Excerpts:

“Seattle responded to the request by filing a lawsuit in Travis County, stating they cannot comply because Texas has no jurisdiction in Washington State, and no care was provided by the hospital in Texas. They also point out that the Dormant Commerce Clause, protected by the United States Constitution, “protects the right to interstate travel, including to obtain healthcare services.” By targeting out-of-state hospitals for enforcement of laws that only apply within the jurisdiction of Texas, they “discriminate against healthcare based on an interstate element,” violating constitutional protections, according to the legal filing. Lastly, Seattle Children’s Hospital cannot comply due to a shield law passed by Washington State. This law bars the hospital from providing any patient data and from responding to subpoenas pursuant to “protected healthcare services” obtained within the jurisdiction of Washington. Protected healthcare services include abortion, reproductive care, and gender-affirming care.”

“This case promises to be extraordinarily complex. Seattle Children’s Hospital is challenging the jurisdiction of the demands directly in a Texas state court. Regardless of what the local court decides, the claims are likely to go to the Texas Supreme Court. Given that the claims also have a time limit on them and that appeals in Texas automatically favor the attorney general due to an automatic lifting of stays in the state, Seattle Children’s Hospital workers and providers for trans patients from Texas could be under legal jeopardy. Ultimately, the case presents questions of conflicting state laws and regulation of conduct across state lines, and the implications of those laws could be dire for abortion and trans care nationwide.”

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    139
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This case promises to be extraordinarily complex.

    It really shouldn’t be complex at all. It should be extremely simple: Is Seattle within the jurisdiction of the Texas AG or not?

    • jonne@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess the issue is that they have to convince a Texas court of that, instead of some kind of reasonable judge.

    • IamSparticles@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      The confederate states split from the union because they wanted the federal government to force free states to return escaped slaves, effectively enforcing the laws of one state on the residents of another. We are reenacting the events that led to the first Civil War.

    • chocosoldier@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      the fact of trans people being involved has the effect of making anything complicated, apparently. It’s just sooooo complicated to checks notes allow us the same rights and protections as anyone else. But oh hey someone’s building a database of trans people while passing a bunch of anti-trans legislation? Hold on now it’s complicated he may have a point.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        And, of course, it’s only trans people for now. If they can build a database of people getting gender-affirming care, they can build a database of people getting any other sort of medical care. For example, care for HIV or sickle cell anemia or Tay Sachs. And then there’s the ability to make a database of women getting legal abortions, certain forms of birth control or IVF treatments. Awfully convenient way to keep track of ‘problem’ members of society, isn’t it?