63 Comments
User's avatar
Liz  Wilcox's avatar

Such bullshit from a bunch of old, cis, white, male christian nationalists.

Brooklyn Ricky's avatar

What harm tyrants first do to the few will last be done to the many.

Joan the Dork's avatar

If you are a healthcare provider, and you are ever faced with a subpoena like this one... π˜₯𝘦𝘴𝘡𝘳𝘰𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘀𝘰𝘳π˜₯𝘴. If it means you go to prison, you go to prison. There is 𝘯𝘰 good reason for any government entity to demand information on minor patients belonging to a minority group being targeted by said government. They definitely want to hurt your patients. They may well want to kill your patients. If you care about your patients, π˜₯𝘦𝘴𝘡𝘳𝘰𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘀𝘰𝘳π˜₯𝘴 instead of handing them over. Destroy the backups. Destroy the backups of the backups. Burn every physical copy. Stonewall. Obfuscate. π˜“π˜ͺ𝘦. Do not cooperate. If you do, then you will be complicit in whatever evil things they intend for your patients. It takes time for suboenas to be enforced; use that time to do absolutely everything you can, legal or not, to prevent these people from achieving their aims. Defend your patients. They trusted you with their most intimate secrets; they trusted you with their bodies; they trusted you with their lives. Earn that trust, and shut. This. Shit. π˜‹π˜°π˜Έπ˜―. However you can, to whatever degree you can.

Stacy Bousquet's avatar

I suggest complying, but heavily redact ever word over 3 letters in the entire document. Apparently, when you get subpoenas AND legislation ordering you to comply with document releases, you can do that!

Talia Perkins's avatar

"If you do, then you will be complicit in whatever evil things they intend for your patients."

Very few will be Sophie Scholl, or Helmut Kleinicke.

But bless them.

Jacob's avatar

I'd rather go to prison myself than allow those I'd care for be hunted by the state. It would make headlines and show we aren't here to be pushed around.

There's an obvious right choice here.

Lisa's avatar
May 12Edited

Easier said than done, they would likely lose everything they worked for decades for with no guarantee of bouncing back once they are released. It would be very heroic, but also likely to backfire. There’s almost certainly paper trails outside of the hospital itself (insurance company claims) that would be discovered. Destroying evidence doesn’t do any favors in the eyes of the far-right jury. They will claim it’s a cover up.

Jacob's avatar

I'd say destroy nothing, if they're willing to send agents into the hospital to claim records than that's them. But willingly turning it over is a weak move, and allows the machine to keep marching without missing a beat. They're expecting everyone to blink when it comes to standing up because so far, everyone has.

Forcing them to raid a hospital for these records exposes them to criticism from a broader base of people who would have to reconcile those actions with living in the "greatest" free country on earth, and compare it to the Nazis of the past.

Stacy Bousquet's avatar

Not to mention the real possibility of losing all federal funding for the hospital, which would kill it. They are playing at blackmail with the lives of the innocent.

Talia Perkins's avatar

Which is why, when we are able, we must prosecute these sons of bitches!

The Social Conservatives must face the trails the Confederates traitors did not!

Ye ole ye ole πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ's avatar

Boy are they going to be disappointed here. According to insurance data the NYU Langone hospitals had a total of three minor patients who received gender affirming care between 2019-2023, and all three received surgery. Chances are they were 16-17 year old trans men who had top surgery.

It's safe to assume there were more patients between 2024-2026 but if they're looking for a goldmine of patients to prove a point, they're not even fishing in the right state. In that same timespan, there were only 1,151 total trans minors who received any kind of gender affirming care in the entire state of New York. That's about 384 patients per year.

Glen's avatar

Facts don't matter just headlines

Ye ole ye ole πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ's avatar

That’s sadly true because most people form their entire worldview based on headlines.

Joan the Dork's avatar

To the Nazis, that just means they can get down the target list quicker.

Ye ole ye ole πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ's avatar

It’s definitely an attempt to get names of patients (probably for a list) because the data, in terms of numbers, are already available and accessible. If this were about finding out how many people got care at a particular hospital there would be no need for a subpoena. The only additional information the subpoena will provide that isn’t already accessible is personally identifiable information, which means they’re specifically after patient names.

I may have missed it or don’t recall but is there a specific reason this hospital is being targeted?

Joan the Dork's avatar

The reason is this: they provided care to trans patients. That's it. That's all. We are a target class, and they offered us 𝘭π˜ͺ𝘡𝘦𝘳𝘒𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘒𝘯𝘺 𝘬π˜ͺ𝘯π˜₯ of aid or comfort.

They come for the children first, because cis/het folks who don't know any better see us as a "𝘸𝘰𝘯'𝘡 𝘒𝘯𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘡𝘩π˜ͺ𝘯𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘡𝘩𝘦 𝘀𝘩π˜ͺ𝘭π˜₯𝘳𝘦𝘯?!" issue, lacking any awareness of the fact that our 𝘀𝘩π˜ͺ𝘭π˜₯𝘳𝘦𝘯 are the most vulnerable among us, and seeing themselves as the default state of humanity they don't care to question.

Malice drives it, and apathy permits it. That's the long and short of it. The people responsible either don't see trans kids as 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, or they don't see trans kids as being 𝘡𝘩𝘦π˜ͺ𝘳 problem. Pick one.

And they're 𝘒𝘭𝘭 fucking wrong (as I've attempted, frustratingly and lamentably without success, to explain to a particular conservative of my acquaintance who's got multiple trans and queer family members). These bastards will come for us, 𝘬π˜ͺπ˜₯𝘴 𝘧π˜ͺ𝘳𝘴𝘡, because the kids are the most 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘒𝘣𝘭𝘦. And that, simply and inevitably, is how predators think.

Sarah F's avatar

You could look at it another way - that it will set precedent - that it is their foot in the door to do it everywhere.

I assume the end game is that someone appeals to SCOTUS?

Ye ole ye ole πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ's avatar

They’re definitely trying to set some kind of precedent but I’m wondering why they chose this hospital to start. What about this specific hospital makes it an easy target? I’ve been an independent journalist researching and reporting on corruption in the criminal justice system for the last 25 years and choosing this hospital is a recognizable red flag, not just because it’s likely the first hit in a long string of similar actions but because there has to be something about the hospital specifically that made it the first target.

I understand they went judge shopping to get the subpoena in the first place but there’s a reason they’re targeting this hospital first.

They’re only asking for the names of providers but that doesn’t mean someone on the inside won’t slip the names of patients and call it an accident. However, I wouldn’t be as concerned about patient data as provider data. I don’t think they’re after the patients.

Trump already tried to stop youth care by cutting hospital funding and issuing executive orders and those attempts largely failed. Now the federal government is going for the jugular here.

Here’s what I think the plan and end goal is:

The hospital (and many others) have likely been under federal investigation for a while already, and now they’re investigating the individual doctors. They’re going to start attempting to secure indictments against all the doctors at this hospital who were involved in trans youth care during that time period.

The bar for getting an indictment is lower than probable cause so they’ll get it. The government might not ultimately win their case but if they start dragging all of these doctors into federal lawsuits they can’t afford, it will send a message to every doctor in the U.S. that if they keep providing care the federal government will sue them out of practice. And unless there’s a team of attorneys working pro bono for these doctors they’ll be SOL.

Once these doctors are indicted it won’t even matter if they haven’t broken any federal laws. They’ll be bankrupt from defending themselves. It’s essentially a SLAPP lawsuit initiated by the federal government.

Sarah F's avatar

I think it's an "all of the above" approach. If you look at p. 5 of the Project 2025 manifesto, the Heritage Foundation president states not only that everyone in the "gender ideology" ("pornographic") ecosystem should be sent to prison. That includes doctors, psychologists, scientists, writers/journalists, publishers, librarians, teachers, and of course the "pornography" itself (us - or those of us who either can't or won't detransition). They're listing ALL of us while they can - before we go deep into hiding.

RB's avatar

I don’t know where your number is coming from, but it’s incorrect. Hundreds of children’s records are caught up in this subpoena.

Ye ole ye ole πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ's avatar

No, it's not incorrect. My data is accurate. You've misread my post.

It seems like you think I'm saying there were only 3 patients during the time the subpoena covers. Not only did I not say that, but I provided a time frame for my numbers, which is 2019-2023. The subpoena covers 2024, 2025, and 2026.

I specifically stated that there have been more patients since then.

My numbers come directly from insurance data between 2019-2023. It's accurate. That's all there was at that hospital at that time.

Third, nobody knows how many records are involved because none of it is publicly available past 2023. You can't actually say there are hundreds of records involved. That's just a guess. And your guess is as good as anyone's as to how many records are involved.

Fourth, my point in sharing insurance data from 2019-2023 is to point out that this hospital doesn't have as many patients as other hospitals.

RB's avatar

I know the numbers you are giving are inaccurate because I am the parent of a child caught up in this subpoena. Since Trump took office parents have been deeply involved in organizing together to ensure that our kids have continued access to care. Your insurance data is not telling you what you think it is telling you.

Ye ole ye ole πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ's avatar

I’m not sure you’re reading my comments correctly. My insurance data is accurate for the timeframe specified. The hospital already handed over their insurance data years ago. It's not disputable.

It sounds like your child is either one of the 3 people from that time period or they’re part of the group that came after. You do realize I stated multiple times that the insurance data only go through 2023, right? And the subpoena goes through 2026?

Did your child go to Langone? What year?

I never said only 3 people are affected by this subpoena. I've stated repeatedly in every comment that only 3 people who used insurance went through Langone from 2019-2023. That's a fact. That does not cover kids who paid out of pocket or kids who sought treatment in 2024, 2025, and 2026.

Essie's avatar

I read an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer this past week about how the regime dropped their subpoena for records from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). At first blush, it may seem like a win, but the thought is they dropped it so they can redo it from a certain court in Texas. It's all so fucking beyond horrible.

not in my name's avatar

As disturbing as it is to read this, what is far more disturbing is the number of hospitals and health care systems across the US who quietly handed over PHI (including names, DOB, SSN, addresses) of minors and young adults who received GAC. No one but the lawyers or a few administrators know which individual patients unredacted names were handed over. The patients and their guardians have no idea that the DOJ has their full PHI. At least Langone and places like CHOP are being transparent with their patients about what is going on.

As a trans and queer identified provider of gender affirming mental health care to trans and queer kids and their families, I made the choice to flee the US. I am incredibly privileged to be able to flee and work elsewhere- I wish I could have taken all my clients with me. It came to the point where I had to realize that I can't help people if I am dead. Grim thought but the reality was in my face every day. Now I can work to support a vibrant medical refugee system and speak more publicly than I could before.

Letters From a Trans-American's avatar

It is time for Langone to step up and push back against this naked intimidation. An indictment by a grand Jury consisting of some handpicked yokels in rural north Texas is the equivalent of indicting a ham sandwich. The likelihood of a conviction is extremely low and well worth the risk and expense of a trial. The response of the hospital in Rhode Island that is being targeted by DOJ is showing us the way; with the support of private and state legal experts in Rhode Island, the plaintiffs in that state are likely to succeed in their effort to stop the DOJ from forcing hospitals that provide gender health care to minors to turn over private health records to the DOJ.

Thanks for this report, Erin.

Carmen's avatar

Does HIPAA protect this information?

Sarah F's avatar

Yes, if it is personally identifying. Of course HIPAA has to be upheld by the SCOTUS, so maybe no.

Talia Perkins's avatar

No. Government is exempt from HIPAA.

Sarah F's avatar

WOW! I had no idea! Geez!

Talia Perkins's avatar

No, not from a jurisdictional/government request.

Ye ole ye ole πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆπŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈ's avatar

Yes but they aren't after patient data so HIPAA doesn't apply here. They'll redact PHI. Provider data, to my knowledge, is not protected. They're likely going to launch a federal investigation against the doctors if they haven't already started with the hospital, and since indictments have a lower bar than probable cause they'll drag all of them into court and drain their resources. Even if no laws have been broken and the government can't prove its case it will bankrupt the doctors and force them to settle or lose their career. The settlement agreement will probably include a ban on youth care.

If they go to trial there will need to be some generous attorneys willing to work pro bono for these doctors. This is the start of a series of federally-sponsored SLAPP lawsuits against providers.

It's understandable to be concerned about patient data here but that isn't the real target. They're trying to end trans youth medical care at the root by going after the doctors.

Talia Perkins's avatar

And AI search generated reply to the question, "When may government acquire PHI under HIPAA", which response I believe is accurate.

When a Government May Demand PHI Under HIPAA

Under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, covered entities (health plans, healthcare providers, and certain business associates) generally cannot disclose protected health information (PHI) to government agencies without meeting specific legal safeguards.

1. Court Orders

Permitted: A covered entity may disclose PHI in response to a court order or administrative tribunal order if the order authorizes the disclosure Recording Law.

Limitation: Disclosure is limited to the PHI expressly authorized by the order. The court’s oversight means no additional HIPAA safeguards (like notice to the patient) are required Recording Law.

2. Subpoenas Without a Court Order

General rule: A covered entity cannot disclose PHI in response to a subpoena issued by an attorney (e.g., discovery subpoena, subpoena duces tecum) unless it receives β€œsatisfactory assurances” from the requesting party Recording Law.

Satisfactory assurances must show one of two things:

The requesting party has provided written notice to the individual whose PHI is sought, or

The requesting party has made reasonable efforts to notify the individual Recording Law.

Jurisdiction: The requesting court or agency must have jurisdiction over the covered entity. State agencies generally cannot issue subpoenas across state lines; federal agencies can issue nationwide subpoenas Holland & Hart LLP.

3. Law Enforcement and Public Safety Exceptions

Even without a subpoena or court order, HIPAA allows disclosure to law enforcement in certain public safety situations, such as:

Reporting PHI to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to health or safety.

Reporting PHI as evidence of a crime occurring on the premises.

Alerting law enforcement to a death suspected of being from criminal conduct.

Responding to an off-site medical emergency to alert law enforcement to criminal activity.

Reporting PHI when required by law (e.g., gunshot or stab wound incidents) FBI.

John Janelle Backman's avatar

I know I'm being dense here, but why criminal proceedings for a U.S. (out-of-state) hospital when there is currently no federal law against gender-affirming care? How do you prosecute a crime when, literally, no crime has been committed? Or did such a law get put in place by one of those executive orders and I just missed it?

Stacy Bousquet's avatar

I'm not a lawyer, but my take on it is that they are subpoenas seaking details to investigate a possible 'crime', so they can gather the data under that cover.

Talia Perkins's avatar

If nothing else, they will claim wire fraud or fraud by mail, if any gender affirming business was carried out by those means.

Rachel Goldstein's avatar

As a parent who received that message last night, I am stunned. I have zero confidence in NyU fighting this considering they preemptively abandoned care for minors months ago. Although you say, β€œIt does not appear to target parents of trans kids or trans patients,” why then, would they need to access my child’s HIPPA protected info. I do feel threatened. I feel incredibly threatened

s. baum's avatar

Totally rational - I just meant it did not appear, based on this preliminary message, that parents were being investigated for criminal charges. It seems to be a criminal investigation into providers. Whereas with, say, Paxton in TX, they sent CPS to trans kids' family homes. I'm so sorry you're going through this

not in my name's avatar

I'm so sorry you and your child are facing this threat. You are not alone. I don't know if that knowledge helps but I see you and you are not alone.

Talia Perkins's avatar

I so sincerely hope it comes to nothing!

Mike Gelt's avatar

The federal government’s use of Texas courts to obtain subpoenas for hospitals outside the state is just another fβ€”king way to harass hospitals and gain access to private medical information involving the transgender community.

They chose Texas because it is the easiest place to pursue this kind of government intimidation and political targeting.

I am ashamed that a state in this country is being used in this manner, and those involved in approving these grand jury actions should ask themselves a simple question: how would they react if another state’s grand jury demanded access to their own private medical records because people in power disagreed with their healthcare choices?

Medical privacy is supposed to apply to everyone. Government should not be weaponized to intimidate patients, families, or healthcare providers simply because a community has become politically convenient to target.

Hospitals such as NYU Langone Health must follow the example of providers in Rhode Island and challenge these demands in court rather than simply complying.

If these actions are allowed to stand without challenge, they risk creating a precedent that could threaten the medical privacy rights of everyone, regardless of politics or identity.

These actions by the government must be challenged at all cost.

LLF's avatar

NYU should have kept it's trans youth program, and told the DOJ and Feds to fuck off. They can go judge shopping too.

K. Lines's avatar

I don't understand the legitimacy of a criminal subpoena to further a criminal investigation where it is LEGAL to provide these services? You can just say "criminal investigation" without relying on actual laws being broken? And the forum shopping in the judiciary needs urgent reform, like YESTERDAY.

Talia Perkins's avatar

The claim will be all such services even if "legal" by state law, are fraudulently offered and have the federal entanglement of crossing state lines by mail or wire -- that is my best guess as to waht they are angling towards.

Stacy Bousquet's avatar

Oh yes, ignoring a subpoena can certainly result in presecution and jail time. Just ask Pam Bondi and several other members of the Trump crime syndicate.

Terri's avatar

This approach has Kristin Waggoner, erin Hawley, mike Johnston and the Alliance Defending Freedom’s fingerprints all over it. No shock which judge they chose.

Talia Perkins's avatar

Those are people who should be targets of 42 U.S.C. Β§ 1983, 18 U.S.C. Β§ 241, & 18 U.S.C. Β§ 242 prosecution, for their part in engineering, funding, and carrying out the propaganda campaign and enacting the laws and policies against transgender people.

If I'm a broken record on the topic, it is because it or something like it must happen! It must become a Dem party plank to do it!