California bill targets Trump’s calls for abortion, transgender care

The latest showdown between California and President Donald Trump over abortion and gender-affirming care could soon leave doctors caught between state and federal law.

Under a bill that could soon pass the Legislature, California medical providers and related businesses could face huge state fines if they comply with a federal subpoena seeking information about abortion, gender confirmation or reproductive care without first notifying the California attorney general, patients and providers.

But delaying the feds’ response could put them at risk of violating federal law, and independent constitutional scholars say the pending law may not survive a legal challenge.

The bill is in response to efforts by the Trump administration and conservative states to block or criminalize abortion services and care for transgender people.

Under 1930 Assembly Billany medical provider or business served with any civil, criminal or regulatory investigation, inquiry, subpoena or subpoena seeking “statutory protected health care activity” “shall not comply” unless the provider notifies the state attorney general and others involved in care.

Author of the measure, MP Rick Chavez Zbur of Los Angeles, said the impetus for the bill was in part a federal subpoena from the Trump administration to Children’s Hospital Los Angeles seeking medical records for transgender youth patients.

“No one should fear that seeking legal medical care in the state of California could put their privacy and safety at risk.” he told the Assembly Judiciary Committee at a hearing last week.

Legislators spent only 17 minutes discussing AB 1930 in its first legislative hearing last week, despite the legal complexities and implications for California patients, doctors, hospitals, insurers, technology companies and others. According to CalMatters, it passed on a party-line vote Digital Democracy Database. Now moving to Assembly Committee on Public Safety where it is scheduled to be discussed on Tuesday

The Los Angeles hospital was one of 20 medical providers that offered gender-affirming care to minors that received federal subpoenas for patient medical records. At the time, the US Department of Justice said the subpoenas were part of an investigation into “healthcare fraud” and “false statements.” Some of the families filed lawsuits to fight the subpoenas. in January, the feds retreated and did not receive the records.

Rady Children’s Hospital, which operates facilities in San Diego, Orange and Imperial counties, told CalMatters earlier this year that the U.S. Health and Human Services inspector general is investigating the hospital. The investigation preceded Radi’s decision to stop most gender verification services for minorsa decision that is now tied to numerous lawsuits.

The measure states that in order for a business or provider to release records, the entity making the legal request must include an affidavit declaring that the investigation is not about punishing providers for providing abortions, transgender care or other services protected by California law, or that the investigation involves a possible California crime or is a “professional disciplinary” investigation.

The recipient will have to inform the prosecutor’s office within seven days of receiving the legal request. The attorney general will have an additional 30 days to review the matter before the recipient can comply with the order.

The measure, which is sponsored by the attorney general Rob Bontawould also require the provider to notify patients and providers whose records are sought. Those who violate the rules will face civil penalties of up to $15,000 for each violation.

Democrats advocate for abortion protection

In recent years, California lawmakers have passed more than a dozen laws designed to protect medical professionals from conservative states and the federal government on abortion and transgender health care.

Democrats passed the laws after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and other states began banning or criminalizing abortion. Thirteen states prohibit abortion and some, most notably Texas, punish anyone who helps another person obtain an abortion.

Legislative efforts to protect clinicians and patients’ medical records have expanded as the Trump administration increasingly politicizes other services such as gender-affirming care for minors.

California law prohibits state law enforcement from extraditing medical professionals who may have violated another state’s abortion or gender-affirming care laws. They also prohibit medical facilities from sharing patient information about those services with out-of-state law enforcement.

LGBTQ+ civil rights group Equality California is the other co-sponsor of the latest bill. Mix was its executive director before being elected to the Legislative Assembly.

Equality California’s legislative director, Craig Pulsipher, told the judicial commission the measure builds on California’s “existing protections to ensure that patients can access health care without fear that their personal information will be used as a weapon against them.”

Various groups opposed to gender-affirming care oppose the measure, as does the California Chamber of Commerce.

In a letter to lawmakers, representatives of the state’s influential business lobby said CalChamber members appreciate lawmakers who want to “help protect businesses facing subpoena” and do not oppose the bill out of “support for abuse of subpoena power.”

“However, we are concerned that AB 1930 will force businesses to violate federal law in order to comply with state law,” they wrote.

Leila Jane, a “transitioner” who sue your healthcare provider because of sex-reassignment surgery she received as a teenager, said the bill would protect doctors from negligent care investigations and make it harder for patients like her to subpoena medical records.

“This bill protects providers so they can continue to chop up bodies,” she told the committee. “It wraps the doctors, the clinics, the gender industry in a legal blanket and says, ‘You’re protected from liability no matter who you hurt.’ There is no blanket for me.”

Would the bill survive a court challenge?

Bill Esailly, a former Republican state legislator who heads the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles, said in a statement that Zbur’s measure would be unconstitutional.

“Any effort by California to limit the federal government’s lawful use or compliance with subpoenas is illegal and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause,” Esaily said.

Three independent constitutional scholars whom CalMatters asked to review the bill suggested that Esaily might have a point.

Under this provision of the US Constitution, states cannot pass laws that conflict with the statutory powers of the federal government.

“If there’s a conflict between federal law on one side and state or local (law) on the other, federal law wins,” said Irwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law.

Chemerinsky and the other scientists said the measure was unlikely to face the same legal problems it caused federal judge to block California’s attempt to ban federal agents from wearing masks. The judge in the mask case ruled that the state discriminated against the federal government because it exempted state police from the ban.

This proposed measure does not separate the federal government; the bill applies to any entity that issues subpoenas.

Still, the scientists said forcing private health care providers and businesses not to respond to a subpoena by a federal deadline could be legally problematic.

“It looks like the federal government can say you’re obstructing their law enforcement,” said Leslie Gillow Jacobs, a law professor at McGeorge Pacific University School of Law.

“Does this interfere with federal … objectives?” said Vikram David Amar, a law professor at the UC Davis School of Law. “If so, it would be void under Supremacy.”

The California Attorney General’s Office responded to an interview request for Bonta with an unsigned written statement.

“Bills are not final when introduced and may change during the legislative process,” it said. “Our office will continue to have conversations with stakeholders regarding AB 1930 and address concerns when appropriate and necessary.”