The Indiana Supreme Court issued\u2064 a reprimand of\u2063 the \u2062state\u2019s conservative attorney general<\/a> on\u2062 Thursday for comments\u200d he made about an abortionist \u2064during a July \u20632022\u2062 Fox News interview. While the public reprimand may not seem like\u200d a big deal, it is. It represents yet another example of the weaponization of state\u2064 bars.<\/p>\n

On Thursday, \u200dthe Indiana \u200cSupreme Court issued\u200b a six-page opinion in a disciplinary complaint docketed as \u201cIn the Matter of Theodore\u200b E. Rokita.\u201d Rokita, who goes by Todd, is the state\u2019s Republican attorney\u200b general. <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n

As \u2063the Indiana Supreme Court\u2019s opinion explained, on July 13, 2022, Rokita \u201cappeared on a national television program<\/a> \u200dto discuss \u2064an\u2064 Indiana \u200cphysician who \u2062had performed an abortion on a ten-year-old rape victim from Ohio.\u201d That appearance,\u2064 on Jesse Watters\u2019 Fox News program, followed a \u2062public outcry over \u2063abortionist Caitlin Bernard\u2064 publicly discussing an abortion she\u200b had \u200bperformed on a 10-year-old rape\u200d victim.<\/p>\n

Bernard\u2019s disclosure of her patient\u2019s private medical information<\/a> seemed \u2064a transparent attempt to influence Indiana\u2019s abortion law. It came mere weeks before the Indiana General \u200dAssembly prepared for a special session to consider enacting measures to protect the \u200cunborn in the \u2064wake of Roe<\/em>\u2019s reversal.<\/p>\n

The Indianapolis Star included details of the abortion in a July 1 pro-abortion piece that\u2063 opened with \u200ca vignette\u200d Bernard had relayed to a Star reporter \u200bat an abortion rally<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n
On\u2062 Monday three days after\u00a0the\u200d Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to \u2064overturn Roe \u2064v. Wade<\/em>, Dr.\u200b Caitlin \u200bBernard, an\u2062 Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call \u200dfrom a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.<\/p>\n
Hours\u200d after the Supreme Court action, \u2063the\u2064 Buckeye state had outlawed \u2063any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office \u200dwho was six weeks and three days pregnant.<\/p>\n
Could Bernard help?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
After noting that such abortions were still legal \u2063in\u2062 Indiana, the Star reported that \u201cthe girl \u200dsoon was\u2063 on\u2063 her way to Indiana to Bernard\u2019s care.\u201d <\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
Left unsaid was that the girl was raped\u2062 by her mother\u2019s boyfriend and that the victim\u2019s mother then\u200b took her\u2064 young daughter to Indiana for the abortion.<\/p>\n
Bernard finished her story by noting, \u201cIt\u2019s hard to imagine that in just a few short\u2063 weeks we will \u2062have no \u2062ability to provide that care.\u201d <\/p>\n
The Indianapolis \u2062Star\u2019s story set off a firestorm, prompting questions about whether Bernard had reported the rape\u2064 to state officials, as\u200b required. During the ongoing public debate, Rokita appeared with Jesse \u2063Watters, with the Fox\u200d News host noting \u2062that Bernard had \u201ca legal requirement to\u200b report\u2063 the abortion \u200dto both child services\u2063 and the state\u2019s health\u2064 department.\u201d \u201cFrom what we can find out so far,\u201d Watters continued, \u201cthis Indiana\u200c abortion doctor has covered \u2062this up.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cFailure to report is nothing new, though,\u2063 for Dr. Bernard. According to \u200breporting from PJ Media, \u200dshe has a \u200chistory of failing\u2062 to report child abuse cases.\u201d Watters then queried, \u201cSo, is a \u2062criminal charge next? And\u200c will Dr.\u2064 Bernard lose her license?,\u201d before saying, \u201cLet\u2019s ask the Indiana attorney general, Todd Rokita.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
Rokita responded: \u201cWe\u2062 have the rape. And then we have this abortion activist acting\u200c as a \u200ddoctor \u2014 \u2062with \u200da history\u200d of failing to report. So, we\u2019re\u2062 gathering the information. We\u2019re gathering the evidence as we speak,\u200b and we\u2019re going to fight \u2064this to\u2063 the \u2062end, including looking at her licensure if she failed to report. In\u2062 Indiana,\u2063 it\u2019s a crime for, to not report \u2014 to \u2062intentionally not report.\u201d<\/p>\n
After the segment ran, the former dean\u2064 of Indiana University\u2019s \u200claw school, Lauren Robel, and \u200ca former executive director of the disciplinary commission, filed complaints against Rokita, claiming he violated the state\u2019s rules\u200c of professional responsibility governing attorneys. <\/p>\n
The state \u200bof Indiana would later file an administrative complaint against Bernand, claiming she violated patient privacy\u2063 law and failed to report the \u2062rape in a timely fashion. On \u200bJune 27, 2023, the Indiana Medical\u2062 Licensing Board found<\/a> Bernard had committed three violations of patient-privacy law by discussing\u2062 the details of the 10-year-old\u2019s abortion, but \u2062found no violation\u200d of the reporting law. The board\u200c reprimanded Bernand and fined\u200c her $3,000.<\/p>\n
Less than\u2063 three \u200cmonths later, the Indiana \u2062Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission issued a \u200bcomplaint against \u2064Rokita. It claimed his appearance on Fox News violated \u2062the\u2062 rules of professional \u2064conduct because he should have\u200b known they would\u2062 \u201chave \u2062a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding,\u201d and because his comments had no purpose other \u200bthan to \u201cembarrass,\u200c delay, or burden a third person\u2026\u201d The\u200b disciplinary\u2063 complaint also charged that the attorney general\u2019s conduct was\u200b \u201cprejudicial to the administration of justice.\u201d<\/p>\n
Rather than fight the charges, Rokita entered \u200cinto a conditional agreement with the commission, admitting that his statement that Bernard was an \u201cabortion activist acting as a doctor \u2014 with a \u2063history of failing to report,\u201d constituted\u200b attorney misconduct, with the parties\u2063 agreeing\u2064 to a public reprimand as discipline. <\/p>\n
On Thursday, the \u200cIndiana Supreme Court entered an opinion concluding that branding Bernard an \u201cabortion activist acting as a doctor \u2014 with a history of failing to report,\u201d violated the governing rules \u2064of professional \u2063conduct because the AG sought to \u201cembarrass, delay, \u2062or burden\u201d the abortionist. The opinion similarly concluded that Rokita should have known his comments would have \u200ba \u201csubstantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter.\u201d The Indiana \u200cSupreme Court then agreed by a 3-2\u200d vote to publicly reprimand \u200dRokita. \u2064He was also fined $250.<\/p>\n
Two of\u200b the Indiana Supreme Court justices dissented, saying they \u201cwould \u2063reject the conditional agreement, believing the discipline to be too\u200d lenient based on the\u200c Respondent\u2019s position as Attorney \u2062General and \u200bthe scope and breadth of the admitted misconduct.\u201d<\/p>\n
If \u2062one of\u200b the three\u200c Indiana Supreme Court justices had voted with the dissent,\u200b the state\u2019s attorney general could have\u200b faced a suspension from practicing law for, as Rokita \u2062 put<\/a> it after Thursday\u2019s opinion came out,\u200b his \u201ctruthful 16-word answer.\u201d <\/p>\n
And that should\u2063 chill conservatives\u200b \u2014 \u2062for it\u200d is conservative lawyers facing the brunt of the weaponization of the bar, whether it be former Assistant Attorney General Jeff<\/a> Clark<\/a>, Texas Attorney\u2064 General Ken Paxton<\/a>, or former\u200b law professor John \u200b Eastman<\/a>.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
\u200b rnrn <\/p>\n
How does the weaponization of state bars’ power to impose disciplinary actions on attorneys based on political considerations\u200d threaten free\u2063 speech<\/a> \u2062and open discourse within the legal profession<\/h2>\n
Explaining that she wanted\u200c to\u2063 share it in order to highlight the importance \u2064of access\u2064 to safe\u200b and \u2062legal abortion services for young girls.\u2063 However, her decision to disclose confidential medical information and use it as a political tool garnered criticism and sparked a public debate.<\/p>\n
In response to Bernard’s actions, Attorney General Rokita appeared on Fox News \u2064to\u200d discuss the case. During the interview,\u2062 he\u200d expressed his concerns about Bernard’s disclosure of private medical information and questioned her motives \u2062behind it. Rokita’s comments were seen as \u2062an attempt to\u2062 shed\u200c light \u200bon\u2063 the ethical implications of using a sensitive case for political gain.<\/p>\n
The \u2063Indiana\u2064 Supreme Court’s reprimand of Attorney General Rokita raises several important issues regarding the \u200cstate bar’s involvement in disciplinary actions. While\u200b the \u200bcourt acknowledged that Rokita’s comments were inappropriate and potentially violated certain rules of professional conduct, \u2063they\u200b also noted that the public\u200b reprimand was not the appropriate\u2064 remedy \u200bfor \u200chis \u200cconduct.<\/p>\n
This decision \u200dhighlights the \u200cgrowing trend of\u200d state bars\u2062 weaponizing their power to impose \u200ddisciplinary actions on attorneys \u200bbased on political considerations. Instead of \u2063focusing on the actual violation of\u2064 professional conduct rules, these actions seem to \u2063be driven by a desire to silence opposing viewpoints and \u2063punish \u200dattorneys \u200cfor expressing their opinions.<\/p>\n
The weaponization of state \u2063bars poses a threat to the \u2064fundamental \u2063principles of \u200bfree\u200b speech and open discourse.\u200d Attorneys, like any other professionals, should be allowed to express\u2062 their opinions without fear of reprisal \u200bor professional consequences. When disciplinary actions are used as a \u200dmeans to suppress dissent or control the\u200b narrative, \u200bit undermines the integrity\u2064 of the legal profession and erodes the public’s trust in \u2062the\u200c legal system.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, \u2064the reprimand of Attorney General Rokita sends \u200ca concerning message \u2063that attorneys can be \u200dpunished for expressing opinions\u200b that may be deemed politically\u200c incorrect or \u2063unpopular. This not only\u200c stifles the diversity of thought \u200cwithin the legal profession but also undermines\u200b the principle of zealous advocacy, which is a cornerstone \u2063of our justice system.<\/p>\n
It is\u2062 crucial\u200b that disciplinary actions against\u200c attorneys \u200care based on objective \u200cand fair criteria, \u200brather\u2064 than political considerations. The legal profession plays a vital role in upholding the rule \u2063of law and protecting individual rights, and attorneys should be allowed to fulfill their duty without fear of\u200c professional\u200c repercussions for\u200d expressing their\u2062 opinions.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, the \u200dreprimand\u200c of Attorney General Rokita by the Indiana Supreme Court highlights the concerning trend of state\u200b bars weaponizing\u2063 their power to impose disciplinary actions based \u2063on political considerations. This undermines the principles of free speech\u2063 and open discourse, as well as the integrity of the legal profession.\u200d It\u2062 is imperative for the\u200d legal \u2062community to uphold the values of objectivity, fairness, and diversity\u2062 of thought in order to maintain the \u2064public’s trust and \u2063safeguard the fundamental\u2064 principles of our justice system.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Indiana Supreme Court reprimanded the conservative attorney general for remarks about an abortionist in a July 2022 Fox News interview. This public reprimand highlights the concerning trend of state bars being used as weapons.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":499,"featured_media":2088793,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2088792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2088792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/499"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2088792"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2088792\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2088793"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2088792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2088792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2088792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}