UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh (Justin Vellucci | TribLive)
A federal judge in Pittsburgh cited the government’s own “inflammatory” rhetoric on gender-affirming care in blocking the Department of Justice’s effort to get patients’ personal information from UPMC.
In her six-page order, Chief Judge Cathy Bissoon of the Western District of Pennsylvania cited decisions by five fellow judges in similar cases, notably a 75-page opinion by Judge Mark A. Kearney of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Bissoon wrote that Kearney “systematically dismantle(d) all of the government’s arguments that healthcare providers should be compelled to reveal minor patients’ personal information, including their names, addresses, Social Security numbers and complete medical and psychological records.”
It is apparent from its rhetoric, Bissoon wrote, that the government’s demand for “deeply private and personal patient information carries more than a whiff of ill-intent.”
She noted that discussions of gender-affirming care have been painted with “incendiary characterizations” such as radical ideological agenda, a barbaric practice that maims and sterilizes children, and genital mutilation.
“The executive’s public statements can be described as provocative, and unabashedly so,” Bissoon wrote. “DOJ press releases are titled to suggest a reasonable, dignified discussion — but eventually, they say the ‘quiet parts’ out loud.
“It is hard to imagine how such inflammatory language may advance the public discourse between reasonable people of good faith,” Bissoon’s order says. “The government’s rhetoric does not cast a favorable light.”
UPMC ended gender-affirming care for patients under age 19 in June, in response to a January executive order from President Donald Trump aimed at cutting federal support for gender transitions for people under age 19.
In July, the Justice Department issued at least 20 subpoenas to doctors and hospital systems across the country, seeking information regarding “transgender medical procedures on children.”
The subpoenas sought personal identifying information — including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, addresses and parent information — for anyone prescribed puberty blockers or hormone therapy.
Four UPMC patients in September filed a motion to quash a Department of Justice subpoena ordering UPMC to turn over their detailed medical histories, diagnoses and treatment plans. They argued it violated their privacy rights, and the government could offer no compelling reason to demand the information.
The Justice Department said the subpoenas were part of a nationwide investigation into off-label drug use and fraudulent billing.
A department spokesperson could not be reached for comment Saturday.
The Public Interest Law Center, which represented the four patients and their parents, heralded the court’s decision in its favor as “a first-of-its-kind victory for transgender youth.”
“Gender-affirming care is legal in this commonwealth and endorsed by every reputable medical association. The administration cannot use its power to threaten providers and intimidate families. This is a critical win for trans youth and for everyone’s right to medical privacy,” said Mimi McKenzie, legal director of the Public Interest Law Center. “This ruling protects not only our clients but all families who fear that their private lives could be made public by political actors.”
UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh has not turned over to the federal government any information requested in the subpoena related to its treatment of transgender patients, TribLive previously reported.
As part of her opinion, Bissoon says Judge Kearney was also correct that the government’s investigation “tramples the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s power to police, and legislate, matters of medical care.
“Gender-affirming care is legal in the Commonwealth,” she wrote.
On Dec. 16, the Justice Department asked that a federal court scale back its subpoena of UPMC so patient names and birth dates remain undisclosed.
In her order, Bissoon surmises that the government was making the concession “in the face of its mounting losses.
“To the undersigned’s knowledge, no reported federal decision has ruled in the government’s favor,” she wrote. “While the Court appreciates the concession, it nevertheless will grant Plaintiff’s request for relief.”
Bissoon said she will entertain potential anonymized productions as envisioned by the government, with briefs due by Jan. 16.
The Public Interest Law Center said patients “will strongly oppose” that on “multiple grounds.”
