Texas may require medical records list patients' sex assigned at birth
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
Newsweek
30 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Greg Abbott Threatens to 'Eliminate' Almost Every Texas Democratic Seat
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Texas Republican Governor Gregg Abbott has warned Democrats that he could "eliminate" 10 of his state's 12 Democratic-held seats if the two parties were to launch a nationwide battle to redraw congressional maps. Why It Matters Democrats and Republicans in the Lone Star State are embroiled in an escalating showdown over the GOP's efforts to redraw the congressional map to gain five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives as the 2026 midterms loom. President Donald Trump has thrown his support behind Texas Republicans' redistricting efforts. His Republicans face vulnerabilities ahead of next year's elections and a new poll showing the president's approval rating suddenly dropping among conservatives will increase Republican worries about the midterms, and raise the stakes for both parties as they wrangle over congressional maps. President Donald Trump, left, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott field questions on July 11 in the wake of the catastrophic flooding in Kerrville, Texas. President Donald Trump, left, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott field questions on July 11 in the wake of the catastrophic flooding in Kerrville, To Know Abbott, in comments aired by KWTX News 10, said Democrats would lose any nationwide battle over redrawing congressional maps because blue states have fewer Republican districts to play with. "All those big, blue states, they've already gerrymandered. Look at the map of Illinois, look at the map of California, New York and Massachusetts and so many other blue states, they gerrymandered a long time ago, they've got nothing left with regard to what they can do," Abbott said. "And know this, if California tries to gerrymander five more districts, listen, Texas has the ability to eliminate 10 Democrats in our state. We can play that game more than they can because they have fewer Republican districts in their states," Abbott said. Texas has 38 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The GOP holds 25 and the Democrats have 12, with one vacancy. Nationally, Republicans hold 219 House seats while Democrats have 212, with four vacancies. Two seats left vacant after the deaths of two Democrats—in Arizona and Texas—will be decided in special elections in the fall. If the GOP loses both in the heavily blue districts, Democrats will inch to within three seats of a House majority, and there are several dozen competitive districts out of 435. The two parties have long traded accusations of gerrymandering, or amending maps in the interests of one side over another to create "safe" electoral seats, in various states around the country. Texas' plan to redistrict, or redraw legislative district boundaries, has in turn kicked off a broader fight between blue and red states, with at least nine, including Texas, New York and California, saying they are considering redrawing their maps, according to officials and media reports. California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has warned that if Texas Republicans follow through with their push to redistrict their state, he will retaliate by doing the same in California, which is already heavily blue. In a letter to Trump on Monday, Newsom urged the president to abandon his push, telling him he is "playing with fire" and "risking the destabilization of our democracy." What People Are Saying Trump, referring to the 2024 presidential election, told CNBC on August 5: "I won Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats." Newsom, in his letter to Trump on Monday, said: "If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states." What Happens Next Legal experts anticipate that any aggressive redistricting moves could prompt court challenges. Historically, lawsuits have delayed or overturned redistricting plans when courts deemed them unconstitutional or in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
Why 17-year-olds are exempt from new Indy youth curfew passed after mass shooting
Indianapolis officials have made the youth curfew two hours earlier for all children younger than 17 for at least the rest of this year. About a month after a July 5 mass shooting left two teenagers dead, the Indianapolis City-County Council voted Aug. 11 to make the youth curfew stricter effective immediately. An initial proposal that included 17-year-olds was amended at the last minute by Democratic councilors who felt that older teens should be granted more independence. The new rules mean that children ages 15 and 16 won't be allowed in public unsupervised past 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and past 9 p.m. Sundays through Thursdays. Children under 15 will face a 9 p.m. curfew every day. The city's emergency curfew will remain in place for 120 days, which means the council must decide in early December whether to extend or relax the policy. Teens who are 17 will still be subject to the state curfew of 1 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 11 p.m. on Sundays through Thursdays. The 25-person council's Democratic majority passed the amendment that excluded 17-year-olds from the new curfew despite the opposition of all six Republican councilors. "The sun doesn't even go down in the summer until near 10 p.m., and I don't think we're putting ourselves in a good position pushing 17-year-olds to break curfew at 10-10:30 p.m.," said Councilor Jared Evans, who introduced the amendment at Monday's council meeting. Republicans like Councilor Joshua Bain said that excluding 17-year-olds from the new policy weakens the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department's efforts to keep people safe. "It is not the goal of IMPD to go around arresting every 17-year-old that's out at night," Bain said. "This is a targeted way for them to get in between a 17-year-old that's about to make a really bad decision and possibly ruin the rest of their life." The ordinance doesn't create a criminal offense for children who break curfew, but it does grant police the authority to detain them. The policy carves out several exceptions for kids who are returning home from work, a school activity, a religious event or activities protected by the First Amendment such as political protests, among others. IMPD Chief Christopher Bailey said he was unbothered by the change exempting 17-year-olds from a stricter curfew. (He mentioned in jest that his daughter, who is nearly 17 and has been criticizing her father at home over the new curfew, would be "very pleased.") "My direction to the officers is not some sweep of everyone that's out," Bailey said. "It's really behavioral-based." Democratic Councilor Dan Boots spoke bluntly in support of more leniency for 17-year-olds. "Seventeen-year-olds are rising seniors in high school, a step away from being able to vote and be drafted and killed for our country," Boots said. "I think they have a right to stay out past 9 to go to a movie and come back." Republican Councilor Michael-Paul Hart, who also voted against the last-minute change, introduced a new proposal Monday night that would fine parents whose children violate curfew. State law allows the city to impose thousands of dollars in fines, according to city attorney Brandon Beeler, but it's unclear how harshly violators would be prosecuted. Hart's proposal would give parents one written warning for a first violation, followed by a $500 fine for a second time and a $1,500 fine for each subsequent occurrence. Councilors will consider the proposal in committee later this month before a likely vote in September. The harsher curfew change comes after hundreds of unsupervised teens lingered downtown in the hours following the Fourth of July fireworks show, culminating in a mass shooting after midnight that killed Xavion Jackson, 16, and Azareaon S. Cole, 15. Two other teens and three adults were also injured. Four teenagers ranging from 13 to 17 years old have been charged in connection with the shooting for illegally carrying guns.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Republicans, Democrats alike exhort Trump: Keep security pact with Australia and UK alive
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. lawmakers from both parties are urging the Trump administration to maintain a three-way security partnership designed to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines — a plea that comes as the Pentagon reviews the agreement and considers the questions it has raised about the American industrial infrastructure's shipbuilding capabilities. Two weeks ago, the Defense Department announced it would review AUKUS, the 4-year-old pact signed by the Biden administration with Australia and the United Kingdom. The announcement means the Republican administration is looking closely at a partnership that many believe is critical to the U.S. strategy to push back China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. The review is expected to be completed in the fall. 'AUKUS is essential to strengthening deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and advancing the undersea capabilities that will be central to ensuring peace and stability," Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan and Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois wrote in a July 22 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Moolenaar chairs the House panel on China and Krishnamoorthi is its top Democrat. The review comes as the Trump administration works to rebalance its global security concerns while struggling with a hollowed-out industrial base that has hamstrung U.S. capabilities to build enough warships. The review is being led by Elbridge Colby, the No. 3 Pentagon official, who has expressed skepticism about the partnership. 'If we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can't, that becomes a very difficult problem," Colby said during his confirmation hearing in March. 'This is getting back to restoring our defense industrial capacity so that we don't have to face these awful choices but rather can be in a position where we can produce not only for ourselves, but for our allies." US cannot build enough ships As part of the $269 billion AUKUS partnership, the United States will sell three to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, with the first delivery scheduled as soon as 2032. The U.S. and the U.K. would help Australia design and build another three to five attack submarines to form an eight-boat force for Australia. A March report by the Congressional Research Service warned that the lack of U.S. shipbuilding capacities, including workforce shortage and insufficient supply chains, is jeopardizing the much-celebrated partnership. If the U.S. should sell the vessels to Australia, the U.S. Navy would have a shortage of attack submarines for two decades, the report said. The Navy has been ordering two boats per year in the last decade, but U.S. shipyards have been only producing 1.2 Virginia-class subs a year since 2022, the report said. 'The delivery pace is not where it needs to be" to make good on the first pillar of AUKUS, Admiral Daryl Caudle, nominee for the Chief of Naval Operations, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. Australia has invested $1 billion in the U.S. submarine industrial base, with another $1 billion to be paid before the end of this year. It has agreed to contribute a total of $3 billion to uplift the U.S. submarine base, and it has sent both industry personnel to train at U.S. shipyards and naval personnel for submarine training in the United States. "Australia was clear that we would make a proportionate contribution to the United States industrial base,' an Australian defense spokesperson said in July. 'Australia's contribution is about accelerating U.S. production rates and maintenance to enable the delivery of Australia's future Virginia-class submarines.' The three nations have also jointly tested communication capabilities with underwater autonomous systems, Australia's defense ministry said on July 23. Per the partnership, the countries will co-develop other advanced technologies, from undersea to hypersonic capabilities. At the recent Aspen Security Forum, Kevin Rudd, the Australian ambassador to the United States, said his country is committed to increasing defense spending to support its first nuclear-powered sub program, which would also provide 'massively expensive full maintenance repair facilities" for the U.S. Indo-Pacific fleet based in Western Australia. Rudd expressed confidence that the two governments 'will work our way through this stuff.' AUKUS called 'crucial to American deterrence' Bruce Jones, senior fellow with the Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy and Technology, told The Associated Press that the partnership, by positioning subs in Western Australia, is helping arm the undersea space that is 'really crucial to American deterrence and defense options in the Western Pacific.' 'The right answer is not to be content with the current pace of submarine building. It's to increase the pace," Jones said. Jennifer Parker, who has served more than 20 years with the Royal Australian Navy and founded Barrier Strategic Advisory, said it should not be a zero-sum game. 'You might sell one submarine to Australia, so you have one less submarine on paper. But in terms of the access, you have the theater of choice from operating from Australia, from being able to maintain your submarines from Australia," Parker said. 'This is not a deal that just benefits Australia." Defense policy is one of the few areas where Republican lawmakers have pushed back against the Trump administration, but their resolve is being tested with the Pentagon's review of AUKUS. So far, they have joined their Democratic colleagues in voicing support for the partnership. They said the U.S. submarine industry is rebounding with congressional appropriations totaling $10 billion since 2018 to ensure the U.S. will have enough ships to allow for sales to Australia. "There is a little bit of mystification about the analysis done at the Pentagon,' Kaine said, adding that 'maybe (what) the analysis will say is: We believe this is a good thing.'
