A new lawsuit by Seattle Children’s pits the hospital against the Texas Attorney General’s office, amid a national fight over privacy for children seeking gender-affirming care.
In the lawsuit, filed this month in Travis County, Texas, District Court, Seattle Children’s is aiming to protect patient information of Texans who left their home state, where it’s illegal for minors to access gender-affirming care, to seek treatment here, where it is legal.
It also invokes Washington’s new shield law, legislation state lawmakers approved earlier this year to protect hospitals from being forced to share information about transgender and gender diverse children who are seeking medical care. Many Democrat-led states have passed similar shield laws, fearing that people crossing state lines for abortions and gender-affirming care could be prosecuted as more Republican-led states continue to pass laws restricting access to these services.
Children’s filed the new lawsuit after the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton served the hospital with a civil investigative demand in late November, according to the complaint. The request sought information about patients from Texas who had received gender-affirming care services from Children’s, including details related to diagnoses, medications prescribed, laboratory testing and other treatment protocols.
You must log in or register to comment.
Dear Texas government,
Get fucked.
Kindest regards,
Washington State Residents
Not just the Texas Government, but the AG Ken Paxton in particular. And Gregg Abbott as well.
This is a violation of HIPAA and the rights of patients to privacy.
Maybe? HIPAA generally covers medical-to-medical information transfer. Most non-medical entities/people aren’t part of that law and it’s not a violation for a hospital to release information to law enforcement.
Violating the rights of patients definitely. HIPAA…maybe not.
HIPAA absolutely covers release of information to non-medical, including law enforcement.
My NAL take on that says the court order would need to be from a court with jurisdiction to give said order.
Texas courts don’t have jurisdiction in Washington, so the AG would have to get a federal court to process it (not gonna happen.
No federal law was violated, or suspected of being violated.) or a Washington court (also not going to happen- no Washington law was violated- and the shield law would be if they just complied.)
HIPAA covers the spreading of medical information by anyone who’s not the patient themselves.
Not entirely.
You tell the gossip at work that you’ve got an STD…. They’re free to tell whoever they want.
HIPAA only applies to medical staff and people who “need” to know- for example HR dept peeps when you call in because you have a cold; or rando security guards that responded to Fred going hypoglycemic again because he scarffed all the donuts on donut day.
Edit: they’re still wrong, the cops are obligated to get an appropriate court order. Even with a subpoena, the information is fairly restricted.
This is going to end up in front of the Supreme court. And we all know how this is going to go. Kiss your rights good buy. Say hello to transgender and abortion bounty hunters. I fucking hate this god damn country
I actually kind of doubt that. That would open up a massive can of worms with regards to jurisdiction.
Some judges are already demolishing standing. The Texas judge in the Mifepristone case ruled that the doctors suing to stop the drug had standing even though they weren’t hurt yet by the drug’s use. The fact that they claimed that they might be hurt at some hypothetical point in the future was standing enough.
Meanwhile, in another case, a judge ruled that citizens don’t have standing to sue over infringements to their voting rights.
If they demolish standing, why not destroy jurisdiction as well? Of course, a ruling from the Supreme Court would likely be worded in such a way that red states could get anything they wanted while blue states had no rights to request anything.
They are destroying some kinds of standing, maybe it is better phrased. Offended observer is basically gone every time some non-christian tries to use it. In the land that disestablished the Church it is now lawful for state officials to lead Christian prayers at high school sporting events
I dont. The Catholics on the court will get their marching orders from the Vatican and Thomas will get his new boat.
They will just say that the kid is a resident of the state and as such the state has a compelling interest in knowing what is happening medically with the child even outside of state lines. Either that or they will argue that since bounty hunters aren’t state officials none of the rules really apply. Welcome to the new world where people can just stand outside hospitals and report every kid coming in just so they can shot gun it to bounty land
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
They certainly want to own them. You know, like authoritarians.
Building a government list of members of a minority group. What could possibly go wrong…
deleted by creator
