On the 22nd of January, 2025, Indiana’s Gov. Mike Braun took action by signing several executive orders in his office at the Statehouse. Among these was a significant directive targeted at a procedure fundamental to the state’s Department of Health; the order mandated a reevaluation of a policy on Terminated Pregnancy Reports (TPRs) which upheld their confidentiality. This policy, firmly in place since the legislative establishment of the state’s almost total prohibition on abortion, implemented in August 2023, was now under scrutiny.
Two Indiana physicians have responded to this development by submitting an appeal to a judge in Indianapolis. Their request aimed at thwarting the Indiana Department of Health’s intention to expose a substantial collection of state abortion records which had previously been considered confidential. The determination of this case sits with Marion Superior Judge James Joven, who has set a hearing to deliberate the request this Tuesday.
The petitioner physicians, Dr. Caitlin Bernard and Dr. Caroline Rouse, seek a temporary restraining order against the state health agency. They assert that the Terminated Pregnancy Reports (TPRs) are sensitive medical records involving patients, thus, must be protected from public exposure. The doctors highlight Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act which, according to them, excludes such records from release.
Dr. Bernard and Dr. Rouse argue that the shift in policy led by GOP Gov. Mike Braun contradicts their position. They point out that past official conclusions, both from a Marion County judge and the state’s public access counselor, reinforced their claim. Even the Department of Health under the previous Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb had concurred that TPRs do not qualify as publicly accessible records.
Recent events have challenged this consensus. The efforts of another prominent Republican figure, Attorney General Todd Rokita, backed by an executive order from Gov. Braun have initiated a significant policy shift. Marking a substantial victory for South Bend-based anti-abortion group Voices for Life, Rokita endorsed their request to release the TPRs which had initially been denied.
In the wake of this contested decision, the physicians request that the judge upholds the confidentiality of TPRs under both state and federal law. They also request a prohibition on further dissemination of such documents, along with a mandate obligating Voices for Life to destroy or return any received TPRs. The cause to protect patient privacy fuels their legal move, emphasizing the sanctity of personal health decisions, pregnancy outcomes, and trust in the doctor-patient relationship.
Attorney General Todd Rokita presents an opposing standpoint. He argues that there is public interest in the release of TPRs. In his perspective, organizations like Voices for Life can utilize the data to verify the compliance of Indiana abortion providers with state law, affirming the importance of public scrutiny.
Indiana’s strict abortion law, known as Senate Enrolled Act 1, instituted in 2022, outlines extensive data reporting requirements for hospitals. Healthcare institutions are obligated to gather and impart more than 30 categories of information on each abortion case to the state. This dataset encompasses the patient’s demographic profile, pregnancy characteristics, legal grounds for the abortion, and data about the medical professional performing the procedure.
Despite these comprehensive data collection requirements, patient identifiers such as names are excluded from the TPRs. Nevertheless, state officials warn of the potential for misuse. They caution that the aggregation of such a broad range of information, combined with the limited number of abortions performed in Indiana, could potentially be manipulated to reverse-engineer patient identities.
They further underscore that the risk is notably higher in smaller communities where anonymity is inherently more challenging to maintain. Consequently, department officials have previously deemed it essential that TPRs maintain their confidentiality status. The implications of this ongoing legal battle could have significant effects on patient privacy and the right to healthcare in the state.