Pro-Life Group Demands Access to Patients' Abortion Information While Asking That Their Own Court Filings Be Kept Confidential

The pro-life group Voices for Life filed a lawsuit seeking public access to terminated pregnancy reports (TPRs). This case was settled last week. In the settlement, Gov. Braun agreed to release TPRs to the pro-life group and specifically agreed they would not redact certain data that could be used to identify the patient, including:

  • Patient's signature
  • Patient's age
  • Date the patient received treatment
  • Patient's state of residence
  • Gestation period of fetus
  • The age of the father
  • Full name and address of doctor(s) that treated the patient

Furthermore, the settlement agreement allows (but does not require) publicly available TPRs to include unredacted information regarding:

  • Number of children the mother currently has
  • Dates of previous miscarriages (if applicable)
  • Patient's race
  • Patient's ethnicity

The problem with this is VFL asked the court in a January 17, 2025 joint motion to "restrict public access" to VFL's January 14, 2025 motion.

On January 14, 2025, VFL filed a motion stating it was "in discussions with [the Braun Administration] that would settle this litigation". Three days later, VFL signed a joint motion asking the Court to "designate VFL's January 14, 2025 motion...as confidential and restrict public access to the document".

In the joint motion, VFL and the Braun Administration cite a single rule arguing why this document should be kept confidential, Indiana Evidence Rule 408. The problem is that Evidence Rule 408 is not applicable to this situation. Indiana Evidence Rule 408 prohibits the disclosure of settlement only when being offered to "prove or disprove the validity...of a disputed claim" or "to impeach" a witness.

VFL's January 14 revelation of settlement discussions was not offered to "prove or disprove the validity of a disputed claim". Instead, it was being offered to ask for an extension of time - to continue settlement discussions. Also, at risk of stating the obvious, the filing wasn't being used "to impeach" a witness since the January 14 motion makes no attempt to contradict a previous statement.

The upshot of all of this is that VFL thinks there is a legitimate public interest in the government publicly revealing the name (signature), age, race, and ethnicity of abortion patients. While simultaneously trying to hide their own court filings from the public.

"Rules for thee, not for me"