764
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 50 points 6 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@mander.xyz 45 points 6 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.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 6 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.

[-] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 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.

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 6 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.

[-] jkrtn@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 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.

load more comments (7 replies)
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
764 points (97.5% liked)

News

23305 readers
5038 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS