bernard and Caroline Rouse quickly filed a lawsuit and, in an emergency hearing last week, requested a temporary restraining order to halt the publication of TPRs.
Bernard and Rouse claimed that making TPRs publicly accessible jeopardizes the privacy of their “patients.” The abortionists said in a statement prior to the hearing, “There is no reason to release this sensitive information to the public. We will keep fighting to protect patient privacy and the trust between doctors and patients.” In 2023, Bernard was sanctioned by the Indiana State Medical Board and fined $3,000 for violating federal and state privacy laws after sharing a 10-year-old girl’s medical records with media outlets, allowing the child to be identified.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
According to the provisions stipulated in the agreement between IDOH and Voices for Life, a TPR includes information on when a woman sought an abortion, her age, the state she lives in, the abortion facility, the “type of abortion” that was carried out, the date that the abortion was committed, the abortionist’s full name and address, the unborn baby’s estimated gestation stage, the reason an abortion was sought, and, when dealing with a minor, whether or not parental consent was obtained. When possible, a TPR should also include the unborn baby’s sex, whether or not the unborn baby has been diagnosed with a condition such as Down syndrome, whether or not the baby was delivered alive, and if the baby was delivered alive how long he lived, maternal death records, and other information.
In comments to The Washington Stand, Thomas More Society Executive Vice President Thomas Olp explained that TPRs help “to ensure that abortions are performed ‘only under the authorized provisions of the law’ and to gather information that will foster ‘improvement of maternal health and life.’” He added that “citizens have a role in overseeing compliance with Indiana law,” which outlaws abortion in most cases. “The abortion doctors, who filed the current lawsuit to block public access, have always been identified in publicly available TPRs, and they offer no good reason why that policy is unfair or should be changed now,” Olp explained. He added, “We look forward to fighting this lawsuit in court to protect continued public access to TPRs in Indiana.”
In a memorandum opposing the abortionists’ request for a temporary restraining order, attorneys with the Thomas More Society argued that Bernard’s and Rouse’s “expressed fear that the IDOH’s release of TPRs will compromise patient privacy is unsupported by evidence and based on sheer speculation.” The attorneys continued, “If the TPR were a patient record, one would be able to look at the TPR and determine the identity of the patient. This cannot be done because the TPR does not identify the patient; it is not a patient medical record.” They added, “And the argument that the information contained in the TPR might be combined with other information in a way that could lead to a violation of patient privacy is based on sheer speculation. The TPR requirement has been a feature of Indiana law for decades.”
Thomas More Society attorneys also refuted Bernard’s disingenuous claim that filling out a TPR form is what led to the identity of the 10-year-old girl becoming public. “But Dr. Bernard was not disciplined for fulfilling her statutory duty to complete a TPR. Dr. Bernard was disciplined for disclosing specific facts about a highly unusual case to a news reporter who, in turn, broadcast that information in such a way that the reporter effectively crowd-sourced the effort to identify Dr. Bernard’s patient,” the attorneys wrote. They added, “Dr. Bernard’s egregious conduct provides no basis for classifying the TPR, which is a report, as a patient medical record, which it is not.”
Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand, “The abortion industry will do everything it can to exploit women — including trying to prevent states like Indiana from having proper records of abortions.” She explained, “These state records could be used to try to reduce the number of abortions in Indiana by addressing the reasons stated for the abortion. As this will undoubtedly impact abortionists’ bottom line, it is not shocking that they are suing to block the reporting.”
Tweet This: The abortion industry will do everything it can to exploit women—including trying to prevent states from having proper records of abortions
“This is just another example of the abortion industry operating in darkness and trying their hardest to hide all the evil they do,” Szoch concluded.
Editor's note: This article was published by The Washington Stand and is reprinted with permission.
