California Legislature is aiming to pass a proposal that seeks to strengthen laws to protect the confidentiality of abortion or “gender-affirming” (transgender) patients. If eventually passed, it will put individuals or hospitals in a predicament where they have to navigate conflicting California state laws and federal laws.
AB1930 involves complex legal issues and will have significant implications on California patients, doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, technology companies, and other relevant parties. However, lawmakers discussed it for only 17 minutes in a partisan vote during the legislative hearing last week. The bill will be deliberated in the Public Services Committee next week and if approved, will proceed to a vote in the Assembly.
Last July, the Department of Justice issued 20 subpoenas requesting hospitals to provide information on adolescent patients who underwent puberty blockers or hormone therapy, including medical records and insurance claims. One of the hospitals subpoenaed was Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
The subpoenas were part of an investigation into “health care fraud” and “false statements,” as stated by the Department of Justice. In January this year, the federal government abandoned the subpoena requests.
On March 24th, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, the Chair of the Democratic Caucus and State Assemblymember for the 51st District, introduced AB1930 titled “Legally protected health care activity: inquiries, investigations, subpoenas, or summons.”
In a press release, Zbur stated that the Department of Justice was seeking information on thousands of adolescents who received transgender treatment services, raising concerns about patient privacy and harassment. This led to the closure of the “Trans Youth Health and Development Program” and the “Gender Affirming Care” project at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles.
AB1930 aims to strengthen California’s shield laws, requiring hospitals that receive subpoenas seeking relevant service information to notify the state Attorney General. The co-sponsors are California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Equality California.
The proposal dictates that individuals or companies located in California, headquartered in California, registered in California, or conducting business in California must notify the Attorney General within seven days of receiving inquiries, investigations, subpoenas, or summons to provide legally protected health care records before responding.
Before providing the requested information, they must notify the individuals involved at least 30 days in advance unless ordered otherwise by a court with jurisdiction. The state Attorney General can intervene in litigation and enforce the provisions of the proposal for up to 6 years from the notice of the subpoena.
AB1930 also stipulates a $10,000 fine for violators of state law, with subsequent violations incurring fines of $15,000 each.
The California Chamber of Commerce opposes the proposal, expressing concerns that AB1930 may compel businesses to violate federal laws in order to comply with state laws.
Bilal A. Essayli, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Central District of California, stated that California’s attempt to restrict the federal government from lawfully using or enforcing subpoenas is unconstitutional. According to the “Supremacy Clause” in the Constitution, which asserts federal law supremacy over state law, the bill would be “unenforceable.”
Professor Leslie Gielow Jacobs from McGeorge School of Law at the University of the Pacific commented, “This gives the federal government every reason to accuse you (California) of obstructing its law enforcement efforts.”
The office of the California Attorney General responded to the media in a statement, saying, “The bill is not a final draft when submitted for consideration and its specific terms may change during the legislative review.”