The Indiana State Department of Health is seeking dismissal of a lawsuit filed against it by anti-abortion groups over related records.
The lawsuit in question was filed in May. Voices for Life aims to restore access to pregnancy termination reports (TPRs) that are no longer made public by state health departments.
IDOH’s general counsel filed a motion to dismiss on June 21, arguing that Voices for Life has “failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” The anti-abortion group has until July 23 to file a response.
Story continues below.
Notes that support MTD
Ryan Shouse, an attorney with the Indianapolis-based law firm Lewis & Wilkins, emphasized in the motion that “legally” the TPR is “confidential” under Indiana’s Open Public Records Act, also known as APRA.
“APRA provides everyone with the right to inspect and copy IDOH’s public records,” Schaus wrote, but noted that APRA does have exceptions.
He said that the patient’s medical records and charts prepared by the health care provider ” [the general rule of disclosure] They will not be disclosed by a public agency unless access to them is specifically required by state or federal law or ordered by a court under discovery rules….”
IDOH demands dismissal
Moreover, Schaus argues that the TPRs kept by IDOH meet the statutory definition of a “medical record” and are therefore exempt from APRA’s application.
According to Indiana law, a “medical record” includes three elements: written or printed information, information in the possession of a health care provider, and information relating to a patient’s diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis.
Shouse stated that TPR meets all three requirements. His motion noted that Indiana law specifically requires that:
- Fetal and maternal diagnosis codes for abortions performed before 20 weeks
- Medical Reasons for Abortion
- Gestational age and information used to determine gestational age
- Results of pathology examination (if performed)
- Fetal Disorder Diagnosis
- the mother’s pre-existing medical condition, and
- Maternal obstetric history
Additionally, the law requires that details of the procedure itself be laid out, including the exact medications that will be used for non-surgical abortions.
“This is patient-specific medical information used to diagnose and treat an individual patient,” Shouse said. “In other words, TPRs fit perfectly within Indiana’s definition of a ‘medical record’ because they are written records created and maintained by health care providers and contain a patient’s individualized diagnostic and treatment information. Applying this straightforward definition, IDOH properly withheld TPRs pursuant to APRA’s medical records exception.”
Background of the lawsuit
IDOH and state Health Commissioner Dr. Lindsay Weaver are currently being represented by the Indianapolis-based law firm Lewis & Wilkins. Not an in-house lawyer for Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office..
of South Bend-based group “Voices for Life” They are suing IDOH after the agency stopped releasing individual TPRs while still compiling statewide public data quarterly, a procedural change that went into effect in December.
Attorney General Denies Indiana Health Department Request for Outside Counsel in Abortion Records Lawsuit
Previously, the reports had been redacted but routinely made public under Indiana’s open records law.
The lawsuit, filed in Marion County Superior Court, Rokita accused IDOH and the Indiana Public Access Counselor of “collusion.” And TPR issued a non-binding advisory opinion that is of public record.
In the past, anti-abortion groups have used the reports to file medical license challenges against certain doctors for procedural issues, such as late filing of TPRs.
After Indiana’s near-total abortion ban went into effect, the state health department changed its policies and the number of abortions performed by health-care providers dropped significantly. State health officials were concerned that information in the report could indirectly identify women who had undergone abortions, so they asked Indiana Public Access Counselor Luke Britt to decide.
Britt agreed that the report “could potentially be reverse engineered to identify cases, particularly in smaller communities.”
He believed that the required quarterly aggregate data reporting was sufficient to satisfy disclosure and transparency considerations. Britt further noted that physician-generated notes are medical records that fall within the provider-patient relationship.
Britt’s ruling is also non-binding.
As of now, no trial date has been set for the TPR lawsuit. After Voices for Life files its response, it will be up to a judge to decide on the motion to dismiss.
Get morning headlines delivered to your inbox
