A federal judge in Texas has ruled that the Biden administration likely exceeded its authority by issuing a regulation aimed at strengthening privacy protections for women seeking abortions and for patients undergoing gender transition treatments. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, appointed by former President Donald Trump, issued a preliminary injunction on Sunday, blocking the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from enforcing the rule against Texas physician Dr. Carmen Purl, who challenged its legality with the support of the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.
The rule, introduced in April 2024 by HHS, was part of President Joe Biden’s broader effort to protect access to reproductive healthcare following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which had established a constitutional right to abortion for nearly five decades. The regulation aimed to safeguard medical privacy, particularly in Republican-led states like Texas that have imposed strict abortion bans and sought to limit out-of-state travel for the procedure. President Biden emphasized at the time that no one’s medical records should be used against them, their doctor, or loved ones for seeking lawful reproductive healthcare.
However, Judge Kacsmaryk, known for his controversial rulings, including a 2023 decision suspending the FDA’s approval of the abortion medication mifepristone, sided with Dr. Purl. The doctor argued that the regulation unlawfully expanded privacy laws in a way that could be misused. Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Julie Marie Blake praised the ruling, claiming that the Biden administration had “weaponized” privacy laws unrelated to abortion or gender identity.
HHS has not commented on the decision, but reproductive rights advocates have strongly criticized the ruling. Liz Taylor, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, called the lawsuit “shameful” and part of a broader attempt to deter individuals from seeking essential reproductive healthcare. The ruling reflects the growing tensions in a polarized legal landscape, where the federal government’s attempts to ensure reproductive rights are clashing with efforts by conservative states and groups to restrict them.
As the legal battle continues, the fate of the privacy rule—and the broader rights it seeks to protect—remains uncertain, leaving patients and healthcare providers caught in the crossfire of deeply divisive political and legal debates.
