Dr Caitlin Bernard (left) is suing Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (right), accusing him of ‘overreach’ in an investigation he opened into her practice (Picture: AP/Reuters)
The doctor who provided an abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim filed a lawsuit against the Indiana attorney general, claiming his office overreached in trying to access her patients’ files.
Dr Caitlin Bernard and her partner, Dr Amy Caldwell, are suing Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita to end his investigation into their practice.
In July, Bernard made national headlines when she revealed she treated a 10-year-old rape victim who had to travel across the border from Ohio to receive an abortion.
The victim was referred to Bernard’s practice in Indianapolis by a child abuse physician in Ohio. They worried that she would not receive care at an in-state facility, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in June.
Ohio law bans all abortions after a so-called ‘fetal heartbeat’ can be detected – usually within 5-6 weeks of pregnancy. The law makes no exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
Bernard faced an intense backlash, with some conservative commenters and media outlets even insisting her story was false, until an Ohio grand jury indicted a 27-year-old man in Columbus for the crime on July 21.
Indiana Attorney General Rokita announced he was investigating Bernard and her practice for ‘failing to report’ her patient’s rape to law enforcement.
‘We are investigating this situation and are waiting for the relevant documents to prove if the abortion and/or the abuse were reported, as Dr. Caitlin Bernard had requirements to do both under Indiana law,’ Rokita stated on July 14. ‘The failure to do so constitutes a crime in Indiana, and her behavior could also affect her licensure. Additionally, if a HIPAA violation did occur, that may affect next steps as well. I will not relent in the pursuit of the truth.’
As part of his investigation, Rokita began issuing subpoena asking for patient medical records to determine if the doctor had violated any laws.
However, Bernard had reported her patient’s rape on July 2 – well within the three-day period required by Indiana law.
The lawsuit also alleges that Rokita’s investigation is based on false or invalid consumer complaints filed against her practice by out-of-state individuals who were never treated at her practice in Indianapolis.
The lawsuit attached several complaints that it says could easily be identified as false. Many of the complainants could not fill out the street address, phone number, or email address for Bernard’s practice. One complainant even listed her own phone number in the complainant section.
For documentation, most of these complaints repeated the later disproven assertion that Bernard had not reported her patient’s rape to authorities. Most do not appear to come from Bernard and Caldwell’s patients, and there complaints are based on ‘rumor, hearsay, or speculation,’ the lawsuit states.
‘As a citizen of Ohio I feel that this misinformation (aka LIE) harmed my State’s image AND is a malicious act intended to harm people such as myself that hold a pro-life position,’ one complaint states.
Others were much less articulate. One simply reads: ‘doctor did not report rape of 10 year brought to indy [sic] from Ohio foe [sic] abortion.’ According to the lawsuit, this particular complaint did not even identify Bernard as the subject of the complaint.
‘Even if the complaints were not facially invalid, there were simple steps available to the Attorney General and the Director to help determine whether the complaints had merit,’ the lawsuit states. ‘Had the Attorney General taken reasonable steps to evaluate the consumer complaints, through the Director or otherwise, on the basis of publicly available information, he would have seen that Dr Bernard dutifully reported the incident and worked with law enforcement officials.’
Rokita’s office claimed that most consumer complaints they investigate come from nonpatients.
‘A majority of the complaints we receive are, in fact, from nonpatients,’ Rokita’s press secretary Kelly Stevenson said on Thursday. ‘Any investigations that arise as a result of potential violations are handled in a uniform manner and narrowly focused.’
Barnhart and Caldwell are seeking temporary or permanent injunction to end Rokita’s investigation and prevent the attorney general from subpoenaing patient medical records.
‘The attorney general’s overreach in seeking these irrelevant medical records poses a significant threat to patient privacy and the confidentiality of medical records,’ the plaintiffs stated.
Got a story? Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at [email protected]. Or you can submit your videos and pictures here.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
Follow Metro.co.uk on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news updates. You can now also get Metro.co.uk articles sent straight to your device. Sign up for our daily push alerts here.
Dr Caitlin Bernard (left) is suing Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita (right), accusing him of ‘overreach’ in an investigation he opened into her practice (Picture: AP/Reuters)
The doctor who provided an abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim filed a lawsuit against the Indiana attorney general, claiming his office overreached in trying to access her patients’ files.
Dr Caitlin Bernard and her partner, Dr Amy Caldwell, are suing Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita to end his investigation into their practice.
In July, Bernard made national headlines when she revealed she treated a 10-year-old rape victim who had to travel across the border from Ohio to receive an abortion.
The victim was referred to Bernard’s practice in Indianapolis by a child abuse physician in Ohio. They worried that she would not receive care at an in-state facility, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in June.
Ohio law bans all abortions after a so-called ‘fetal heartbeat’ can be detected – usually within 5-6 weeks of pregnancy. The law makes no exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
Bernard faced an intense backlash, with some conservative commenters and media outlets even insisting her story was false, until an Ohio grand jury indicted a 27-year-old man in Columbus for the crime on July 21.
Indiana Attorney General Rokita announced he was investigating Bernard and her practice for ‘failing to report’ her patient’s rape to law enforcement.
‘We are investigating this situation and are waiting for the relevant documents to prove if the abortion and/or the abuse were reported, as Dr. Caitlin Bernard had requirements to do both under Indiana law,’ Rokita stated on July 14. ‘The failure to do so constitutes a crime in Indiana, and her behavior could also affect her licensure. Additionally, if a HIPAA violation did occur, that may affect next steps as well. I will not relent in the pursuit of the truth.’
As part of his investigation, Rokita began issuing subpoena asking for patient medical records to determine if the doctor had violated any laws.
However, Bernard had reported her patient’s rape on July 2 – well within the three-day period required by Indiana law.
The lawsuit also alleges that Rokita’s investigation is based on false or invalid consumer complaints filed against her practice by out-of-state individuals who were never treated at her practice in Indianapolis.
The lawsuit attached several complaints that it says could easily be identified as false. Many of the complainants could not fill out the street address, phone number, or email address for Bernard’s practice. One complainant even listed her own phone number in the complainant section.
For documentation, most of these complaints repeated the later disproven assertion that Bernard had not reported her patient’s rape to authorities. Most do not appear to come from Bernard and Caldwell’s patients, and there complaints are based on ‘rumor, hearsay, or speculation,’ the lawsuit states.
‘As a citizen of Ohio I feel that this misinformation (aka LIE) harmed my State’s image AND is a malicious act intended to harm people such as myself that hold a pro-life position,’ one complaint states.
Others were much less articulate. One simply reads: ‘doctor did not report rape of 10 year brought to indy [sic] from Ohio foe [sic] abortion.’ According to the lawsuit, this particular complaint did not even identify Bernard as the subject of the complaint.
‘Even if the complaints were not facially invalid, there were simple steps available to the Attorney General and the Director to help determine whether the complaints had merit,’ the lawsuit states. ‘Had the Attorney General taken reasonable steps to evaluate the consumer complaints, through the Director or otherwise, on the basis of publicly available information, he would have seen that Dr Bernard dutifully reported the incident and worked with law enforcement officials.’
Rokita’s office claimed that most consumer complaints they investigate come from nonpatients.
‘A majority of the complaints we receive are, in fact, from nonpatients,’ Rokita’s press secretary Kelly Stevenson said on Thursday. ‘Any investigations that arise as a result of potential violations are handled in a uniform manner and narrowly focused.’
Barnhart and Caldwell are seeking temporary or permanent injunction to end Rokita’s investigation and prevent the attorney general from subpoenaing patient medical records.
‘The attorney general’s overreach in seeking these irrelevant medical records poses a significant threat to patient privacy and the confidentiality of medical records,’ the plaintiffs stated.
Got a story? Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at [email protected]. Or you can submit your videos and pictures here.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
Follow Metro.co.uk on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news updates. You can now also get Metro.co.uk articles sent straight to your device. Sign up for our daily push alerts here.
