Multiple Republican-led states have sued to rescind a federal rule keeping the records of those who sought legal reproductive care private, while a federal judge in Texas is questioning the constitutionality of the federal HIPAA law in its entirety. (Photo by Wichayada Suwanachun/Getty Images)

The decades-old federal law protecting the privacy of individual health information is threatened by multiple lawsuits that seek to throw out a rule restricting disclosure of information in criminal investigations, including for those seeking legal abortion and other reproductive health care.

In one of the cases, the Texas federal judge who has been at the center of several anti-abortion court battles appears to question the constitutionality and legality of the health privacy act in its entirety.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act — or HIPAA — established in 1996 to protect the privacy and security of patient health information, includes some exceptions under limited conditions, such as law enforcement investigations. But after the U.S. Supreme Court ended federal abortion rights in 2022 and more than a dozen states passed abortion bans, advocates worried that such records could be used by state officials and law enforcement to investigate and prosecute patients seeking an abortion and those who help them.

Health officials under former President Joe Biden’s administration enacted a HIPAA rule to keep health information private when the patient was in a state with legal access and the care was obtained legally. In order to release information related to this type of care, the entity subject to HIPAA rules must sign a document stating it is not released for one of the prohibited purposes.

“These cases may have been prompted by this newer rule, but they threaten more broadly the entire HIPAA system on which we all rely when accessing medical care,” said Carrie Flaxman, senior legal adviser for Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization.

Two lawsuits seek to rescind that most recent rule, while another brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton goes a step further, asking the court to remove the general rules established in 2000 about how much health information can be disclosed to law enforcement.

“The threats to the 2000 privacy rule would be a seismic shift that could erode patients’ trust entirely in their providers and dissuade them from wanting to seek out health care and be transparent about their symptoms,” said Ashley Emery, a senior policy analyst for the nonprofit Partnership for Women and Families. “A law enforcement officer could pressure a psychiatrist to share patient notes from therapy sessions without a subpoena, without a warrant, if the 2000 privacy rule is invalidated.”

The state of Missouri sued to rescind the Biden rule in January, and the state of Tennessee filed a similar action the same day that 14 other Republican attorneys general joined as plaintiffs: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia. All but three of those states either heavily restrict or outright ban abortion, and if the lawsuits are successful, records kept by doctors and pharmacists in other states could be subpoenaed.

All of the lawsuits are filed against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which is now under Republican President Donald Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The Trump administration has so far followed the direction of the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which calls for the most recent HIPAA rule to be rescinded.

Amarillo judge ordered briefing on HIPAA’s constitutionality and legality

Three cases are still in motion, including one with a physician as the plaintiff. Dr. Carmen Purl, the sole owner of Dr. Purl’s Fast Care Walk In Clinic in Dumas, Texas, sued HHS because she said the rule creates a conflict with the laws requiring her to report child abuse.

“I consider both a pregnant woman and her unborn child to be human persons, and both are entitled to medical care and deserve the protection of the law,” Purl said in court documents. “I believe … that elective abortions harm patients’ health and public health.”

The location of Purl’s clinic puts her in the judicial district that has only one federal judge — U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee. Most federal cases are assigned randomly to a group of judges in a district, but since Kacsmaryk is the only one, many advocates and attorneys have accused law firms like Alliance Defending Freedom, who is representing Purl in the case, of “judge shopping,” or finding a plaintiff in a certain area for the purpose of putting it in front of an ideologically friendly judge.

On Dec. 22, Kacsmaryk granted an injunction blocking enforcement of the rule against Purl while the case proceeds, and he is still considering whether to permanently block the law.

As part of the decision, Kacsmaryk also ordered the parties to submit briefs explaining how recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that delegate more authority to Congress over administrative agencies “affect the constitutionality or legality of HIPAA and HHS’s authority to issue the 2024 rule.”

Kacsmaryk presided over a lawsuit in 2023 brought by a group of anti-abortion doctors seeking to revoke the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs commonly used to terminate pregnancies in the first trimester and to treat miscarriages. Kacsmaryk ruled in favor of removing its approval, but the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overruled him in 2024.

Purl added that she thinks gender-affirming care is harmful to children, never medically necessary and a matter of concern for public health, though she has never treated a child with gender dysphoria. In the process of providing routine medical care, she said she could learn that a child was being subjected to gender-affirming treatments or procedures that could constitute child abuse, and she would be obligated to report it.

Purl’s clinic has fewer than 20 employees, and she has been licensed to practice family medicine in Texas since 1986. In that time, she said she has treated many patients who have been victims of abuse and neglect, and estimates she has personally treated more than 100 pediatric patients who were victims of sexual abuse.

“I have treated hundreds of girls under the age of consent who were either pregnant or reported sexual activity. During my career, I have delivered babies from mothers as young as 12 years old,” Purl wrote.

Purl said she has responded to Child Protective Services investigations between 10 and 12 times, and she fears that providing full, unredacted patient records in response to an entity such as CPS would violate the 2024 rule and subject her and the clinic to civil and criminal penalties, which often means hefty fines.

In a response filed by HHS in December, before Trump’s second term began, the department said the rule does nothing to prevent Purl from reporting suspected child abuse, and denied the other harms Purl said she would incur.

“Given the nature of her medical practice, Dr. Purl is highly unlikely to ever encounter a conflict between her obligations under state law and under the Rule,” the department said in court documents.

AGs from ban states are testing newly enacted shield laws

The Texas case led by Paxton has been on hold since February, after the U.S. Department of Justice asked the court to delay scheduling until the new administration could determine how to proceed. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee, ordered the parties to file a status report by May 1.

Attorneys general in states with abortions bans have already attempted to prosecute providers in other states for prescribing abortion pills via telehealth and prosecute women who obtained an abortion in another state without the consent of a male partner. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed an extradition warrant for a doctor in New York for prescribing and mailing abortion pills to residents of the state.

New York is one of 17 Democratic-led states that has a shield law to protect providers and patients from out-of-state legal actions for reproductive care and gender-affirming care, and the state government has so far refused to comply with Louisiana’s law enforcement efforts.

The coalition of states that joined Tennessee’s lawsuit claim the privacy rule harms their ability to investigate cases of waste, fraud and abuse, and “sharply limits state investigative authority.”

Chad Kubis, spokesperson for Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, told States Newsroom via email that the office could not comment for this story because of the ongoing litigation.

“The final rule will hamper states’ ability to gather information critical to policing serious misconduct like Medicaid billing fraud, child and elder abuse, and insurance-related malfeasance,” the complaint says.

Attorneys at Democracy Forward have asked the courts to allow the clients they are representing to intervene as defendants in all four cases, arguing that the new administration is likely to either not defend the cases at all or defend them inadequately. They are representing the cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin, as well as Doctors for America, an activist organization of physicians and medical students. None of the judges have ruled on their motions yet.

Partnership for Women and Families filed an amicus brief with 23 other advocacy organizations to support upholding the rule.

“We can’t count on the Trump administration to defend this regulation, given its longstanding record of hostility toward reproductive health and rights,” Emery said.

It’s possible the new leadership at HHS will rescind the 2024 rule, Emery said, but the lawsuits alone are concerning enough because of the threat posed to privacy protections. That’s part of the goal, said Emery and Flaxman — to present the threat and sow fear and intimidation in patients and providers. And the method of launching multiple lawsuits in various jurisdictions fits a pattern that has been observed in the fight for abortion rights, Emery said.

“Anti-abortion extremists’ legal campaign against HIPAA’s reproductive health privacy protections is designed to test out different legal venues and arguments to obtain the most favorable outcome possible,” she said.

Doctor who has been investigated before says intimidation tactics have an effect

Indiana OB-GYN Dr. Caitlin Bernard knows what it’s like to be the target of an investigation, and said she’s still in court fighting new attempts to instill fear in doctors and patients.

Bernard was an abortion provider in Indiana before the state enacted its ban in August 2023. She reported in 2022 that she had provided a medication abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim who traveled to Indiana from Ohio when the state briefly had a ban in place. She was accused of violating patient privacy laws and investigated by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, and the state licensing board fined her $3,000 and reprimanded her for the incident after Rokita asked the board to revoke her license to practice medicine. She was found to have violated patient privacy, but the board determined the fine was sufficient and she kept her license.

“Now my case is held up as an example of what can happen to you if you speak out about abortion bans,” Bernard said. “I’ve spoken to many physicians across the country who are intimidated by that. They say, ‘Look at Dr. Bernard and what happened to her.’”

Now, Bernard is part of a lawsuit against the state to categorize terminated pregnancy records as medical records in state law that cannot be released to the public. Indiana has historically treated abortion reports as public record with certain details redacted, but Bernard said with the ban in place and so few people qualifying for its limited exceptions, that policy should change. The records include demographic information like age, ethnicity and education level, as well as information such as diagnoses and the date, location and physician who provided care.

“It also includes the county, so you could imagine in these very small counties, somebody could absolutely figure out who that person is,” Bernard said.

Ashley Emery, senior policy analyst at Partnership for Women and Families, said the lawsuits take aim at a deeply needed line of defense against abortion criminalization, and said it will disproportionately affect immigrants, people of color and low-income populations. Trust is already low between marginalized people and health care providers, Emery said, and this would further erode that trust.

“These challenges to HIPAA are designed to take protections away from patients and try to allow anti-abortion politicians to have more control, and I think that power deficit is really important to note, and it should be very chilling,” she said.

Editor’s note: This story has been corrected to say the Indiana state licensing board found Dr. Caitlin Bernard violated patient privacy laws but kept her license.

Lawmakers on the Assembly Health, Aging and Long-Term Care committee weighed what happened during a tense hearing on a bill to ban gender affirming medical care and then voted along party lines to advance the bill. Rep. Lisa Subeck became emotional while speaking to her colleagues. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner.

A little over 12 hours after a tense public hearing on a resurrected bill to ban gender affirming medical care for children, lawmakers on the Assembly Health, Aging and Long-Term Care committee weighed what happened and then voted along party lines to advance the bill.

AB 104 would ban gender affirming care, including prescribing puberty-blocking drugs or gender-affirming surgery, for those under 18. It would also require revocation of a medical provider’s license found to be providing the care. It is the fourth bill focused on transgender youth in Wisconsin to receive a hearing over the last two weeks. 

“After sitting through the hearing on this bill yesterday, I would hope some people are taking a step back and saying, wait a minute, maybe this isn’t the route that we should go,” Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) said during Thursday’s executive session. She noted that one person at the hearing even had a “change of heart.”

Larry Jones of Milwaukee spoke about seven hours into the hearing. Sitting in front of lawmakers, he began apologizing for being there and said he was invited to the hearing to show his support for the bill.

“I have very little knowledge of gay people and things like that there, so when I came here, my eyes were opened,” he said Wednesday at around 9:12 p.m. “I was one of the critics that sat on the side and made the decisions there was only two genders, so I got an education that was unbelievable and I don’t know just exactly how to say this but my perspective for people have changed. I’d like to apologize for being here and I learned a very lot about this group of people.”

Subeck, talking to her colleagues the next day, became emotional as she spoke about the committee’s upcoming vote on the bill.

“The governor is going to veto [the bill]. I feel really good about that,” Subeck said. “I don’t feel so good about the fact that we’re gonna have a vote here where people are gonna vote to support this.” 

Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a similar bill last session, and vowed to LGBTQ+ youth in January to continue vetoing any bill that “makes Wisconsin a less safe, less inclusive, and less welcoming place.”

Subeck said the bill causes harm. It is the latest in a slate of bills focused on LGBTQ+ youth introduced by Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin. The bills come as President Donald Trump has also made targeting transgender people a key point in the first couple months of his term. In a recent survey of Wisconsin LGBTQ+ youth by the Trevor Project, 91% of respondents reported that recent politics negatively impacted their well-being.

Subeck pointed to the emotional testimony lawmakers heard into the night, including from Charlie Werner, a teen, who testified with his parents, Allison and Dan Werner, around 8 p.m. The family was also present in 2023 at a bill hearing and when Gov. Tony Evers vetoed the bill. 

Werner told lawmakers that he was dealing with depression before realizing he was dealing with gender dysphoria. He said that therapy and finding community, especially among other queer and trans people, has “lifted” him.

Werner said the gender affirming care he has received, including puberty blockers and later receiving testosterone, has helped him go “from being so uncomfortable in my body to finally feeling a bit of clarity.” He said the care has allowed him to experience similar traits as his cisgender peers, including a lower voice.

“I finally feel like myself,” Werner said. “Gender affirming care saved my life… I don’t believe you are bad people. I simply think this is what you have been taught, but you still have the opportunity to change and make better decisions for the people that you serve.” 

Subeck had a similar message for her colleagues during the executive session. 

“Many of you I’ve known for a very long time, some of us came into this Legislature together. I know that you’re good people who care. I know that,” Subeck, who has served since 2014, said. “That is why it’s so bothersome to me to think … you can sit in this room and vote for this bill… We’re better than that as a body. This isn’t about doing what’s right.”

Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee) said that he used the hearing time to listen and to learn, and pushed back on the idea that the bill is a “judgment on trans people.” Rather, he said, the bill comes from a “conservative approach to medical care that may be irreversible.”

“If you’re accusing us of wanting to be conservative when it comes to the medical care of minors, then that is true…,” Neylon said. “That doesn’t mean we want them dead, right? That doesn’t mean we don’t recognize their right to exist.”

However, Neylon also acknowledged that the bill may not be the exact right approach. 

“It might not be hitting directly where it should and it might come across political and I understand the pain and I wanted to stay [at the hearing] to make sure that people had an opportunity to share their things…,” Neylon said. “I would be angry if I was young too, but it’s not coming from a place of saying, like trying to other them or saying, like, you don’t belong in our society.”

Committee Chair Rep. Clint Moses said that the hearing was beginning to become unproductive because of “political theater” as some members were being yelled at. He had two people removed by officers from the committee room for yelling during the hearing. 

Throughout the hearing, there were moments of frustration for both lawmakers and members of the public who came to speak.

One of those moments came a little over 6 hours and 18 minutes into the hearing when FAIR Wisconsin Executive Director Abigail Swetz finally got her opportunity to speak to lawmakers. She used her time to tell transgender youth in the state that there are “many of us in this state who love you exactly as you are and exactly as you are becoming.” She reached the time limit before finishing her comments.

Rep. Tara Johnson (D-Town of Shelby) asked if Swetz had anything she wanted to add. Moses stopped this, saying it wasn’t allowed. Johnson replied that others had done the same earlier. 

Swetz started finishing her comments as the lawmakers went back and forth and others in the room started to clap. Moses then began banging his gavel and threatened to adjourn the meeting if the clapping continued.

Moses told the committee on Thursday that he “was ready to adjourn and just walk out because it was not productive.” He then suggested that members look at the Assembly rules again. 

“The chairman of the committee has a lot of power the way it’s set up, so I try not to abuse it — be a tyrant,” Moses said. “I want to hear from everybody. I don’t care if you agree with me or not. I want all perspectives in there, so I’m doing my best to do it, but yesterday it got a little much, a little much, so I think maybe dial it back on some of these with the theater.” 

Moses said he had to start cutting time because of the number of people who came to speak and how late the hearing was running. 

Johnson said the tension in the room was partially because people had been waiting so long to be heard by lawmakers. 

“Some of the escalation came because they felt disenfranchised,” Johnson said. “They felt like it was very lopsided that the pro-voices were heard at greater length, including when my colleagues also asked questions that extended testimony for very long stretches of time.” 

Hearings on bills focused on transgender youth have often been lengthy and emotional. Last week, a hearing on bills that would mandate how schools deal with transgender athletes and name changes lasted over 10 hours. In 2023, many showed up in opposition to a gender affirming care ban bill.

The hearing Wednesday lasted nearly nine hours, but mostly supporters spoke during the first three hours of the hearing despite being vastly outnumbered by opponents.

According to the record of committee proceedings, there were 79 people who appeared against the bill and 18 who appeared for, including the two bill authors. There were also 17 people who registered in favor of the bill, but didn’t speak and 103 people who registered against, but didn’t speak at the hearing. 

At one point during the hearing, Subeck asked Moses to begin alternating between supporters and opponents of the bill, but he responded by saying that was up to him.

Some opponents to the bill spoke about their frustration with this when they finally got their chance to speak.

“We sit here for all this time, all these people, you’re allowing the anti-trans voices to go first. It feels like the world is stacked against us and we’re getting tired of it,” Cory Neeley said. “My voice is cracking because I’m literally fuming at the fact that I’ve sat here all day long listening to people call me a groomer. People calling me a person who doesn’t care about their children… I’m a good parent.”

Subeck told the Wisconsin Examiner in a call Friday that she has seen chairs put certain voices first before, but the degree to which it was done was “unusual” and “pretty unprecedented.” The first three hours of the hearing were mostly supporters of the bill, aside from Sens. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) and Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove).

“Committee chairs often try to, if they can, literally go back and forth, one to one,” Subeck said. “But even if you’re not literally going one for, one against, certainly front loading it so heavily when you have a room full of people there to testify against, including families with children who are going to be impacted by the bill, it certainly felt more like a tactic than a simple oversight.” 

Subeck noted there was some disruption during the hearing and there can be consequences for that.

“I also can’t help but wonder how it could have been different if the chair had actually let some of the folks who were there to testify against the bill testify before we were already a couple of hours into the bill,” Subeck said. “Some of the hateful rhetoric of those early testifiers was directed directly at some of those young people who were coming to testify about how this bill impacted them.”

Moses told lawmakers Thursday he would take the criticism into consideration

“If there’s any issues anyone has, you know, how they’re running? Please come and see me,” Moses said. “We’ll try and work it out privately if I’m still doing it.”

Rep. Rob Brooks (R-Saukville) acknowledged that the conversation about the issue was painful for everyone involved, but he said he thinks the conversation does need to be had. He and Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said that an informational hearing, rather than a hearing on a bill, may have been a more “prudent” approach for lawmakers to learn more. 

“You’re right, it’s not going to become law,” Brooks said. “I do think yesterday was beneficial from an educational standpoint for a lot of us, regardless of how you vote. I don’t know how you can’t come out of there a little richer with your knowledge on both sides. I’m going to support the bill.”

The committee voted 10-5 with Republicans for and Democrats against to advance the bill, setting it up to go to the Assembly floor.

Subeck told the Examiner that she was “disappointed and frustrated and upset” Republicans voted for it, saying “they are still putting what is truly partisan motivation… political agenda ahead of the kids and families who came and testified to us.”

However, she said the conversation during the Thursday executive session did give her some hope. 

“In private, legislators have a lot of conversations that don’t reflect the votes that are taken on the floor, and I think the tenor of the conversation in that room was a little bit closer to the conversations that we often have when we are sitting one on one, talking to each other,” Subeck told the Wisconsin Examiner. “It makes me a little bit hopeful, because while my Republican colleagues continue down the path of voting their party line — even when they have said they have things to learn and it gives them pause — the fact that they were willing to even sit in that room, in sort of a public sphere, and have a conversation means that there is room for change.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Correction: This story has been updated to correct the number of people that spoke for and against the bill.

Transgender flags being held by people during a demonstration. (Getty Images)

Republican and Democratic lawmakers engaged in heated back and forth during a Wednesday hearing on a bill that would ban gender-affirming medical care for Wisconsin youth.

The bill is among an increasing number of anti-trans bills being introduced across the country, and it’s the fourth bill related to transgender youth to get a hearing in the Wisconsin Assembly in the last two weeks.

According to the Trans Legislation Tracker, 738 bills have been introduced across the country in 2025. The increase in bills comes as President Donald Trump has signed a series of executive orders that target transgender people as well as gender-affirming care. 

Bill authors Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee) and Rep. Scott Allen (R-Waukesha) said they just want to “protect” children.  

“I am not here to tell any adult what he or she should do with his or her own body,” Tomczyk said. “A person who is 18 years of age or older has the ability to get a tattoo, get married, buy a gun, serve his or her country… without receiving permission from someone else. Getting irreversible gender reassignment surgery is another one of those things.”

The bill — AB 104 — would ban gender-affirming care for people under the age of 18. It would prohibit health care providers from engaging in or making referrals for medical intervention “if done for the purpose of changing the minor’s body to correspond to a sex that is discordant with the minor’s biological sex,” including prescribing puberty-blocking drugs or gender-affirming surgery for minors.

The bill includes a handful of exceptions — including if a “health care provider is providing a service in accordance with a good faith medical decision of a parent or guardian of a minor born with a medically verifiable genetic disorder of sex development” — but is otherwise a general ban on the care.

Under the bill, health care providers could be investigated if there are allegations that they have provided this type of care to a minor and could have their licenses revoked by the Board of Nursing, the Medical Examining Board or the Physician Assistant Affiliated Credentialing Board if the investigation finds that they did. 

Tomczyk said he wasn’t introducing the bill to “demonize” the transgender community — a comment that received groans and pushback from others at the hearing. “But as you can hear from the reaction from the gallery, I’m going to be accused of that.”

“Boo! Ridiculous!” one person called out after his testimony.

Committee chair Rep. Clint Moses (R-Menomonie) tried to keep the room calm — telling people not to jeer or boo or hold up signs. Throughout the hearing, he had a couple of people removed from the room by police.

Democratic lawmakers sharply criticized the bill, saying lawmakers did not have the experience or medical knowledge to interfere with decisions being made by families and medical providers and were causing harm by introducing the legislation.

“Do any of you have any training or background in the medical field, practitioners or have other training that I might not be aware of?” Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) asked the authors.

“I find the question irrelevant,” Allen said. 

“I just have a degree in common sense,” Tomczyk quipped. 

“Knowing that physicians follow what is considered the standard of care and that is set forth by organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics … why is it that on this particular issue we should substitute the judgment of legislators for the judgement of physicians and families?” Subeck asked. 

“Did you listen to my testimony?” Tomczyck said. “I think we have a responsibility to protect these children under 18 and let them get to 18 to the point where legally they can then make that decision.”

According to KFF, receiving gender-affirming care is a lengthy, meticulous process, and for those under 18, decisions in the process are made with the input of the child, their families and health care providers, including mental health providers. Gender-affirming medical care before 18 mostly focuses on pubertal suppression or hormone therapy.

Surgeries are rare for those under 18. UW Health does not perform genital surgery on transgender girls or boys under 18. UW Health may consider performing chest masculinization, or “top,” surgery for patients under 18 “only after multidisciplinary evaluation, a letter of support from your mental health provider and with informed consent from all legal guardians,” according to a Wisconsin Watch report. 

A 2024 study published by JAMA Network found that transgender teenagers who have pursued medical interventions, including puberty blockers and hormones, have high levels of satisfaction and low levels of regret, with an overwhelming majority — 97% — continuing to access gender-affirming medical care.

Rep. Renuka Mayadev (D-Madison) asked lawmakers why they aren’t trying to solve any real problems and noted that the bill could contribute to increased hate towards transgender people. She pointed to  the case of Sam Nordquist, a 24-year-old transgender man from Minnesota recently killed in New York. 

“There’s a transgender man, who was tortured and assaulted and beaten to death. He was beaten because of the hate that people have, and I want to know why aren’t we protecting people like Sam?” Mayadev asked. “[The bill] is not solving any problems. It’s meddling in the patient, doctor relationship.” 

The lawmakers asked if the crime happened in Wisconsin and noted that it happened to an adult and they are focused on children. 

This is the third time the legislation has been introduced. Last session, a similar bill was vetoed by Gov. Tony Evers, who then vowed to reject any further legislation targeting LGBTQ+ youth.

Allen said he expects “victory” for the bill, saying that public opinion can change over time. 

“I’ve seen bills in the body — session after session after session after session — where the author refuses to give up because they believe that it’s a good idea,” Allen said. “I think that’s our responsibility as legislators, to represent our constituency and advocate for what we think is the right thing. We may not have popular opinion on our side, not at some point in time maybe we will.”

Allen said that the idea for the policy came from the Family Policy Alliance, a conservative Christian organization that has advocated for anti-trans legislation across the country.

Some of those that testified in favor of the bill included Do No Harm, a lobbying group that opposes gender-affirming medical care as well as diversity, equity and inclusion, Moms For Liberty, Wisconsin Family Action and Gays Against Groomers.

Groups registered against the bill include the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Inc, Children’s Hospital of Wisconsin, Fair Wisconsin Inc., Medical College of Wisconsin, Pharmacy Society of Wisconsin, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Wisconsin Council of Churches and the Wisconsin Medical Society.

Sen. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) and Sen. Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove) called the bill “cruel” and said it would take the state backwards in time. Ratcliff, whose son is trans, said that he “would not be the thriving adult he is today without having the access to the care that allowed him to live his life as his authentic self.” 

“Why we would want to take away a parent’s ability to provide their children with life-saving care and also restrict their ability to access information to help their child be healthy and happy — it’s beyond me,” Ratcliff said. 

Spreitzer noted that the bill is part of a package of bills that have received hearings this week and last that are “attempting to roll back that progress to make it harder for transgender young people to grow into flourishing transgender adults.” 

Spreitzer said the bill is not going to become law, but just talking about the bill will have negative effects for some people’s mental health.

In a recent survey of 358 Wisconsin LGBTQ+ youths by the Trevor Project, participants reported significant mental health struggles. About 39% of LGBTQ+ youth surveyed reporting seriously considering suicide, including 44% of transgender and nonbinary youth, and 12% reporting a suicide attempt. In addition, 63% of LGBTQ+ surveyed reported experiencing symptoms of anxiety.

“Not everybody’s going to get that message [that the bill won’t become law],” Spreitzer said. “People are going to be afraid that they are going to lose access to care.” He added that Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee recently canceled and then rescheduled some appointments after Trump’s executive order. “This bill only adds to that… It creates a climate of fear.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE