Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed a lawsuit representing a Texas doctor against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) over recent changes that restrict doctors’ ability to protect patients from abortion, abuse and harmful gender transition procedures.

“Doctors and states should be able to protect patients from abuse,” said Julie Marie Blake, senior counsel with ADF. “The Biden-Harris administration’s unlawful rule weaponizes laws about privacy that have nothing to do with abortion or gender identity. The rule undermines 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.”

In April of this year, HHS made changes to the Privacy Rule—a provision under HIPAA that sets standards for the circumstances under which an individual’s private health information can be shared without his or her consent, for purposes such as law enforcement, court order or public health concerns.

The rule changes restrict disclosure of private health information relating to reproductive health care, muddling states’ ability to enforce their laws against elective abortion and dangerous gender transition procedures for children. Also, the definitions of person, individual, child and victim categorically exclude unborn children, making it so that threats to the health and safety of unborn children cannot be disclosed.

ADF attorneys represent Carmen Purl, a physician who believes that elective abortion and gender-transition procedures are harmful, and who is required under state law as well as personal conviction to report suspected cases of abuse or neglect of vulnerable patients, which sometimes includes information relating to patients’ reproductive systems. For instance, ADF states that the changes “arguably would prevent Dr. Purl from reporting information about a patient being pressured to undergo an abortion … or about minors under the age of 17 having a sexually transmitted disease, or about minors undergoing or being scheduled for ‘gender transition’ interventions.” Purl desires to be able to protect her patients from abuse and safeguard mothers and children—including unborn children—under her care without facing legal and financial repercussions.

ADF requested that the court declare the rule changes unlawful and prohibit HHS from enforcing them, issue a preliminary injunction for Purl and her clinic while the case is pending and grant Purl and her clinic relief for attorneys’ fees and costs and any other necessary relief.

“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs resoundingly affirmed that states—not unelected bureaucrats—should set abortion policy and be free to protect unborn life,” Blake added.

Photo: Adobe Stock