Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has dropped a lawsuit against Indiana University Health (IUH), which he had claimed violated patient privacy laws when an employee informed the press about a 10-year-old rape victim who traveled from Ohio to Indiana for an abortion.
The suit alleged that Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an abortionist and IUH employee, violated HIPAA, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and a state law, for not protecting patient information after she went public with the story that she had helped the young girl receive an abortion after she traveled from Ohio for the procedure. Bernard was investigated for her actions, though IUH ultimately cleared her of any violations. The state Medical Licensing Board, however, found that Bernard had violated the young girl’s privacy by talking to the media about the abortion.
Rokita said the decision to drop the lawsuit was reached after IUH agreed to several actions, including specific employee training and the stipulation that if employees are contacted by a reporter, they must inform the hospital’s public relations or communications departments before responding. “We are pleased the information this office sought over two years ago has finally been provided and the necessary steps have been taken to accurately and consistently train their workforce to protect patients and their health care workers,” Rokita said in a statement.
READ: Planned Parenthood and abortionist linked to two deaths want court to weaken Indiana abortion law
However, according to the Associated Press, IUH has maintained that it always had such practices in place, and it is “disappointed” that Rokita is mentioning that corrective actions were taken.
“IU Health has and will continue to maintain its robust HIPAA compliance policies and training for its team members, as it has for years,” a statement from the hospital system said. “While we are pleased the Indiana Attorney General’s office voluntarily moved to dismiss the case, we are disappointed the state’s limited taxpayer resources were put toward this matter after the first complaint was dismissed by the Court on the merits.”
