Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowAn Indiana board decided Thursday night to reprimand an Indianapolis doctor after finding that she violated patient privacy laws by talking publicly about providing an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim from neighboring Ohio.
The state Medical Licensing Board voted that Dr. Caitlin Bernard didn’t abide by privacy laws when she told a newspaper reporter about the girl’s treatment in a case that became a flashpoint in the national abortion debate days after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer.
The board, however, rejected accusations from Indiana’s Republican attorney general that Bernard violated state law by not reporting the child abuse to Indiana authorities. Board members chose to fine Bernard $3,000 for the violations, turning down a request from the attorney general’s office to suspend Bernard’s license. The board issued no restrictions on her practice of medicine.
Bernard has consistently defended her actions, and she told the board on Thursday that she followed Indiana’s reporting requirements and hospital policy by notifying hospital social workers about the child abuse—and that the girl’s rape was already being investigated by Ohio authorities. Bernard’s lawyers also said that she didn’t release any identifying information about the girl that would break privacy laws.
The Indianapolis Star cited the girl’s case in a July 1 article that sparked a national political uproar in the weeks after last summer’s Roe v. Wade decision put into effect an Ohio law that prohibited abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Some news outlets and Republican politicians falsely suggested Bernard fabricated the story, until a 27-year-old man was charged with the rape in Columbus, Ohio. During an event at the White House, President Joe Biden nearly shouted his outrage over the case.
Medical board President Dr. John Strobel said he believed Bernard went too far in telling a reporter about the girl’s pending abortion and that physicians need to be careful about observing patient privacy.
“I don’t think she expected this to go viral,” Strobel said of Bernard. “I don’t think she expected this attention to be brought to this patient. It did. It happened.”
Bernard’s lawyer Alice Morical told the board Thursday that the doctor reported child abuse of patients many times a year and that a hospital social worker had confirmed with Ohio child protection staffers that it was safe for the girl to leave with her mother.
“Dr. Bernard could not have anticipated the atypical and intense scrutiny that this story received,” Morical said. “She did not expect that politicians would say that she made the story up.”
Amid the wave of attention to the girl’s case last summer, Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, who is stridently anti-abortion, told Fox News he would investigate Bernard’s actions and called her an “abortion activist acting as a doctor.”
Deputy Attorney General Cory Voight argued Thursday that the board needed to address what he called an “egregious violation” of patient privacy and Bernard’s failure to notify Indiana’s Department of Child Services and police about the rape.
“There’s been no case like this before the board,” Voight said. “No physician has been as brazen in pursuit of their own agenda.”
Voight asked Bernard why she discussed the Ohio girl’s case with the newspaper reporter and later in other news media interviews rather than using a hypothetical situation.
“I think that it’s incredibly important for people to understand the real-world impacts of the laws of this country about abortion,” Bernard said. “I think it’s important for people to know what patients will have to go through because of legislation that is being passed, and a hypothetical does not make that impact.”
Board member Dr. Bharat Barai opposed finding that Bernard violated privacy laws, saying that she released no direct protected identifying information such as the girl’s name or address. He disagreed with the board majority’s view that the combination of information about the rare instance of a pregnant 10-year-old girl could have exposed her identity.
“We are trying to suppose that yeah this could have been done and maybe somebody could have discovered it,” Barai said.
During Thursday’s hearing lasting some 13 hours, Rokita’s office kept up a running commentary on its official Twitter account, with one post saying: “When Bernard talked about the high priority she puts on legislation and speaking to the public, she did so at the expense of her own patient. This shows where her priorities are as an activist rather than a doctor.”
Bernard objected to Voight saying her choice to publicly discuss the case led to the misconduct allegations.
“I think if the attorney general, Todd Rokita, had not chosen to make this his political stunt we wouldn’t be here today,” Bernard said.
Lawyers for the attorney general’s office repeatedly raised questions about whether the policy of Bernard’s employer, Indiana University Health, to report suspected child abuse to authorities in the state where the abuse occurred complied with Indiana law. Officials of IU Health, which is the state’s largest hospital system, testified that the Indiana Department of Child Services has never objected to the hospital policy.
The Indiana board—with five doctors and one attorney present who were appointed or reappointed by Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb—had wide latitude under state law allowing it to issue reprimand letters or suspend, revoke or place on probation a doctor’s license.
Ohio’s law imposing a near-ban on abortion was in effect for about two months, before being put on hold as a lawsuit against it plays out. Indiana’s Republican-dominated Legislature approved a statewide abortion ban weeks after the Ohio girl’s case drew attention, but abortions have continued to be permitted in the state while awaiting an Indiana Supreme Court decision on the ban’s constitutionality.
Bernard unsuccessfully tried to block Rokita’s investigation last fall, although an Indianapolis judge wrote that Rokita made “clearly unlawful breaches” of state confidentiality laws with his public comments about investigating the doctor before filing the medical licensing complaint against her.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
So when will Rotika be brought before the State Licensing board and called to the carpet for going on a national television program and accusing Dr. Bernard of failure to report and lying about a 10-year-old having to get an abortion in Indiana because of Ohio’s law? When will he be fined or charged? It won’t happen because, in Indiana, there are two sets of standards.
His charges stuck because they were accurate. Bernard reported the issue out of sequence and therefore completely screwed up priorities she was aware of. She decided that the rape of a minor was less important than the chance to grandstand and make abortion even more of a hot-button issue. Her thirst for calling out Ohio’s abortion laws superseded the immediate concern of the victimization of a little girl, who temporarily became a prop in her activism.
It doesn’t make Rokita less of an ass, nor does it make Dr. Bernard’s ethical lapse and more or less egregious. The fact that she fled to Illinois hints that she knew she did wrong. Hopefully she learned her lesson and (next time–if there is a next time) will prioritize a crime, which is what it was first and foremost, instead of trying to call attention to herself and the differences in state laws that she doesn’t like.
A more accurate headline might be “Doctor Vindicated of Trumped-Up Political Charge; Board Divided Over ‘Reprimand’”
The Indiana Supreme Court Ethics Committee has a complaint against Attorney General Todd Rokita about his behavior in office over the same issue. When will that hearing happen ?
It has probably already happened and been officially swept under the rug. Remember, anything and everything is OK as long as you are a Republican elected official. There are no professional standards, no enforcement, no accountability. And because of voter suppression, there is little recourse at the ballot box, either.
Outrageous decision against this outstanding Doctor whom other states would love to have. Her so-called public reporting
did not disclose the name of the patient. This is nothing but a trumped up political stunt.
She sent a raped 10-year-old back to live with the rapist while using the child as a prop to draw attention to abortion laws in Ohio. It was a crime before it was an abortion scandal. She treated it like the reverse.
It was very, very poor judgment. Not judgment enough for her to lose her license, and yes, the child’s abortion was justified.
But the propaganda swirl that makes her look persecuted is ludicrous. She gets a reprimand and a fine equivalent to many people’s annual deductible. She’ll be just fine.
My reasoning on this has proven more or less right on target.
Sad commentary of Indiana politics and in particular Rokita’s DeSantisian ambitions. Regardless of how you personally feel about abortion we should all question a “violation” of privacy laws when no identifying information (other than she is female and an Ohioan) has ever been shared by anyone.
Please understand the Medical Licensing Board is a politically appointed body, and this judgement is an embarrassment to the medical community.
Unanswered Questions:
1. What specifically and how specifically did Dr. Bernard violate both Indiana and Federal primacy laws?
2. Is the medical licensing board of Indiana the ultimate authority of those privacy laws to adjudicate a privacy question?
3. The Indy Star ran an article recently which raised the possibility of conflict of interest of many of the licensing board members because of campaign contributions to Rokita. If true, should those members have recused themselves from this case?
4. What recourse is available to Dr. Bernard to clear her name if she really did not violate privacy laws?
5. I would think that a court of law (State and/or Federal) should adjudicate this issue of privacy.
6. This should be a case for the ACLU for everyone in the medical profession. This will no be the last case when potential political issues unfortunately gets tangled up in sensitive medical issues.
+ 6 Phillip
IBJ is at least a couple of articles behind on this issue. IndyStar had a great article leading up to the hearing regarding the member on the medical board bring up the potential conflict of interest issue. Today, an interesting article how the national response to this and the case that there was NO breaching of patient confidentiality.
The business of health is complex and multi-dimensional. It is more than just the dollars and sense of business. We, citizens of Indiana have been short changed by the State on so many levels including having a robust infrastructure of health care beyond the private sector. There seems to be more investment in road construction than anything remotely resembling improving health. Just consider the fight over the funding of the recent public health initiative. This was not even completely funded as requested. Even completely funded that initiative is no way near what our State needs especially as compared to any other State even in the Midwest.
Of course, my simple solution would be to fire all of the member of the current medical licensing who, if I am not mistaken, were appoint by our current Republic Governor and let appoint new physicians with better skill and knowledge take over the board. Of course, who am I to decide, since it appears that the board is constructed based on the political whims of our Governor based on laws of our State. Citizens of Indiana, another reason you are on your own when it comes to healthcare!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How can I contribute to Dr Benard’s legal and other fees as she fights this injustice created by Rokita and continued by the politically-appointed board?
Hey Todd… how do you spell justice? (hint: KenPaxton)
There are no legal fees; there’s no litigation unless she wishes to challenge the fine levied against her for her breach of ethics.
Given that she fled to Illinois after the action, the appearance of her behavior is not that of one who expects to challenge the medical board’s charge further.
However, it was probably much worse to the rape victim, who Caitlin allowed to return to her rapist while she grandstanded over what she believed was the overly stringent abortion laws in Ohio. In the end, this merely amounts to a lapse in professional judgment.
Caitlin is lucky the family of the rape victim is absolute criminal trash–if the girl had a caring mother, she could easily sue her. But since the mother of the 10-year-old new her illegal immigrant boyfriend was raping her daughter (he impregnated momma too, IIRC), it’s not likely Caitlin will face litigation. And hopefully the little girl has found a better guardian.
Caitlin is paying a $3K fee. She’s a doctor. She’ll manage. She’s already working again.