Texas Judge Overturns Biden’s Abortion Privacy Rule

A federal judge appointed by former President Trump has overturned parts of a 2024 regulation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that aimed to enhance privacy protections for reproductive health information, including abortion and gender-affirming treatments. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, serving in the Northern District of Texas, determined that the rule exceeded HHS’s authority under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Kacsmaryk argued that while HIPAA allows for the protection of identifiable health information, it does not grant HHS the right to create regulations that specifically protect politically sensitive topics such as abortion and gender transition. He stated, “HHS lacks the authority to issue regulations that enact heightened protections for information about politically favored procedures.”

This rule was introduced following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, modifying HIPAA to prevent healthcare providers from sharing reproductive health data with law enforcement in legal contexts. A right-wing legal group, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), initiated the lawsuit against the regulation on behalf of a Texas physician and her clinic. ADF praised the ruling, asserting that it would prevent the misuse of privacy laws in ways unrelated to abortion or gender identity.

Matt Bowman, the ADF’s director of regulatory practice, said, “This unlawful rule change would have weaponized laws about privacy that have nothing to do with abortion or gender identity.” The organization contended that the Biden administration sought to undermine state laws meant to protect mothers and children from significant health risks associated with abortion and certain gender-affirming treatments.

In his ruling, Kacsmaryk emphasized that the regulation interfered with healthcare providers’ duty to disclose critical information in cases of child abuse and public health investigations, exceptions clearly defined under HIPAA. He pointed out that healthcare providers must navigate complex legal landscapes regarding abortion and gender identity to determine the lawfulness of care provided.

Kacsmaryk also noted that the ruling intruded on state authority to enforce laws relating to child welfare and public health. He referred to an opinion from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, categorizing specific gender-affirming treatments for minors as child abuse under Texas law. “States like Texas can have capacious definitions of their own child abuse or public health laws,” Kacsmaryk commented.

Moreover, Kacsmaryk applied the “major questions doctrine,” arguing that regulatory agencies cannot address politically significant issues without explicit congressional approval. He concluded that HIPAA does not permit HHS to create special protections for controversial medical procedures.

“People of good faith vehemently disagree on both these issues,” Kacsmaryk wrote, addressing the emotional and philosophical implications surrounding these subjects. Therefore, he asserted that until legislative representatives address these matters, agencies should refrain from making rules on issues of substantial political significance.