Texas judge strikes down federal health privacy rule for legal abortion care

[RandySF]

A 2024 federal rule that shielded reproductive health information from disclosure to law enforcement when care was legally obtained, such as in another state with abortion access, was struck down by a federal judge in Texas on Wednesday evening.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas’s decision applied nationwide, nullifying the rule immediately. Kacsmaryk had temporarily blocked its enforcement against Dr. Carmen Purl, who sued HHS because she said the rule created a conflict with the laws requiring her to report child abuse.

“Striking down this critical rule is cruel,” said Maddy Gitomer, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, in an emailed statement. “The 2024 HIPAA Privacy Rule has helped protect pregnant people and health care providers from invasive government intrusion into private medical information.’’

The rule did not allow disclosure of protected health information for criminal, civil or administrative investigations against any person for the mere act of seeking, obtaining, or facilitating reproductive health care, to impose criminal or civil liabilities for that conduct, or to identify the person involved in seeking or obtaining that care. It also applied to gender-affirming care.





https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/texas-judge-strikes-down-federal-health-privacy-rule-legal-abortion-care

[Attilatheblond]

1. So, women have lost their rights under HIPAA?

Hmmmm

While I recognize the seriousness of need for judges to be safe in their homes, not doxxed for that reason and all, what about WOMEN being at risk? There have already been too many instances of violence against women and care givers. How is reproductive health information something law enforcement needs?

We have federal agents hiding faces and IDs to protect them. The result has been violence and questionable abductions. What does this judge think is possible when LEOs get private health care information? Not all real cops operate within the law; some are on their own personal moral crusades.

[Mister Ed]

2. Kacsmaryk. Of course.

A rogue judge who'll rubber-stamp anything on the Fascist wish list, the law be damned.

[Bettie]

3. Yep, knew it was him before

I even opened the post.

[edhopper]

4. To be shortly put on hold

By a Circuit Court.

[Volaris]

5. We're gonna all get to have a good laugh when the SC Garcia decision comes back

If they slap down this nationwide injunction issue, the magas are gonna have a whole-ass conniption fit; it'll mean no more of this judge-shopping bullshit out of Texas.
If it stands, fine, they can have their phyrric victory, and then every single district decision against Trump and his miscreants will hold nationwide, and they can scream their fool bloody heads off about THAT.
Either way, we get to point and laugh.