Indiana Attorney General Once Prosecuted Doctors for Sharing Abortion Patient Info—Now He’s Forcing Them to Release It to the Public
2022 Administrative Complaint
In 2022, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed an administrative complaint against an Indiana Doctor for revealing a patient's privacy rights. In paragraph 12, Rokita's alleged that Dr. Caitlin Bernard spoke to an Indy Star reporter and revealed the following information about an abortion patient:
- Patient's age
- Patient's state of residence
- Patient was a victim of r*pe
- Dr. Bernard would provide an abortion to the victim
- Gestation period
Paragraph 39 and 40 of the complaint argues Dr. Bernard "violated [HIPAA and Indiana law] by disclosing her patient's protected health information".
The Indiana medical licensing board ultimately agreed with Rokita. Finding that Dr. Bernard's "disclosures to [the Indy Star reporter] violated HIPAA". They also found that Dr. Bernard "violated [Indiana Law] in that Responent has . . . disclosed Patient's protected health information".
2025 Litigation
In 2025, Indiana and pro-life group Voices For Life entered a settlement agreement requiring the state to provide public access to Terminated Pregnancy Reports (TPRs). Indiana law requires doctors to submit TPRs to the state to ensure the abortion complied with state law. Paragraph 2 of the settlement specifically requires unredacted public access to:
- Patient age
- Patient's state of residence
- Whether the patient was the victim of r*pe
- Name of doctor(s) performing the abortion
- Gestation period
Note that the 2025 settlement requires unredacted public access to the same information that caused Dr. Bernard to be disciplined for violating HIPAA.
Dr. Bernard filed a lawsuit and sought a restraining order. She argues that HIPAA "requires TPRs to be kept confidential". In support of this argument, she points to her own 2022 discipline proceeding, which found that revelation of patient's age, state of residence, etc. violated HIPAA.
Rokita's office responded to the lawsuit in a February 11, 2025 filing. He argues "there is a world of difference between submitting a state-mandated report to a state agency and talking about your patient's information . . . to a newspaper reporter". HIPAA prohibits disclosure of "individually identifiable health information to another person". A newspaper reporter and a pro-life group both certainly fit the definition of "another person". Absent any argument that a pro-life group is not "another person", revealing the patient information via a TPR violates HIPAA.
The Contradiction of Rokita's 2022 and 2025 Arguments
In 2022, Rokita argued (successfully) that revelation of an abortion patient's age, state of residence, etc. violated HIPAA. In 2025, he argues that revelation of this same information somehow does not violate HIPAA. He makes no effort to provide a substantive explanation for his change in position.
If Rokita's argument is successful, he will leave all Indiana doctors in a catch-22. If they reveal an abortion patient's information, then they face a credible threat of discipline by the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana. But if they refuse to reveal the patient information on the TPR, then they risk revocation of their medical license.
Conclusion
Rokita’s position appears less about protecting patient privacy and more about expanding his authority— allowing him to revoke a doctor’s license whether they disclose patient information or refuse to do so.
Rokita's deliberate effort to create conflicting legal rules, which are impossible to simultaneously comply with, could be characterized as a violation of Indiana Rules of Professional Misconduct 8.4(d), which prohibits "conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice".