The lawsuit aims 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.

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.

  • SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net
    303·
    11 months ago

    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

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      8·
      11 months ago

      I actually kind of doubt that. That would open up a massive can of worms with regards to jurisdiction.

      • TechyDad@lemmy.world
        3·
        11 months ago

        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.