Texas may require medical records list patients' sex assigned at birth
The Texas House on Thursday approved a bill requiring health agencies to create a new field in medical records for the sex assigned at birth of patients and strict oversight and punishment of health care providers who change records.
Senate Bill 1188 encompasses 'multiple components' according to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Greg Bonnen, R-Friendswood, including restrictions on health care providers' storage of digital servers and their use of artificial intelligence. Democratic legislators on Thursday, however, largely zeroed in on a provision requiring all health records to include a new segment explicitly listing the sex a patient was assigned at birth and any physical sexual development disorders they may have.
SB 1188 is one of several bills moving through the Legislature aimed at restricting the health care of trans Texans, however SB 1188 does have an exemption stating it does not restrict gender identity information from being included in health records. To enforce its provisions, SB 1188 allows the attorney general to file for injunctions against violations of the bill, and would create penalties of up to $250,000 for practices who knowingly violate its provisions. The bill allows for gender markers to be changed for clerical errors or in certain cases for intersex patients.
Democratic lawmakers who spoke in opposition of the bill said the required reporting of gender assigned at birth excludes transgender and intersex patients who may be forced to have a gender displayed in their medical records they don't identify as.
'Knowing that documentation choices could trigger a government investigation discourages providers from recording accurate individualized information, especially in complex cases involving gender or sex variation,' Rep. Ron Reynolds, D-Missouri City, said. 'It places fear and legal exposure ahead of best medical practice.'
Bonnen provided rebuttals for all of the proposed amendments and ensured opponents of the bill that it would help physicians understand a more complete picture of a patient's medical history. Democratic representatives attempted to derail the bill down through two points of order and then brought a slew of amendments to the floor seeking to blunt some of the bill's requirements, but were unsuccessful.
'Listen, biological sex and medical records is an issue of accuracy, and impacting safe medical care in an acute situation, an emergency could lead to a misdiagnosis,' Bonnen said. 'The whole point of the section of the bill is to ensure the physicians always know the true biological sex from birth, and the language is carefully crafted to allow for exceptions based on other medical conditions.'
Bonnen provided his own amendment to the bill expanding the eligibility for those who could be listed as intersex and explicitly stating the bill does not ban AI use by medical professionals.
The bill outlines in statute its own definitions of several medical terms including 'sexual development disorder,' male and female. While its definition of female matches that of House Bill 229 — a bill seeking to define male and female across state statute that passed in the House in May — it differs in its definition of what a male is. HB 229 defines a male as someone whose biological reproductive system 'is developed to fertilize the ova of a female,' different from SB 1188's requirement that male systems are 'developed to produce sperm.'
Beyond its requirements on reporting biological sex, SB 1188 also gives parents and guardians of minors 'unrestricted access' to the child's medical records unless a court order is in place preventing them from doing so. The bill also requires medical professionals to disclose when they use artificial intelligence for diagnoses and review all AI-created documents.
The bill requires one more formal vote in the House, after which it will be sent for approval from the Senate as amended, then will head to Gov. Greg Abbott's desk for his signature.
First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun
A federal judge upheld Colorado's restriction on firearms sales requiring buyers to be 21 or older after Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and two people looking to purchase firearms sued Democratic Gov. Jared Polis. Chief U.S. District Judge Philip A. Brimmer agreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit's decision that age-based requirements for purchase do not fall under the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. The 10th Circuit and Brimmer agree that the issue falls under a "safe harbor" exclusion, placing it outside the scope of the Constitution. The only exceptions to Colorado's firearm purchase age restriction are for those in the U.S. Military and for peace officers. In both cases, the person must be making the purchase while on duty and is "serving in conformance with the policies" of their respective agency. Supreme Court Declines To Examine Appeals Over Maryland, Rhode Island Gun Control Laws "Governor Polis is committed to making Colorado one of the ten safest states, and common-sense laws encourage responsible gun ownership and keep people safe. For decades in Colorado, you had to be 21 to purchase a handgun, per federal law. The requirement to be 21 was expanded to rifles and shotguns with the signing of SB23-169, and Governor Polis is glad to see the court affirm that Colorado's common sense law does not infringe on Second Amendment rights. Governor Polis is confident this law has and will help keep Coloradans and our communities safe," Polis' Communications Director Conor Cahill said in a statement to Fox News Digital. Brimmer acknowledged that Adrian Pineda and Matthew Newkirk — the two individuals under 21 who sued Polis together with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners — are part of "the people" as written in the Second Amendment. However, he referred to the 10th Circuit's decision, saying it had resolved the case back in 2023, according to Courthouse News Service (CNS). Read On The Fox News App Debate Over Whether To Ban Handgun Sales To Teens Could Soon Head To The Supreme Court The decision in Colorado comes in contrast to one issued by the Supreme Court in 2022 in which justices determined that New York issued unconstitutional requirements for carrying a concealed weapon in public. Then-President Joe Biden said he was "deeply disappointed" by the ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He said that SCOTUS had "chosen to strike down New York's long-established authority to protect its citizens." "This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all," Biden said in a statement at the time. He went on to reaffirm his commitment to reducing gun violence and making communities safer. Brimmer is also going against a decision made by the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which struck down a federal restriction banning the sale of firearms to anyone below the age of 21. That court held that those aged 18 to 20 are protected under the Second Amendment, according to The Trace, an organization of journalists who report on gun violence in the U.S. "The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds' firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban," Judge Edith H. Jones wrote in the opinion. Several states, including New York, Massachusetts, California, Florida, Illinois, Delaware and Vermont have raised the age for purchasing firearms, according to the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund. While some states have limited the age restrictions to handgun purchases, others have applied the restriction to any kind of article source: Federal judge approves Colorado law banning people under 21 from buying a gun
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The AI lobby plants its flag in Washington
Top artificial intelligence companies are rapidly expanding their lobbying footprint in Washington — and so far, Washington is turning out to be a very soft target. Two privately held AI companies, OpenAI and Anthropic — which once positioned themselves as cautious, research-driven counterweights to aggressive Big Tech firms — are now adding Washington staff, ramping up their lobbying spending and chasing contracts from the estimated $75 billion federal IT budget, a significant portion of which now focuses on AI. They have company. Scale AI, a specialist contractor with the Pentagon and other agencies, is also planning to expand its government relations and lobbying teams, a spokesperson told POLITICO. In late March, the AI-focused chipmaking giant Nvidia registered its first in-house lobbyists. AI lobbyists are 'very visible' and 'very present on the hill,' said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) in an interview at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo this week. 'They're nurturing relationships with lots of senators and a handful of members [of the House] in Congress. It's really important for their ambitions, their expectations of the future of AI, to have Congress involved, even if it's only to stop us from doing anything.' This lobbying push aims to capitalize on a wave of support from both the Trump administration and the Republican Congress, both of which have pumped up the AI industry as a linchpin of American competitiveness and a means for shrinking the federal workforce. They don't all present a unified front — Anthropic, in particular, has found itself at odds with conservatives, and on Thursday its CEO Dario Amodei broke with other companies by urging Congress to pass a national transparency standard for AI companies — but so far the AI lobby is broadly getting what it wants. 'The overarching ask is for no regulation or for light-touch regulation, and so far, they've gotten that," said Doug Calidas, senior vice president of government affairs for the AI policy nonprofit Americans for Responsible Innovation. In a sign of lawmakers' deference to industry, the House passed a ten-year freeze on enforcing state and local AI regulation as part of its megabill that is currently working through the Senate. Critics, however, worry that the AI conversation in Washington has become an overly tight loop between companies and their GOP supporters — muting important concerns about the growth of a powerful but hard-to-control technology. 'There's been a huge pivot for [AI companies] as the money has gotten closer,' Gary Marcus, an AI and cognitive science expert, said of the leading AI firms. 'The Trump administration is too chummy with the big tech companies, and basically ignoring what the American people want, which is protection from the many risks of AI.' Anthropic declined to comment for this story, referring POLITICO to its March submission to the AI Action Plan that the White House is crafting after President Donald Trump repealed a sprawling AI executive order issued by the Biden administration. OpenAI, too, declined to comment. This week several AI firms, including OpenAI, co-sponsored the Special Competitive Studies Project's AI+ Expo, an annual Washington trade show that has quickly emerged as a kind of bazaar for companies trying to sell services to the government. (Disclosure: POLITICO was a media partner of the conference.) They're jostling for influence against more established government contractors like Palantir, which has been steadily building up its lobbying presence in D.C. for years, while Meta, Google, Amazon and Microsoft — major tech platforms with AI as part of their pitch — already have dozens of lobbyists in their employ. What the AI lobby wants is a classic Washington twofer: fewer regulations to limit its growth, and more government contracts. The government budget for AI has been growing. Federal agencies across the board — from the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy to the IRS and the Department of Veterans Affairs — are looking to build AI capacity. The Trump administration's staff cuts and automation push is expected to accelerate the demand for private firms to fill the gap with AI. For AI, 'growth' also demands energy and, on the policy front, AI companies have been a key driver of the recent push in Congress and the White House to open up new energy sources, streamline permitting for building new data centers and funnel private investment into the construction of these sites. Late last year, OpenAI released an infrastructure blueprint for the U.S. urging the federal government to prepare for a massive spike in demand for computational infrastructure and energy supply. Among its recommendations: creating special AI zones to fast-track permits for energy and data centers, expanding the national power grid and boosting government support for private investment in major energy projects. Those recommendations are now being very closely echoed by Trump administration figures. Last month, at the Bitcoin 2025 Conference in Las Vegas, David Sacks — Trump's AI and crypto czar — laid out a sweeping vision that mirrored the AI industry's lobbying goals. Speaking to a crowd of 35,000, Sacks stressed the foundational role of energy for both AI and cryptocurrency, saying bluntly: 'You need power.' He applauded President Donald Trump's push to expand domestic oil and gas production, framing it as essential to keeping the U.S. ahead in the global AI and crypto race. This is a huge turnaround from a year ago, when AI companies faced a very different landscape in Washington. The Biden administration, and many congressional Democrats, wanted to regulate the industry to guard against bias, job loss and existential risk. No longer. Since Trump's election, AI has become central to the conversation about global competition with China, with Silicon Valley venture capitalists like Sacks and Marc Andreessen now in positions of influence within the Trump orbit. Trump's director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy is Michael Kratsios, former managing director at Scale AI. Trump himself has proudly announced a series of massive Gulf investment deals in AI. Sacks, in his Las Vegas speech, pointed to those recent deal announcements as evidence of what he called a 'total comprehensive shift' in Washington's approach to emerging technologies. But as the U.S. throws its weight behind AI as a strategic asset, critics warn that the enthusiasm is muffling one of the most important conversations about AI: its ability to wreak unforeseen harm on the populace, from fairness to existential risk concerns. Among those concerns: bias embedded in algorithmic decisions that affect housing, policing, and hiring; surveillance that could threaten civil liberties; the erosion of copyright protections, as AI models hoover up data and labor protections as automation replaces human work. Kevin De Liban, founder of TechTonic Justice, a nonprofit that focuses on the impact of AI on low income communities, worries that Washington has abandoned its concerns for AI's impact on citizens. 'Big Tech gets fat government contracts, a testing ground for their technologies, and a liability-free regulatory environment,' he said, of Washington's current AI policy environment. 'Everyday people are left behind to deal with the fallout.' There's a much larger question, too, which dominated the early AI debate: whether cutting-edge AI systems can be controlled at all. These risks, long documented by researchers, are now taking a back seat in Washington as the conversation turns to economic advantage and global competition. There's also the very real concern that if an AI company does bring up the technology's worst-case scenarios, it may find itself at odds with the White House itself. Anthropic CEO Amodei said in a May interview that labor force disruptions due to AI would be severe — which triggered a direct attack from Sacks, Trump's AI czar, on his podcast, who said that line of thinking led to 'woke AI.' Still, both Anthropic and OpenAI are going full steam ahead. Anthropic hired nearly a dozen policy staffers in the last two months, while OpenAI similarly grew its policy office over the past year. They're also pushing to become more important federal contractors by getting critical FedRAMP authorizations — a federal program that certifies cloud services for use across government — which could unlock billions of dollars in contracts. As tech companies grow increasingly cozy with the government, the political will to regulate them is fading — and in fact, Congress appears hostile to any efforts to regulate them at all. In a public comment in March, OpenAI specifically asked the Trump administration for a voluntary federal framework that overrides state AI laws, seeking 'private sector relief' from a patchwork of state AI bills. Two months later, the House added language to its reconciliation bill that would have done exactly that — and more. The provision to impose a 10 year moratorium on state AI regulations passed the House but is expected to be knocked out by the Senate parliamentarian. (Breaking ranks again, Anthropic is lobbying against the moratorium.) Still, the provision has widespread support amongst Republicans and is likely to make a comeback.
27 minutes ago
Pentagon watchdog investigates if staffers were asked to delete Hegseth's Signal messages
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon watchdog is looking into whether any of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's aides was asked to delete Signal messages that may have shared sensitive military information with a reporter, according to two people familiar with the investigation and documents reviewed by The Associated Press. The inspector general's request focuses on how information about the March 15 airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen was shared on the messaging app. This comes as Hegseth is scheduled to testify before Congress next week for the first time since his confirmation hearing. He is likely to face questions under oath not only about his handling of sensitive information but also the wider turmoil at the Pentagon following the departures of several senior aides and an internal investigation over information leaks. Hegseth already has faced questions over the installation of an unsecured internet line in his office that bypassed the Pentagon's security protocols and revelations that he shared details about the military strikes in multiple Signal chats. One of the chats included his wife and brother, while the other included President Donald Trump's top national security officials and inadvertently included The Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg. Neither the Pentagon nor the inspector general's office immediately responded to Friday requests for comment on the investigation. Besides finding out whether anyone was asked to delete Signal messages, the inspector general also is asking some past and current staffers who were with Hegseth on the day of the strikes who posted the information and who had access to his phone, according to the two people familiar with the investigation and the documents reviewed by the AP. The people were not authorized to discuss the investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity. Democratic lawmakers and a small number of Republicans have said that the information Hegseth posted to the Signal chats before the military jets had reached their targets could have put those pilots' lives at risk and that for any lower-ranking members of the military it would have led to their firing. Hegseth has said none of the information was classified. Multiple current and former military officials have said there is no way details with that specificity, especially before a strike took place, would have been OK to share on an unsecured device. 'I said repeatedly, nobody is texting war plans,' Hegseth told Fox News Channel in April after reporting emerged about the chat that included his family members. 'I look at war plans every day. What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterize it, was informal, unclassified coordinations, for media coordinations and other things. That's what I've said from the beginning.' Trump has made clear that Hegseth continues to have his support, saying during a Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia that the defense secretary 'went through a lot' but 'he's doing really well.' Hegseth has limited his public engagements with the press since the Signal controversy. He has yet to hold a Pentagon press briefing, and his spokesman has briefed reporters there only once. The inspector general is investigating Hegseth at the request of the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and the committee's top Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island. Signal is a publicly available app that provides encrypted communications, but it can be hacked and is not approved for carrying classified information. On March 14, one day before the strikes against the Houthis, the Defense Department cautioned personnel about the vulnerability of the app. Trump has said his administration targeted the Houthis over their 'unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence and terrorism.' He has noted the disruption Houthi attacks caused through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, key waterways for energy and cargo shipments between Asia and Europe through Egypt's Suez Canal.
