A federal judge in Texas has issued a ruling that casts doubt on the Biden administration’s authority to enforce a rule aimed at enhancing privacy protections for individuals seeking abortions and gender transition treatments. The decision by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, appointed by former President Donald Trump, temporarily blocks the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from enforcing the rule against a Texas physician, Carmen Purl, who challenged it as unlawful.
The judge’s ruling, issued Sunday, prevents HHS from requiring Purl to comply with the regulation, which was slated to take effect by Monday. The rule, introduced by the Biden administration in April, was part of the administration’s broader effort to ensure reproductive healthcare access in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, which had previously established abortion access as a constitutional right nationwide.
The rule, which is grounded in HHS’s authority under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), aims to prevent healthcare providers and insurers from disclosing information about legal abortions to state law enforcement authorities who may seek to penalize individuals involved in abortions or gender-affirming care. Specifically, the rule was designed to protect medical records from being used against patients or healthcare providers in states with restrictive abortion laws, such as Texas.
Judge Kacsmaryk, who is known for his controversial rulings, including his 2023 suspension of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone, ruled in favor of Purl, who argued that the regulation could prevent her from reporting suspected abuse, particularly in cases where patients might be coerced into seeking an abortion or minors might be scheduled for gender-affirming treatments in violation of state law.
Julie Marie Blake, an attorney representing Purl from the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, praised the ruling, calling it a victory for states’ rights to regulate abortion and gender-related medical procedures. “The court rightly ruled that this unlawful rule change would have weaponized laws about privacy that have nothing to do with Abortion Ban or gender identity,” Blake said.
The Biden administration, through HHS, has not yet commented on the ruling. However, it stands by the rule, which was designed to safeguard patient privacy amid the increasing number of restrictions imposed by conservative state governments. HHS officials have emphasized that the rule does not prevent doctors from reporting abuse or cases involving minors but instead aims to protect medical records from being misused by law enforcement seeking to punish individuals for legal reproductive healthcare.
Liz Taylor, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, condemned the lawsuit challenging the rule, calling it part of a broader effort to intimidate individuals seeking reproductive care. “This is about keeping people’s health information private and protected,” Taylor said. “Anti-abortion extremists want to eviscerate every protection left for patients who need an abortion.”
The decision by Judge Kacsmaryk could have significant implications for the future of abortion-related privacy protections, especially as legal battles over reproductive rights continue to unfold across the country. As the lawsuit proceeds, the case is expected to spark ongoing debates about the scope of federal authority in protecting patient privacy and access to reproductive health services.
Read more: