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.
Does anyone here with any experience in this field know what sort of information he could access that would be damaging to patients?
Tbh just names and addresses is bad enough. Find a way to make it public record and we’re screwed. My guess is they’ll start adding trans people to the sex offender registry, but I’m open to hearing other horrifying predictions about where this shit is going.
I grew up in a relatively conservative family, and this is exactly the kind of shit that would make perfect sense to my parents. My mother in particular bought every single damn dumb rumor she heard from rainbow parties, drugs in candy, jelly bracelet colors being what sex acts you’ve done. There were so damn many she managed to give me anxiety, only for me to find out like 15-20 years later that most of them were just retooled racism and/or homophobia. Figuring it out did not fix the anxiety.
For more of a work anecdote we once had someone call demanding to speak to a patient, and making various threats towards the secretary when she wouldn’t confirm the patient’s presence without their password (psychiatry, vulnerable population/stigma means an extra need for privacy). We found this person’s interaction kinda sus and asked the patient about it and they said it was probably their ex and were vehement that this person not be allowed in or to even know they were there, which is fine because that’s the default policy anyway (for a reason!).
Next night they call back sweet as pie and ask if the patient has been discharged. Our secretary that night didn’t even know the background but is an absolute detail oriented queen that we all stan and said the exact same thing she would say if they were still there, no password no info. Which is good, because could you imagine if your domestic abuser knew you’d just left the nice safe locked and restricted unit? This patient was in and right back out faster than I could blink so I know so little about their actual specific story but it could also leak over into other areas of life other than direct safety, how about if they know you stayed at all and try to drag your mental health history into a custody agreement? Now think about what the government can do with info like that.
Republicans have recently been trying to push for the following two policies:
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.
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.
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.
The statement from Planned Parenthood includes:
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.