The California State Assembly recently passed a bill that could help to protect patients in the state from having their private medical records collected. However, there are concerns about its enforcement in the face of the Trump administration, which has been attempting to subpoena private information about gender-affirming and reproductive care across the United States.

“No one should have to fear that seeking lawful medical care in the state of California could put their privacy and their safety at risk,” said the bill’s author, Assembly Member Rick Chavez Zbur. “California will not buckle under to threats meant to intimidate our communities. We’re going to stand firmly on the side of patient privacy, dignity, and access to care.”

Related

Pam Bondi subpoenas doctors & clinics that provide trans health care

Assembly Bill 1930, which now heads to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, seeks to protect patients’ medical records by preventing any person or entity conducting business in California from complying with an out-of-state subpoena, summons, or other request for information pertaining to a “legally protected health care activity.” That wording would include both gender-affirming care and reproductive healthcare.

Both the federal government and Republican-led states have attempted to subpoena such information from other states. To block that release of personal information, hospitals and states have had to sue, with one judge noting that the government’s attempts have “more than whiff of ill intent.”

Insights for the LGBTQ+ community

Subscribe to our briefing for insights into how politics impacts the LGBTQ+ community and more.
Subscribe to our Newsletter today

If the bill passes the bill, an entity that receives an out-of-state request for “legally protected health care activity” will have seven days to notify the California Attorney General of whether they intend to comply. They also need to make “reasonable attempts” to notify the individuals whose information is being sought. They are then required to wait 30 days from when they are notified by the attorney general before they comply with the subpoena.

That time allows the attorney general to review the case and the information being requested. The bill also gives the attorney general the ability to intervene in any civil action that is started to prevent compliance with the out-of-state request. Failure to notify the attorney general will result in a $10,000 fine for the first offense, and an additional $15,000 for each following offense.

Explaining the reason for the bill, Zbur pointed to the federal government’s “coordinated effort” to “attack reproductive health care and gender affirming care.” He said the impetus was a subpoena last year, which contributed to the closure of a trans youth health center: “Last year, the United States Department of Justice issued a subpoena to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles seeking information that could identify thousands of transgender youth receiving care, care that they receive with the support of their families and their doctors. That action didn’t just raise alarms. It had real consequences.”

The California bill is particularly relevant as several states have banned reproductive healthcare and gender-affirming care for minors. Some of those states have then sought to prevent people from crossing state lines to get medical care in a location where it is legal. Such subpoenas not only would enable officials to generate a list of people who are transgender, but would help them to track those who might be leaving the state to receive health care deemed illegal in their home state.

California has previously enacted laws to protect those who might travel across state lines in such a way. That has included passing a law against extraditing medical professionals who have broken another state’s law by providing an abortion or gender-affirming care. They also have a law that prohibits facilities from sharing information with out-of-state law enforcement.

However, some legal scholars have raised concerns over whether California’s A.B. 1930 would actually be enforceable, as it puts people between a rock and a hard place of complying with either federal or state law.

Republican former California Assemblymember and current U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli released a statement saying, “Any effort by California to restrict the federal government’s lawful use of, or compliance with, subpoenas is unlawful and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause.”

The dean of UC Berkeley’s School of Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, doubled down on that viewpoint when asked by CalMatters to review the bill. “If there’s a conflict between federal law on the one hand, and state or local (law) on the other, federal law wins out.”

However, California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) seemed unconcerned, responding to CalMatters’ interview request with a written statement saying, “Bills aren’t final when they’re introduced and can change throughout the legislative process. Our office will continue to have conversations with stakeholders regarding A.B. 1930 and will address concerns as appropriate and needed.”

Subscribe to the LGBTQ Nation newsletter and be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.