Assembly committee advances AB 82 to shield gender‑affirming care records and protect providers

A California Assembly committee on Wednesday voted to advance AB 82, legislation sponsored by Assemblymember Ward that would tighten privacy protections for people seeking and providing gender‑affirming health care and limit reporting of some prescriptions to the state prescription drug monitoring program.

Supporters told the Assembly Public Safety Committee the bill responds to rising harassment and threats against providers and patients. "It is imperative that we support the privacy and safety of patients and their families," Assemblymember Ward said while presenting the measure, arguing the bill is needed because "there is a growing national attack on individuals' rights, including the right for people to access legal health services such as reproductive and gender affirming health care."

The bill would, among other things, prohibit reporting of testosterone and mifepristone prescriptions to CURES (California's prescription drug monitoring program), expand California’s Safe at Home program to include health professionals who provide gender‑affirming care, broaden protections that limit criminalization of family members seeking care, and extend anti‑doxing protections for providers and patients.

Renee Bayardo, a parent and board member of Alliance for Trans Youth Rights, told the committee, "This bill will help protect families like mine by making sure information about personal health care is protected." Craig Pulsipher, legislative director for Equality California and a co‑sponsor, described a national pattern of harassment that he said is already chilling access to care and prompting providers to remove personal information from the internet.

Opponents raised constitutional and public‑safety concerns during the public comment period. Meg Madden Raider, appearing for CAUSE (Californians United for Evidence‑Based Policy and Law), said during a two‑minute appearance that "AB 82 creates a constitutional crisis and puts into place dangerous mechanisms for child exploitation," arguing that an expanded safe‑at‑home program could be misused and that removing some reporting from CURES could impede oversight.

Committee discussion touched on the interplay between privacy protections and existing public records and criminal statutes. After public comment and brief committee debate, a motion to pass AB 82 carried; the clerk read a roll call and the committee recorded ayes from members present. The committee recorded the motion as passed to the Judiciary Committee.

The bill drew dozens of organizational supporters, including Planned Parenthood affiliates, Equality California and multiple health and civil‑rights groups; public commenters in opposition included an advocacy group critical of the measure's potential collateral effects. The bill will next be considered by the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Ending: AB 82's supporters say the changes are intended to protect patients and health professionals from harassment and targeted data‑sharing across state lines; opponents warned the bill could produce unintended legal and accountability gaps. The measure now goes to Judiciary for further consideration.