Boom—another Biden administration overreach gets slapped down by a Texas federal judge! Late Wednesday, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo struck a decisive blow against a rule that sought to shield medical records tied to legal abortions and gender-affirming care.
The Hill reported that Judge Kacsmaryk overturned a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation that aimed to expand privacy protections under HIPAA for certain reproductive health information, blocking its enforcement across the nation.
Let’s rewind to last April when HHS rolled out this controversial rule. It was crafted in response to fears that, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, patients traveling for legal abortions or other reproductive care might have their medical data hunted down by state law enforcement.
The rule barred health care providers and insurers from handing over records related to legal abortions if the intent was to punish someone.
Fast forward to late last year, when Judge Kacsmaryk first put a temporary hold on this rule. He did so specifically for a Texas doctor, Carmen Purl, who filed a lawsuit claiming the regulation was an arbitrary power grab by HHS. Purl argued it violated the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding statutory limits.
Then came Wednesday’s bombshell ruling, where Kacsmaryk didn’t just limit his decision to Texas—he blocked the rule nationwide. This Trump-appointed judge has become a thorn in the side of Biden-era policies, often stepping in to halt what many conservatives see as federal oversteps.
Speaking of the rule, Judge Kacsmaryk didn’t mince words, accusing HHS of using HIPAA as a “shield against abortion-restrictive states.” That’s a polite way of saying the feds were playing favorites with certain medical procedures. For those of us skeptical of government meddling, it’s refreshing to see a judge call out this kind of selective rule-making.
Kacsmaryk went further, criticizing the rule for protecting what he called “politically preferred procedures.” Let’s be real—if the government can cherry-pick which health data gets extra protection based on political hot buttons, where does it stop? This ruling reminds HHS that laws like HIPAA aren’t tools for advancing ideological goals.
In another sharp jab, Kacsmaryk stated that “HIPAA doesn’t give HHS the power to play politics with health information.
Translation: federal agencies don’t get to rewrite the rulebook just because they don’t like certain state laws. It’s a principle that resonates with anyone who values checks and balances.
The judge also noted how the rule created “special rules” for controversial topics that stir deep national debate. When unelected bureaucrats start carving out exceptions for hot-button issues, it’s no wonder folks on the right cry foul. This decision pushes back against what many see as an attempt to sidestep democratic debate.
Meanwhile, Texas isn’t done fighting this battle. The state has a separate lawsuit pending in federal court in Lubbock, challenging the same HHS regulation. The Lone Star State isn’t backing down when it comes to protecting its authority over local matters.
Adding another layer, HHS itself seems to be in limbo on this issue. In a court filing last month, the agency hinted that the incoming Trump administration is reassessing its stance on the case. That’s a signal this fight might take yet another turn depending on future leadership.
Stepping back, this ruling isn’t just about one regulation—it’s about the bigger question of federal power. Many conservatives, and frankly anyone wary of government overreach, see Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision as a stand for constitutional limits against a Biden administration often accused of stretching its authority.
Critics of the rule, including many on the right, argue it was less about privacy and more about undermining states’ rights to enforce their laws. After all, if a state believes it has to investigate certain activities, should a federal agency be able to tie its hands with selective privacy carve-outs?
On the flip side, supporters of the HHS rule likely view this as a setback for patient confidentiality, especially for women navigating a post-Roe landscape.
While their concerns about personal data deserve a fair hearing, the core issue remains whether HHS overstepped its legal bounds—a question Kacsmaryk answered with a resounding “yes.”