Anti-Trans Missouri A.G. Can Now Access Trans People’s Medical Records
newrepublic.com
A judge ordered Planned Parenthood to hand records of transgender care over to Andrew Bailey.

A judge ordered Planned Parenthood to hand records of transgender care over to Andrew Bailey.

A St. Louis judge has ruled that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is entitled to Planned Parenthood’s transgender care records, ordering the nonprofit to turn over some of its most sensitive files to the man who has built his unelected political career on restricting health care access for trans people.

In his Thursday decision, Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer wrote that Bailey can collect documents under Missouri’s consumer protection statute that aren’t protected under federal mandate, namely the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as HIPAA.

“It is clear from the statute that the Defendant has the broad investigative powers when the consumer is in possible need of protection and there is no dispute in this matter,” wrote Stelzer. “Therefore, the Defendant is entitled to some of the requested documents within his [Civil Investigative Demand].”

Bailey, who last year attempted to implement a ban on gender-affirming care for people of all ages, was quick to celebrate the decision, calling it a “big day” for the state.

  • Flying Squid
    50•8 months ago

    But it’s not exactly clear yet which documents Bailey will be able to access or that sensitive medical records are completely off the table, as legal experts warn that HIPAA operates with a fairly narrow scope.

    Does anyone here with any experience in this field know what sort of information he could access that would be damaging to patients?

    • Aviandelight
      45•8 months ago

      Technically this is a grey area and they are blatantly misusing the exception for court order/warrant rule. HIPAA just states that records must be turned over but doesn’t get into details concerning how much or how little should be provided. I really can’t believe the judge allowed this but I suspect (hopeful anyway)that this will get kicked up to a federal court since federal law supercedes state laws.

      • @[email protected]English
        19•8 months ago

        There needs to be a stay of enforcement if it’s going to be appealed.

        Though I fully suspect that if it gets to SCOTUS, there isn’t going to be much hope.

        • @[email protected]
          4•8 months ago

          Doesn’t that precedent make it possible for medical records covering abortions to be used in the same way? Repubs would never allow that, they have too much to lose by having people find out what they’ve done.

          • @[email protected]English
            8•8 months ago

            Republicans would absolutely allow that. They are willing to bite their own noses off just to spit in their enemies faces.

            How it would play out is selective prosecution where only democrats poor people or non-whites get charged.

            White Christians would get a pass at best. Or blackmailed at worst.

            • @[email protected]
              4•8 months ago

              Yeah, true. Their voters have zero integrity or consistency. And their propaganda networks will be pretending that voter fraud is happening as a cover so they’ll never know in the first place.

      • Tiefling IRL
        30•8 months ago

        Republicans have recently been trying to push for the following two policies:

        • Making sex offenses punishable by death
        • Marking trans people as sex offenders

        It’s easy to see where this is going. This is one of MANY reasons the country won’t survive another 4 years of Trump.

    • @[email protected]English
      17•8 months ago

      It mostly depends on what he does with the information. Any personally identifiable information that becomes public puts someone at serious risk of being persecuted or physically threatened.

    • @elrikEnglish
      16•8 months ago

      The statement from Planned Parenthood includes:

      Despite the Attorney General’s demand that PPSLR turn over all patient medical records related to gender-affirming care, the court ruled that individual patient records remain protected — a major victory for patients’ privacy rights.

      I suspect this means the AG may receive de-identified records including procedure or diagnosis information, but not including any patient identifying information such as patient or billing account, name, address, social, date of birth, date of service, etc.

      It could also include aggregate information about providers and facilities, especially if records are obtained under the guise of a fraud investigation, allowing the AG to target locations and providers where patients frequently obtain specific services. That route might be the most harmful to patients, for ex. if they’re unable to continue receiving care because of harassment of the providers.