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.

  • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
    17·
    2 months ago

    No, that is not how the legal system works…

    I care because children dont have the ability to consent, and if they are being abused then they have the right to be protected.

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      5·
      2 months ago

      No, that is not how the legal system works…

      In your mind, how does our legal system handle children’s consent issues if not the legal guardians, then? How do you think it works when a child wants to go on a field trip in school, for example? How is consent determined?

      • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
        12·
        2 months ago

        The parent can consent to things that dont directly harm kids. The part in question is what direct harm is, and you guys seem to think permanent changes of their biology (if that is the right word) is not direct harm and that is where the disagreement is.

        • quindraco@lemm.ee
          3·
          2 months ago

          100% of all surgeries harm kids too, including circumcisions. That’s part of the definition of surgery. You seem to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of several things, including the basic concept of consent. I sincerely hope you educate yourself, especially before (if ever) you have any children of your own. Consent is an important concept that no-one seems to have taught you about.

          • CableMonster@lemmy.ml
            17·
            2 months ago

            Circumcision is mild harm at best but it can arguably be a hygiene benefit. Under your definition of harm, then exercising is harmful also because you have to tear your muscles a bit, but as we both know we are talking about the net benefit.

            And maybe you can educate yourself and learn that kids can consent.

            • treefrog@lemm.ee
              2·
              2 months ago

              Kids can’t consent as true consent requires someone to be properly informed of the consequences of the action. Lack of life experience thus prevents true consent by definition. Which is why legally parents make the decisions for them.

              The only other time I’ve heard this nonsense is out of the mouths of pedophiles by the way. If that’s not how you identify, or care to be identified, I suggest you educate yourself on consent and seriously question whatever information source you learned this nonsense from.

    • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
      4·
      2 months ago

      Shit, I thought you were just asking questions. You had a point this whole fuckin time? What a cowardly way to make it!