[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ENDING LAWFARE AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS
WHO PROTECT CHILDREN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND
LIMITED GOVERNMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2025
__________
Serial number 119-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-070 WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona Member
TOM McCLINTOCK, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin ZOE LOFGREN, California
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
CHIP ROY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Georgia
BEN CLINE, Virginia ERIC SWALWELL, California
LANCE GOODEN, Texas TED LIEU, California
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas J. LUIS CORREA, California
BARRY MOORE, Alabama MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KEVIN KILEY, California JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming LUCY McBATH, Georgia
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
WESLEY HUNT, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
BRANDON GILL, Texas
MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT
CHIP ROY, Texas, Chair
TOM McCLINTOCK, California MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Ranking Member
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
WESLEY HUNT, Texas PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina BECCA BALINT, Vermont
ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
BRANDON GILL, Texas DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
JULIE TAGEN, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, April 9, 2025
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Texas.... 1
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Pennsylvania...................................... 3
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 6
The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Maryland....................... 7
WITNESSES
Dr. Eithan Haim, General Surgeon, TCH Whistleblower
Oral Testimony................................................. 10
Prepared Testimony............................................. 12
Mark D. Lytle, Attorney for Dr. Haim, Partner, Nixon Peabody
Oral Testimony................................................. 25
Prepared Testimony............................................. 27
Vanessa Sivadge, Former TCH Nurse, Whistleblower
Oral Testimony................................................. 34
Prepared Testimony............................................. 36
Bruce Lesley, President, First Focus on Children
Oral Testimony................................................. 40
Prepared Testimony............................................. 42
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted by the Subcommittee on the Constitution
and Limited Government, for the record......................... 82
A letter to the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the Subcommittee on
the Constitution and Limited Government from the State of
Texas, and the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, from the Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schreck, LLP, Jan. 10, 2025, submitted by the Honorable
Becca Balint, a Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution
and Limited Government from the State of Vermont, for the
record
An Indictment from the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division v. Eithan David Haim, Nov.
20, 2024, submitted by the Honorable Pramila Jayapal, a Member
of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
from the State of Washington, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited
Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record
An article entitled, ``Texas Children's Hospital halts
hormone-related prescription therapies for transgender
children,'' Mar. 4, 2022, ABC13
An article entitled, ``Houston pediatric chief's abrupt exit
triggers fear, disappointment within transgender
community,'' May 3, 2022, Houston Chronicle
An article entitled, ``Not on My Watch: A whistleblower on
`gender-affirming care' speaks out,'' Jan. 12 2024, Eye on the
News/The Social Order, Health Care, City Journal, submitted by
the Honorable Daniel S. Goldman, a Member of the Subcommittee
on the Constitution and Limited Government from the State of
New York, for the record
Materials submitted by the Honorable Chip Roy, Chair of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from
the State of Texas, for the record
An article entitled, ``How a `Parental Rights' Bill Threatens
the Health, Education, and Safety of Children,'' Jan. 24,
2024 Speaking of Kids, Substack
An article entitled, ``Gov. DeSantis Should Veto Florida's
Tragically Flawed So-Called `Parents' Bill of Rights,''
Apr. 25, 2021 Speaking of Kids, Substack
A collection of Twitter (X) threads by Bruce Lesley,
President, First Focus on Children, on Parental Rights,
May 18, 2021, and Feb. 23, 2022
A letter to the Honorable Tim Scott from the State of South
Carolina, and the Honorable Virginia Foxxfrom the State
of North Carolina, on Parental Rights, Jan. 12, 2024,
from Bruce Lesley, President, First Focus, Campaign for
Children
A Second Superseding Indictment, United States of America v.
Eithan David Haim, Nov. 20, 2024, United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
ENDING LAWFARE AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS WHO PROTECT CHILDREN
----------
Wednesday, April 9, 2025
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Chip Roy
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Roy, Massie, Hageman, Harris,
Onder, Gill, Scanlon, Jayapal, Balint, and Goldman.
Also present: Representative Cline.
Mr. Roy. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We welcome everybody to today's hearing on ending lawfare
against whistleblowers. I will now recognize myself for an
opening statement.
The rule of law demands equal application without fear or
favor. That's why we find ourselves here again today, to
continue our work to hold the Biden-Harris Administration
accountable for their weaponization and political prosecution
against their perceived adversaries.
Over the past four years, we witnessed the Department of
Justice be weaponized against parents, traditionalist
Catholics, and peaceful prolife protestors and grandmothers.
Take, for example, two of our witnesses here today, Dr. Eithan
Haim and Vanessa Sivadge, whistleblowers who revealed that
their employer, the Texas Children's Hospital in my home State,
was performing transgender medical interventions on minors.
Here, the largest children's hospital in the country was
shamefully involved in manipulating, mutilating, and
sterilizing young, confused adolescent children with life-
altering procedures in the name of gender transition. This was
despite its public statements declaring they paused these
harmful procedures in light of the Texas Attorney General's
opinion deeming these experiments to be child abuse.
Yet, the Biden-Harris Department of Justice subsequently
charged Dr. Haim with HIPAA violations for protecting patients
by releasing documents detailing this abuse despite all
personally identifiable information having been carefully
redacted. Dr. Haim faced penalties of up to 10 years in prison
and up to $250,000 in fines. Here, the HIPAA statute merely
became one more tool that the Biden-Harris Department of
Justice engineered in its years-long crusade against political
dissenters instead of equally enforcing the law.
Key to all of this was DOJ's lead prosecutor, Assistant
United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas Tina
Ansari. A series of ethical questions stemmed related to Ms.
Ansari's prosecution of Dr. Haim, including allegedly
presenting knowingly false information to a grand jury to
secure an initial indictment, threatening employment
retaliation against Dr. Haim's wife as a form of intimidation,
failing to disclose her substantial financial ties to Texas
Children's Hospital through her family's commercial coffee
company, not divulging having family members previously on the
hospital's board of directors, attending a VIP reception at a
hospital fundraiser while the case was pending, practicing law
despite her law license having been suspended by the Texas bar
for failure to pay bar dues.
Though Ansari was eventually removed from the case, serious
questions remained about the DOJ's commitment to providing
American citizens with a fair trial. The Department of Justice,
the FBI, and the Health and Human Services division abused
their enforcement authority to advance Left-wing policy goals
and coerce whistleblowers to keep their mouths shut where
agencies served to protect the financial incentives of American
hospitals by prosecuting healthcare workers who dare expose the
barbaric performance of transgender medical care on minors.
When the Left captures institutions, those who dissent can
face legal expenses, reputational damage, and harassment, all
of which deter future whistleblowers from coming forward. Here,
prosecution itself becomes the punishment, and Dr. Haim's
prosecution raises questions about the DOJ's propriety and the
use of Federal resources to wage culture wars highlighting the
emboldened behavior of the Judicial Branch.
I find this particularly disturbing to me personally,
having served as an Assistant United States Attorney. This is
not what the Department of Justice is supposed to do, where
rogue prosecutors and judges knowingly sponsor falsities and
hide conflicts of interest to harass an individual for holding
a disfavored view. These individuals wielding political power
continue to be a primary threat to our institutions and
personal freedoms. Therefore, this hearing touches on two
tragedies: (1) Weaponization of government against innocent
civilians who did the right thing, and (2) harmful life-
altering medical procedures against innocent children and
parents, all so that hospitals and medical providers can
profit.
While the Trump Administration rightfully ended the
prosecution of Dr. Haim, that's not enough. The American people
deserve to know that they will not face prosecution on the
basis of their political views, or which administration is in
power. It is long past time for Congress to address this
weaponization, investigating the extent of such DOJ
partisanship, publicly exposing how it came to be brought, and
ensuring hospitals are not secretly inflicting irreversible
damage on children.
We must identify rogue prosecutors, permanently removing
them from their positions. Our agencies must no longer be seen
as a safe harbor to weaponize authority. The message from this
Congress and the Trump Administration must be clear: Abuse of
authority will not be tolerated. You will be held accountable.
While we must act to reverse these wrongful prosecutions,
it is not merely enough to end the Biden era discrimination. We
must ensure that the Left is never again able to capture
institutions for future weaponization, ensuring Americans will
not find themselves as collateral damage. Our witnesses know
these abuses all too well for being here today to address the
need for fundamental and permanent reforms of the Department of
Justice.
I'd only add one final concluding remark, because we had a
witness last year, Chloe Cole, who gave passionate testimony in
this room about the impact on her life, her personal ability to
bear children in the future and be a mom all because of the
pressures being brought to bear by this politicization of this
personal issues that have been taken away from parents and
families and then thrust on our youth through social media and
technology and the people who want to profit from this
politicization. It's shameful, and it's harmful. Thank God for
people like Chloe Cole and thank God for the witnesses here who
have stood up to speak the truth so that the American people
can know what's happening and parents can protect their
children.
With that, I will yield to the Ranking Member for her
opening statement.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses.
Since this is the Subcommittee of Judiciary on the
Constitution, I just wanted to take a couple minutes to take
stock of our constitutional order today. The President and his
allies are attacking the pillars of our civil society,
including the courts, universities, and the free press,
trampling on the Constitution and the rule of law through
Executive Orders, threatening the very foundations of our
democratic republic, and the rights and freedoms of our people.
In an unconstitutional power grab, the administration,
aided and enabled by Mr. Musk, is dismantling Federal agencies
and freezing Federal funding for critical services. They're
indiscriminately firing hard working public servants,
jeopardizing not only their livelihoods but the health, safety,
and well-being of the American people whom they serve.
Seniors are scared that Elon Musk's DOGE is coming for
their Social Security and Medicare too. This administration is
branding all immigrants as criminals, and it's embarked on a
lawless campaign of terror, including wrongfully arresting U.S.
citizens and deporting innocent people with legal status.
Doctors are terrified that this administration's funding
cuts and antivaccine rhetoric will worsen the highly contagious
measles outbreak that's already killed two children, the first
measles deaths in this country in more than a decade.
To top it off, the President launched an irresponsible and
costly tariff war, bringing chaos and volatility to markets
across the globe and handcuffing working families and American
businesses to his sinking economy.
Congress has a constitutional duty to act as a check and
balance on an out-of-control executive, to fight for the people
we represent and stand up to the madness coming from the White
House. So far, our Republican colleagues don't seem up to the
job. Instead, they're wasting the time and resources of the
Constitution Subcommittee to give a platform to Right-wing
extremists seeking to sow more cut chaos, and division, to
distract Americans from Republicans utter failure to engage
with the most pressing issues facing our country.
Let's start by getting a few facts straight. The subject of
today's hearing, Dr. Eithan Haim, was not criminally charged
for his political views. Instead, he was indicted by a grand
jury for stealing the personal medical records of children and
giving them to a Right-wing activist. These were criminal
violations of HIPAA, or the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.
According to the indictment, Dr. Haim obtained unauthorized
individually identifiable health information of pediatric
patients who were receiving gender-affirming care at Texas
Children's Hospital and who were not his patients. At the time,
Dr. Haim accessed the records, gender-affirming care was legal
under Texas law, and he knew that.
Dr. Haim also knew that the children were not his patients;
and, therefore, he had no legal right to access their medical
records. Even if Dr. Haim believed his allegation, however
erroneously, that this care amounted to child abuse, he didn't
follow any of the official procedures to report that concern to
supervisors as he'd been trained to do. Instead, he shared the
stolen records, not with child welfare authorities but with the
Conservative activist Christopher Rufo. He knew that the law
was designed to protect patient privacy, and he chose to break
it. This is an open-and-shut case. That's why the grand jury
determined that there was enough evidence to charge him with
criminal HIPAA violations.
It wasn't the Department of Justice that politicized Dr.
Haim's case when it charged him with a blatant violation of
HIPAA privacy laws. It was Dr. Haim himself who came up with a
political excuse for his illegal actions. It was the Trump
Administration that dropped the charges against an ideological
ally in a way that serves its own political agenda.
That should give us all pause. The Department of Justice's
creed has always been to operate free from fear or favor--in
other words, independent of political bias. We're already
seeing that's not true under the Trump Administration. Earlier
this week, we heard testimony from a DOJ attorney who was fired
because she refused to recommend that the gun rights of one of
the President's celebrity buddies be restored because of deep
concerns about his history of domestic violence.
Over the weekend, we heard of a DOJ lawyer who was placed
on leave when he refused to manufacture law or facts to support
the government's case, which would be a violation of ethics and
the rule of law. Among other egregious examples these past few
months, the DOJ dismissed this case and others, despite clear
and grotesque invasions of patient privacy, because the White
House wants to attack gender-affirming care.
Americans have to wonder, then, what other invasions of
your medical privacy will this administration encourage? Given
the administration's embrace of Project 2025, is reproductive
healthcare next?
Why are we having this hearing? For one thing, it's yet
another chance for our Republican colleagues to spread
misinformation about transgender individuals and their medical
care, because they think they'll score political points by
bullying the young people receiving that care and their
families, regardless of the fact that every major medical and
mental health institution in the U.S., representing more than
1.3 million doctors, supports age-appropriate--age-appropriate
gender-affirming care for transgender people.
That includes the American Medical Association, the
American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological
Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the Endocrine
Society, among other organizations.
This is part of a pattern and practice for our colleagues
who are too willing to disregard American's fundamental rights
and freedoms to meddle in people's personal medical decisions
for political gain injecting their own religious or political
beliefs into choices that rightly should be left between
individuals, their families, and their doctors. It's abundantly
clear that our Republican majority only cares about some rights
and freedoms for some people rather than those that all
Americans should enjoy.
In addition to spreading misinformation, this hearing is
meant to distract Americans while our Republican colleagues
continue to ignore the real problems. We don't have to look far
to find out why our colleagues chose to have this hearing this
week. Believe me, bullying transgender kids and families is not
the number one concern for any of our constituents. I know
because I've been holding townhalls in my district and in some
of theirs too.
No. Our constituents' number one concern is how they're
going to pay for housing, healthcare, food, clothes, college,
and retirement. With the global economy and stock markets
tanking and predictions of a recession rising by the hour and
Elon Musk and DOGE gutting Social Security, the VA, food
support, and freezing funding that our communities rely on, at
the same time, in the midst of all this chaos and economic
disruption, House Republicans are trying to pass an unpopular
budget plan that would be devastating for American children and
families. They're proposing at least $880 billion in cuts that
will decimate Medicaid.
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, or
CHIP, provide health coverage for over 37 million kids and
covers 41 percent of all births. Their plan will rip healthcare
coverage away from millions of Americans, with children and
working families bearing the brunt. Kids will be left without
routine medical care, leading to greater infant mortality and
tragic consequences from preventable illnesses.
It doesn't stop there either. Republicans are also
targeting programs that help working families keep food on the
table. Their budget blueprint calls for billions of dollars of
cuts that threaten SNAP, a program that provides food support
to over 42 million families. They'll jeopardize a parent's
ability to buy the groceries they need to feed their kids
healthy meals.
Cuts to SNAP also endanger other nutrition assistance
programs, like the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, because they use Medicaid
data to automatically enroll children. If fewer families can
access SNAP and Medicaid, fewer will be able to access WIC as
well. The budget will also cut over $300 billion from
Department of Education programs threatening, among other
things, kids' access to nutritious school meals that they need
to learn and grow.
At the same time, Elon Musk and his DOGE bros are trying to
dismantle the entire Department of Education outright,
destroying an agency that helps ensure that children, no matter
their parents' jobs, ZIP codes, or special learning needs, can
access a high-quality education. They say that our budgets
reflect our values, and it's clear that, instead of using their
power in Congress to actually protect children, our Republican
colleagues would rather pull the rug out from under them,
ripping away resources that set them up for success. Why? They
can give tax breaks to big business and their billionaire
buddies like Elon Musk.
American children should never be used as pawns or props in
MAGA's culture wear. They are our country's future, and we
should always be working to ensure that the future is a better
and brighter one for them. Republican majority's plan and this
hearing shamefully miss that mark.
I yield back.
Mr. Roy. Now, I recognize the Chair of the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Left has a template. The Left will tell a lie. Big
Media will report the lie. Big Tech will amplify the lie. Then,
if you tell the truth, they call you names. Time and time--we
saw it all during COVID. Almost everything they told us turned
out to be--COVID, they said, ``Oh, no, the virus didn't come
from a lab. It was a bat to a penguin to a hippopotamus to Joe
Rogan.'' Then we all got it, right? They said, ``Oh, no, the
vaccinated can't get it. The vaccinated can transmit it.'' If
you said anything against that, they told us this is the first
virus in history where there is no such thing as natural
immunity. If you said anything against that, they came after
you: Science denier, crazy Right-wing Republican, and idiot.
They called us all kinds of names.
Now, in today's context, the same playbook, the same
template is being used. The Left says, ``Oh, these surgeries
are fine.'' Really? Some people have some concerns about that.
Texas took a position on it. They tell us it's fine. If you say
anything against that, you're a no-good whatever name they're
going to call you.
Then, when it comes to whistleblowers, oh, my goodness, if
you speak out, they not only call you names; they bring the
government against you. We saw it with every single
whistleblower who came forward last year in the government. Dr.
Haim's not in the government, but he had the Department of
Justice come after him saying he violated HIPAA, which he did
not. That's why this hearing is so darn important, why it is so
darn important.
Every single--we saw what they did to Mr. Shapley. We saw
what they did to Mr. Ziegler. Every FBI whistleblower came
forward to this Committee last Congress had their security
clearance taken away from them, which put them in a no man's
land. They couldn't get employmentand they couldn't leave. They
were--you talk about retaliation against whistleblowers in the
government.
I want to thank you, Doctor, for coming forward. I want to
thank our Chair. He has been the leading person in the Congress
on this Committee, on this issue. We want to thank you, and we
look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Lytle, because you defended a lot of these
whistleblowers who had the courage to come forward and stand up
against what the Left does every stinking time.
I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
I will now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full
Committee, Mr. Raskin, for his opening statement.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Chair Roy and Ms. Scanlon, for
convening us today. I was psyched to learn that we were having
a hearing about, quote, ``Legislative Reforms Aimed at
Protecting Minors.'' I thought we were going to get together to
oppose Donald Trump's threat to healthcare for 37 million
children who rely on Medicaid in the CHIP program. After all,
they want to cut $885 billion from it. Alas, that's not on the
agenda.
I thought maybe we would come together to stop Trump from
cutting benefits for 15 million children who rely on SNAP
benefits to get the nutrition they need in America, or perhaps
we could be opposing the gutting of the Department of Education
which ensures 26 million low-income students and 7\1/2\ million
students with disabilities get access to real educational
opportunities. We could stand together really for children, but
no such luck.
Instead, we're here to talk about Dr. Eithan Haim, a man
who, according to a May 2024 criminal indictment returned by a
unanimous grand jury of citizens in Texas, unlawfully obtained
and disclosed the medical records of children in violation of
HIPAA, a law Congress passed in 1996 to establish standards
protecting health information from disclosure without the
consent of the patient.
According to this criminal indictment, Dr. Haim, quote,
Obtained personal information, including patient names,
treatment codes, dates of service, and attending physicians
from Texas Children's Hospital's electronic system without
authorization and under the false pretenses that he needed the
access for the provision of medical services to patients under
his care.
He lied. They were not under his care. He lied to get access to
the medical records of four adolescents who were not his
patients.
What did he do with those patient medical records? Did he
go to the Department of Social Services, as instructed by law?
Did he go to the police? He thought they were in danger of
child abuse. No. He went to Christopher Rufo, a Right-wing
conservative activist and provocateur to put them out into the
media.
Now, Dr. Haim claims he did this, and my colleagues, alas,
are celebrating him for this, because he believes that the
gender-affirming care these patients were receiving from
licensed physicians was, quote, ``child abuse under Texas
law.'' Now, if he truly believed he had evidence of child
abuse, Dr. Haim knew he had many avenues to report it by going
to a public health authority or the Department of Social
Services or the police.
As his criminal indictment states, as a Baylor University
medical resident, quote,
He received extensive HIPAA training, that he attended numerous
trainings where he was provided information related to
nonmisreporting of any instances of child abuse, misconduct, or
ethics violations.
The HIPAA implementing regulation specifically authorizes
disclosure to, quote,
A public health authority or any other appropriate government
authority authorized by law to receive reports of child abuse
or child neglect.
Yet, after obtaining unauthorized individually personally
identifiable health information from young people who were not
his patients, Dr. Haim made no attempt to report any concerns
through any of the authorized government channels to his
supervisors or to his employers, anonymous hotline to the
police or to child protective services as directed by his
training and mandated by Texas law.
Instead, he went to a Right-wing culture lawyer whose
recent articles have been entitled, ``There's a Trans Cult
Inside the NSA'' and ``The NSA's Secret Sex Chats.'' Now, let's
be clear that the gender-affirming care that Texas Children's
Hospital was providing was not child abuse. All major medical
associations agree that evidence-based gender-affirming care is
necessary, and, in some instances, it's life-saving for
transgender youth. That care was also legal at the time the
hospital provided it to adolescent patients whose medical
privacy Dr. Haim violated. Only later did the legislature pass
its ban on these practices.
With all due respect, Dr. Haim makes a very strange
whistleblower. He's a doctor who fraudulently obtained the
medical records of youth who were not his patients, not under
his care, and then he used them for blatantly political and
ideological purposes to make a splash and a name for himself as
an antitrans crusader. He's got every right to do it, but he
doesn't have a right to violate other people's privacy and
violate HIPAA.
Now, I know what my colleagues think of people who leak
sensitive personal information. Take the case of the former IRS
contractor who exposed the tax avoidance practices of
billionaires, including Donald Trump, by disclosing thousands
of returns to news groups. That contractor was prosecuted, and
he received a five-year prison sentence. He had no pardon.
Yet, Chair Jordan has opened an investigation because he
thinks that five-year sentence was not enough. He thought it
was far too lenient. Now, he wants to lionize and valorize Dr.
Haim. Why? My colleagues want to uphold Dr. Haim as some kind
of moral role model and exemplar. So, let's take his example to
its logical conclusion if it's going to be fine now to steal
other children's private healthcare information and turn it
over to the media if they believe the child is being harmed and
despite the fact that the law provides an authorized way to do
it.
Say I'm a doctor in Texas, and I know that the law requires
you to get a vaccine for measles. The kids have got to be
vaccinated. I overhear a colleague of mine saying that multiple
patients whose parents don't believe in vaccinating their
children are not being vaccinated. I try to talk to that
doctor. That doctor says everything is fine; leave it alone.
Now, I suspect child abuse, but I don't go to the
Department of Social Services. I don't go to the police. No. I
break into the computer system, or I convince someone I really
have authority to get in the computer system, and I take their
records. Then I go to show--not the Department of Social
Services, not the police, and not a health authority--but I go
to a media outlet. I do to provaccine organizations, and I say,
``Release this information on that family. Those parents are
not letting their kids get vaccinated.''
I'm going to be a hero, I'm going to be a whistleblower,
even though I'm not following the law. Are my colleagues OK
with that? I'm fascinated to know. I know I've got some
Libertarian colleagues there. The distinguished gentleman from
Kentucky, would he be fine? Would he be lionizing somebody who
breaks into a computer system to get other parents children's
vaccination information to release it because I think it's
child abuse not to vaccinate kids for measles?
By the way, I do think it's child abuse in Texas today with
an outbreak of measles where children are dying not to have
your children vaccinated, but I would never break the law and
violate that family's HIPAA rights and those patients HIPAA
rights by stealing it and turning it over to a public interest
group and to the media. This is where we are today.
So, please, act like the Judiciary Committee. Follow
through on the logic of what it is you're saying. This is not a
whistleblower we're dealing with. It is a law violator. We
should be here talking about what we can really do to help
children instead of plunging everybody into this exercise in
absolute moral hypocrisy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. Thank the Ranking Member.
Without objection, all the opening statements will be
included in the record. We will now introduce today's
witnesses.
Dr. Ethan Haim. Dr. Haim is a surgeon at Hunt Regional
Medical Center in Greenville, Texas. During his residency, Dr.
Haim blew the whistle on the pediatric transgender medical
program at Texas Children's Hospital and assisted with the
Texas Attorney General's investigation into violations of State
and Federal law. Dr. Haim was indicted by the Biden Department
of Justice for allegedly disclosing protected information, as
described in my opening statement.
Mr. Mark Lytle. Mr. Lytle is a partner at Nixon Peabody and
an attorney for Dr. Haim. Previously served as a Staff Attorney
in the Enforcement Division of the SEC, was a prosecutor in the
United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of
Virginia, and the Department of Justice, and in the White House
Counsel's Office.
Ms. Vanessa Sivadge. Ms. Sivadge is the founder of
Protecting Texas Children, an advocacy organization that is
focused on safeguarding children from sexualization and
exploitation. She is a registered nurse who also blew the
whistle on the pediatric trans-
gender medicine program at Texas Children's Hospital, which
fired her in retaliation for her disclosure.
Mr. Bruce Lesley. Mr. Lesley is the President of First
Focus on Children, an advocacy organization focused on making
children a priority in Federal policy and budget decisions. He
previously served as a House and Senate staffer.
We thank our witnesses for appearing today, and we'll begin
by swearing you in.
Would you please rise and raise your right hand?
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in
the affirmative. Thank you and please be seated.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask you to
summarize your testimony in five minutes. There is a clock that
should be running in front of you. I'll also remind you to turn
your microphones on before you speak.
With that, Dr. Haim, you'll be our first witness, and you
may begin.
STATEMENT OF DR. EITHAN HAIM
Dr. Haim. Thank you all for taking the time to listen to
our testimony. My name is Eithan Haim. I'm a general and trauma
surgeon. I was the anonymous whistleblower who exposed Texas
Children's Hospital, the largest children's hospital in the
world, for lying about the existence of their transgender
program, a program that would manipulate, mutilate, and
sterilize healthy young children.
There's a reason I'm here today. It's because, for exposing
this truth, my own government manufactured a case to send me to
prison for 10 years. The story starts in February 2022 when the
Texas Attorney General issued an opinion that transgender
interventions could constitute child abuse. A few weeks later,
TCH released a statement to the media saying they were shutting
down their program because of, quote, ``potential criminal
ramifications.'' Not long after, I discovered this was a
blatant lie. The reason I knew this is because I worked there.
Between 2018-2023, I was a surgery resident in Baylor
College of Medicine, which is primarily affiliated with TCH.
They not only continued their program; they expanded. All this
was happening behind closed doors. On May 16th, investigative
journalist Christopher Rufo published a story exposing this. I
was the anonymous whistleblower in that story. One day later,
the conduct we exposed was made illegal in the State of Texas
with bipartisan support partially because our story came out
the day before.
On May 19th, the Texas Attorney General initiated an
investigation into the hospital. On May 23rd, another
whistleblower spoke out. That was Vanessa Sivadge. She's here
today. Despite crossing the highest possible threshold for a
whistleblower, on June 23rd, a month after the story's
released, two armed agents with HHS showed up to my home on the
day of my graduation a few hours before the ceremony, one of
the most important days of my life. This was the moment I
learned I was under Federal investigation, Federal criminal
investigation by the United States Department of Justice. The
target letter was signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Tina
Ansari.
From the very beginning, I knew this was nothing more than
a charade. I knew this because I never violated HIPAA. I never
accessed the records of transgender patients or released any
identifiable information. All of it was fully redacted de-
identified hospital data, which is used every single day to
report infectious disease outbreaks like measles or conduct
retrospective research studies.
Over the next few months, though, Ansari confirmed our
worst suspicions. This was a political witch hunt. For example,
Ansari admitted to my attorneys that she never reviewed the
evidence before sending agents to my home. She didn't even know
what statutes she was investigating. Ansari threatened my wife,
who had just been hired as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in
Dallas. She told my lawyers she would take me to a jury trial,
even on a technicality and without concern for losing, and she
meant what she said.
In May 2024, I was indicted on four HIPAA-based felonies
and faced up to a decade in prison. This indictment portrayed
me as a liar who used deception to hack into TCH's EMR system,
like was said before, but all this was pure fiction. The DOJ's
own evidence, their own evidence that they gave us in
discovery, disproved every single one of the claims against us.
This is worth restating: Ansari and her team either never
reviewed this evidence, or they ignored it.
This led to the collapse of their first indictment, but
they pursued another. The big difference this time is that they
dropped any pretense this was about HIPAA. They legally
castrated the indictment by removing the case statutory
language. The most important change was the victims. TCH and
its patients were changed to TCH and its physicians. It was a
first time in American history that HIPAA was being used not to
protect patient privacy but multibillion dollar hospital
systems, TCH and Baylor, who were caught lying to the public.
It was too ironic when we discovered that Ansari and her
family have quite a special relationship with TCH and Baylor.
The best way to put it is this: You couldn't throw a tennis
ball at Tina Ansari's Thanksgiving dinner without hitting a
major fundraiser for TCH or Baylor or a former board member for
TCH and Baylor or a CEO who is contracted with hospitals in the
Baylor TCH academic consortium. Ansari ended up withdrawing
from the case shortly after we made this public.
The case was eventually dismissed with prejudice after the
Biden-appointed U.S. Attorney left his office. He was running
the case solely with Tina Ansari, bypassing the entire chain of
command in the Southern District.
This can't be the end of it. There has to be accountability
when the unlimited resources of the Federal Government are used
to destroy the lives of ordinary American citizens.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Haim follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Dr. Haim, for your testimony.
Mr. Lytle, I apologize. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MARK D. LYTLE
Mr. Lytle. Good afternoon, Chair Roy, Chair Jordan, Ranking
Member Scanlon, and Ranking Member Raskin. My name is Mark
Lytle. I'm in private practice now, but for the majority of my
legal career, I've been honored to serve as a Federal
prosecutor working at Main Justice and as an Assistant U.S.
Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. I have also
served as the Chief of the Financial Crimes and Public
Corruption Unit and as the District Wide Coordinator for Public
Corruption Matters in the Eastern District of Virginia.
During my tenure, I was the lead prosecutor on high-profile
matters, such as the bribery prosecution of Congressman William
Jefferson from Louisiana and Credit Suisse Bank, the second
largest bank in Switzerland. I've also worked on hundreds, if
not thousands, of smaller cases that never really drew the
attention of the public or the media. I've been honored to
receive numerous awards, including the Attorney General's
Distinguished Service Award, and other decorations for my work.
Throughout my career, I've been trained, mentored, and
worked alongside prosecutors and staff who were dedicated to
the fair administration of justice in an evenhanded way. Our
goal was always to preserve public safety for our citizens and
to deter criminals from committing crimes. We never took
politics into consideration.
It's with this background and training that I quickly
learned there was something desperately wrong with the way Dr.
Haim's case was being investigated and later prosecuted by the
U.S. Attorney's Office in Houston, Texas.
In May 2023, Dr. Haim worked with a journalist to blow the
whistle on Texas Children's Hospital and publicly revealed that
TCH was performing transgender medical procedures on minors,
contrary to what TCH was telling the public and following the
Texas Attorney General opinion advising that those
interventions could constitute child abuse under Texas law.
Shortly after the story had been published, the Texas
legislature voted to make such procedures illegal.
Dr. Haim made his disclosure carefully, thoughtfully, and
legally without disclosing any patient names in the process. He
also went to law enforcement, the Texas Attorney General's
Office, as well as the media. These are procedures that have
been endorsed by Congress in ways for which whistleblowers can
come forward with information related to fraud, misuse, and
abuse.
I was first retained to represent Dr. Haim during the
Summer 2023. He had been served a target letter signed by the
lead Assistant U.S. Attorney in the case. Once retained, I
reached out to this AUSA, but, surprisingly, she wasn't
familiar with the facts of the case, but she confidently
proclaimed Dr. Haim had violated the HIPAA rules through a
disclosure of patient records to the media. I know that did not
happen, as Dr. Haim's disclosure redacted patient names.
It concerned me that the AUSA had it out for Dr. Haim. It
was clear there was a bias toward Dr. Haim. The AUSA's
statements to me were concerning to say the least. The
prosecutor claimed first that Dr. Haim's wife had obstructed
justice. That was a shock when I heard that the basis for the
claim of obstruction was that Dr. Haim's wife said, ``You
should probably have an attorney before you speak to a law
enforcement agency.''
Second, the AUSA surprised me when she said that she
wouldn't do anything about reporting Ms. Haim's behavior to
background investigators who were investigating in her
background for her new job as an Assistant U.S. Attorney unless
she became difficult. To me, that was code for retaliation, and
it raised great concerns on the defense team and for the Haims.
The AUSA proceeded to tell me that, if Dr. Haim comes in
and expresses remorse, she will offer him a misdemeanor, but if
he did not, she would charge him with a felony and take him to
trial, even if it were on a technicality or no basis for
conviction. The AUSA was clearly too close to these families to
have any credibility as a neutral prosecutor.
The AUSA claimed that he had no right to blow the whistle
on Texas Children's Hospital, even though the regulations
permit it and support it, and just because he didn't report it
to the hospital, the hospital--the very hospital that he
believed was breaking the law--is inconceivable, and he did the
right thing by going to the media and to the Texas Attorney
General's Office. There's congressional support for this.
Then came the indictment of Dr. Haim in May 2024. It was
heavy handed. Out of all the charging decisions that were
possible, the AUSA chose the maximum, a 10-year statutory
maximum for malicious harm. To whom? Patients? No. He didn't
name any patients. To doctors? They're not protected by HIPAA.
The hospital? No. Dr. Haim wanted to protect these children,
not go after them.
There were numerous factual errors in the indictment. It
stated that Dr. Haim was not treating patients at TCH during
the time that it was alleged, but he was, and their own
discovery pointed it out. They had to redo the indictment
because of that. They said Dr. Haim was not authorized to
access patient records, but he was. A law firm conducting an
internal investigation of the hospital concluded just that, and
that was reported in discovery. When I go to the AUSA and tell
her that, she says, ``We disagree with them.'' This was going
to be their witness for this case. He was authorized. Legal
insufficiencies--without authorization was rejected by the
Supreme Court in a decision by the Van Buren--
Mr. Roy. Mr. Lytle, I'd ask you to wrap up your opening
statement.
Mr. Lytle. Thank you. On January 24th, so this was a
runaway train with the AUSA in Houston, Texas, as its
conductor. On January 24th, the U.S. Attorney's Office
dismissed the charges against Dr. Haim with prejudice. The
misconduct throughout the investigation and prosecution was
truly exceptional. The conflicts of interest and bias displayed
against Dr. Haim should never have played a role in the
prosecutor's mind, but it did, but I'm happy to answer your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lytle follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. I appreciate it, Mr. Lytle.
Ms. Sivadge, the time is yours.
STATEMENT OF VANESSA SIVADGE
Ms. Sivadge. Good afternoon, Chair Roy, Chair Jordan,
Ranking Member Scanlon, and the Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Vanessa Sivadge. I'm a pediatric nurse with 10 years of
experience caring for the health and well-being of children. I
would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify
today.
My story is about shining a light on how children are being
irreversibly harmed, the egregious overreach and weaponization
of the Federal Government, and what it means to stand for truth
no matter the cost.
My employment at Texas Children's Hospital began in 2018.
In 2021, I accepted a position within the hospital system in an
outpatient multispecialty clinic. I accepted this job not
knowing that children confused about their biological sex were
being prescribed cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers at my
workplace.
Over the next three years, disturbing trends and concerning
practices emerged. I observed the harmful effects of sex-change
hormones and puberty blockers for children who were convinced
this would be, quote, ``life-saving treatment.'' I witnessed
how doctors emotionally blackmailed parents by telling them
that, if they did not affirm their child's delusion, their
child would harm themselves.
In particular, I was saddened to see young girls suffering
from profound mental health struggles, like depression or
anxiety, many of whom had also suffered sexual abuse or trauma,
persuaded by doctors at TCH that hormones would resolve their
gender confusion. History books will one day record this
emotional blackmail as the greatest lie ever sold by the
medical industrial complex to vulnerable parents and confused
children.
In May 2023, I read an article about a whistleblower within
the hospital who had come forward to expose the existence of
their secret transgender program. To affirm this testimony, I
became the second anonymous whistleblower in Christopher Rufo's
subsequent article where I provided my experience as a nurse
working in the endocrine clinic.
Two months later, on July 24, 2023, my husband and I were
hosting friends in our home for dinner when there was a knock
on the front door. Two agents from the Biden-Harris Justice
Department flashed their badges, said they were from the FBI,
and asked specifically to speak with me about issues at my
work. I was stunned, and time seemed to stand still. These
agents informed me that they had come to my home because they
knew what I believed.
What did I believe? In 2022, I had written an op-ed for the
Washington Stand at the Family Research Council in which I was
publicly critical of so-called gender-affirming care and I
condemned the medical profession for abandoning biological
realities and putting profits over patients.
These two FBI agents apprised me that they were seeking to
uncover the identity of the first whistleblower. Instead of
referring to him as such, they used the term ``leaker'' who in
their words had violated HIPAA. I knew this was a lie, because
I had read the article and its contents, in which all
personally identifiable information--patient information had
been carefully redacted. We now know that this whistleblower
was Dr. Eithan Haim, but, at the time, I had no knowledge of
who he was.
One agent effectively asked me to compromise my Christian
convictions and made veiled threats against my career and
safety if I didn't comply with their demands. He said that
someone at my work had given him my name, and they could make
life difficult for me if I did not collaborate with their
efforts.
Their visit was designed to intimidate me into believing
that I had no other choice but to cooperate with their witch
hunt. Our doorbell camera captured part of this exchange, now
viewed over six million times in which the overreach of the
government was on full display.
I was disgusted by how the FBI was mobilized against me
because I had a politically incorrect belief. My faith in Jesus
Christ informs my belief that men and women are made in the
image of God and therefore unique in their biology, anatomy,
and function. These distinct identities and roles cannot ever
be socially redesigned or medically reassigned.
In the months that followed, I noticed discrepancies in the
paperwork. My job consisted of refilling medications and
obtaining insurance approval for those medications. I
discovered how Medicaid was being billed for transgender
interventions in direct violation of Texas law. I came forward
publicly in June 2024 to expose this. I also observed how TCH
had misdiagnosed patients for the purpose of justifying those
treatments.
Additionally, the hospital had changed medical records by
listing the preferred gender identity on a medical record
instead of the birth sex, making fraudulent billing difficult
to detect.
In August 2024, TCH fired me in retaliation for blowing the
whistle. I am testifying today because I firmly believe that
the weaponization of the government to silence political
enemies must end. Whistleblowers display courage in a culture
of cowardice when speaking the truth and safeguarding the well-
being of children.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sivadge follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Ms. Sivadge, thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Lesley, the time is yours.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE LESLEY
Mr. Lesley. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Chair Roy, Chair Jordan,
Ranking Member Scanlon, and the Ranking Member Raskin, thank
you so much for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
First Focus on Children. I'm grateful for the opportunity today
to testify about the plight of our Nation's children.
I come before you today not as a doctor or a lawyer but as
a child advocate. I grew up in what was at the time one of the
poorest cities in the country, El Paso, Texas. My parents were
raised in the Texas panhandle in difficult circumstances and
sought out education in pursuit of a better life. They both
became teachers, and I would hear them talk about the many
factors of importance to the education of children, including
their health, their development, their economic status,
nutrition, housing, and safety.
When I was a child growing up in El Paso many, many moons
ago, 40 percent of the children in our community did not have
health insurance. I had a classmate who died because he did not
have access to healthcare. It felt then and it still feels so
wrong. Even today, Texas leads the Nation in the percentage of
uninsured children. We must do better.
In my capacity at First Focus on Children, which Colin and
Alma Powell initially founded as part of America's promise, our
operating premise has been the children's issues are and should
remain bipartisan, and then we must listen to and lift up the
voices of children in these discussions. I would assert that
almost every issue is either a children's issue or has a
children's angle that is often ignored or missed.
I would like to refer to you some examples of our work.
These things we've sent to your offices, but one is our
children's agenda, and another is our children's budget. I
include those in my testimony as well, in my written testimony.
Unfortunately, on many measures of child well-being,
children are not faring well. The list of issues threatening
today's children is staggering and growing. Infant mortality is
on the rise. Child mortality is on the rise. Child poverty is
rising. Uninsured rates for children are growing. The
children's mental health crisis is soaring. Measles and other
preventable diseases, including pertussis, are back.
Homelessness is up. Hunger is surging. Childcare is in crisis.
Child abuse deaths are increasing.
These are not niche or isolated problems. They are the
founda-
tional issues of childhood and human development going unmet,
and, worse, symptoms of how we are neglecting and failing our
youngest children.
Although many of these trends and issues are not directly
under the jurisdiction of this Committee, they are all
important because the children who come to the attention of
this Committee, such as those either in the juvenile justice
system or whose constitutional rights are threatened, have
often been repeatedly failed elsewhere.
When we underfund mental healthcare, ignore child poverty,
fail to provide inclusive education, and prioritize
children's--and failed--and politicize children's issues, we
create crises that spill over into our legal and judicial
systems. In my written testimony, I provided examples of that.
Budgets, as the Ranking Member noted, reflect our values,
whether our family's budget or that of the Federal Government,
and they can tell us about what we think about kids and whether
we are making wise investments in their future. When it comes
to children, study after study demonstrates that money matters
and return on investment in them is among the highest that
society can make toward its future. Investing early in our
children leads to better outcomes.
Despite pronouncements from administration officials, such
as Vice President J.D. Vance and DOGE's Elon Musk, about the
needs to promote more births in the United States and support
for families to ensure our long-term economic prosperity, the
actions and policy proposals coming out of the administration
indicate that children are likely to be targeted for
significant program and funding cuts.
Even today, the House is scheduled to vote on a budget
resolution that could potentially result in $880 billion in
cuts in the two--to the Energy and Commerce Committee, which
the Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that 96
percent of the available cuts in that Committee would be to
Medicaid and CHIP. For the over 47 million children who rely on
Medicaid for their health coverage, these programs are a
lifeline. Consequently, well over 300 organizations at the
Federal, State, and local levels have co-signed a letter in
opposition to these cuts.
Children are being negatively impacted by the actions of
DOGE, OMB, and OPM in other ways. Many of them are noted in my
testimony, including the potential demolition of the Department
of Education, which is the one Committee--the one seat at the
table at the President's Cabinet that is predominantly focused
on kids.
I earlier talked about the crisis of measles in the Chair's
State of Texas, but I would also note that pertussis and
whooping cough are now 50 times the level of what they were at
this time in 2023. There have also been two deaths of children
in the State of Louisiana.
I also pointed out in my testimony about the public
supports investing in children, and, last, I just want to note
that Ranking Member Raskin reminds us in his outstanding book
``We the Students'' that the Constitution does not begin at
adulthood. Students have exercised--
Mr. Roy. Mr. Lesley, I'll ask you to wrap up--like I did
Mr. Lytle. I'm giving you a little extra time because I gave
him some, but if you could wrap it up, I'd appreciate it.
Mr. Lesley. Sure. I appreciate that. This is a difficult
balancing act when it comes to children's rights, which we must
weigh, either affirming or conflicting roles of parents and
government. I would urge that it is imperative that, when a
child cries out for help, whether it's sick, abused, hungry,
homeless, or a victim of gun violence, that we listen to them.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lesley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Lesley, for your testimony.
We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
questions.
Without objection, Mr. Cline, a Member of the Full
Committee, will be permitted to participate in today's hearing
for the purpose of questioning the witness if a Member yields
him time for that purpose.
Without objection. With that, I will recognize the
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for this
hearing today, and thank all of you as panelists for being a
part of this.
Dr. Haim, can you just share, why did you decide to speak
out against gender reassignment practices at Texas Children's
Hospital?
Mr. Haim. The reason, and that's a really important
question because what would animate a person to risk his entire
career to blow the whistle about something like this? It was
because all my experience working with children at Texas
Children's Hospital, which is an amazing hospital, by the way--
they have some problems in their leadership, but what the
doctors do and nurses do on a daily basis is amazing.
The reason is because I understand and I've seen the
effects of what these blockers do, what these hormones do, and
what these surgeries do. They are destroying the lives of these
children. They're putting them down a road where they become a
chronic medical patient that they can never come back from, and
especially the surgical complications. I see these things all
the time.
We're talking about urethral stenosis, where you can't go
out to a coffee shop and go to the bathroom because the urethra
is narrowed so that fluid builds up in the bladder, right?
Talking about fistulas where stools from the rectum can pour
into the wound that they call the neovagina. A lot of them
don't see these problems in the first couple of months, even
the first couple of years. This is what happens, right?
Understanding that, when I was at TCH, we would take
children to the operating room, right? We would make them
better. In the same operating room, they were taking them there
and making them sick. They were putting them down a road that
they can never come back from. Could I call myself a doctor if
I didn't speak up against it? Right?
I couldn't blow the whistle to TCH. They were the ones who
were responsible for the misconduct. I couldn't blow the
whistle to CPS. You know how many children I saw at TCH who
were being abused? I saw one kid who had his fingers amputated
by his parents, right? I was taking care of him. The next day,
I was in that room. Who was in the room with the patient? The
parents. Who did the kid go home to? The parents. CPS, what
were they going to do? What was I to do in that situation? I
had to blow the whistle. It was my responsibility as a doctor.
If they're going to mutilate and sterilize these children,
someone has to speak up for those kids.
Mr. Harris. While some on the other side may argue that
pursuing so-called gender-affirming care is up to a child and
his or her parents, I do believe it's the role of the
government to protect children from child abuse. Let me ask you
this, Dr. Haim: Do you think the government has a
responsibility to protect children from these practices?
Mr. Haim. I do, especially when doctors and medical
associations are deceiving parents and children about what
exactly they're doing. They say this is evidence-based. That's
a complete--that's a bogus statement. All the evidence they
have is completely fraudulent. The way the studies are designed
are meant to provide them with a certain result. This is what
we call fraudulent science. These are fraudulent studies. When
the doctors who are informing these parents are misinformed
about the pathology that they're treating, that's not informed
consent.
Mr. Harris. What do you think it says about the Biden
Administration that they chose to villainize you rather than
shut down the chemical castration of children?
Mr. Haim. That was a standard operating procedure, wasn't
it? Right? Because they were trying to send me to prison. How
many other people were they trying to send to prison for doing
the right thing, for fulfilling the oath of my profession to do
no harm, right? Part of that is to make sure that the other
people in my profession are not harming people.
Mr. Harris. Exactly. Well, Ms. Sivadge, I want to talk for
just a moment on the last minute or so that we have left about
the underlying ideology that motivates the mutilation of
children, which is gender ideology. Gender ideology poses that
sex and gender are separate concepts and that one can change
their gender. This belief is an affront to reality itself, and
it is no surprise that gender ideology in practice leads to the
mutilation and castration of these innocent children.
Ms. Sivadge, I want to pose this question to you because
you have a background as a pediatric nurse. Can a child be born
in the wrong body?
Ms. Sivadge. Thank you so much for your question. Children
are made in the image of God, and they have a distinct purpose,
and they can--this statement that we're all here to defend
today that boys can't become girls and girls can't become boys
was not controversial up until very recently, and so we're here
just to amplify some very basic truths and realities.
Mr. Harris. At Texas Children's Hospital, you watched kids
get diagnosed with gender dysphoria and then get treated
through chemical and surgical intervention. Just in the closing
seconds, can a child meaningfully consent to these life-
altering practices?
Ms. Sivadge. They have absolutely no concept of what it
means to be irreversibly harmed at the age that they are at.
That's why we need doctors and medical professionals who are
going to advocate on their behalf with the truth.
Mr. Harris. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm out of time.
Mr. Massie. [Presiding.] Thank you.
I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee,
Mr. Raskin.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Haim obviously is a man of strong ideological
convictions about this issue, and I assume they're sincerely
held, but he's one doctor who thought his convictions were more
important than State law in Texas at the time, the medical
privacy of the parents, their ability to make decisions for
their own children, and the wishes of the parents and of the
patients in the case.
Now, Mr. Lesley, Mr. Lytle says that there could have been
no violation of HIPAA because the children's names were removed
before the rest of the information was released to Christopher
Rufo in the media, but it seems to me that some credence should
be given to the families which thought that there was
sufficient personally identifiable information that people
would figure out exactly who they were.
In any event, it seems to me that it's off point because
HIPAA says this: A person who knowingly and in violation of
this part uses or causes to be--(1) uses or causes to be used a
unique health identifier; (2) obtains individually identifiable
health information relating to an individual; or (3) discloses
individually identifiable health information to another person.
Let's say, even if you grant Mr. Lytle his point, which I
don't--because a jury is obviously not going to figure it out
at this point, but the families thought that it was readily
identifiable--but, even if it's the case that they were to win
on that issue, isn't it the case that he obtained individually
identifiable health information relating to the individual?
Isn't HIPAA all about other people not getting into your
medical records? Isn't that what it's about?
Mr. Lesley. Mr. Raskin, I am not an expert on HIPAA, but I
did work in the Senate when we passed HIPAA, and I would say
that it does, based on their testimony today, I don't have--
Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, Mr. Lytle, let me come to you. Let's
talk about measles for a second. I don't know if you've
followed my original analogy; I'm just trying to figure this
out. All of this is new to me. It seems to me that, under the
example of Dr. Haim, if I'm in Texas and it's law that the
children have to get measles vaccine and I hear that some of my
colleagues' patients, not my patients but their patients, have
not been vaccinated, now, under this precedent, should I be
authorized to break into the computer system or get access to
the computer system, access their records, and then release to
the media or some ideological organization this data to pursue
the political mission I have, which, say, is completely
sincerely motivated because I don't want kids to get measles?
Mr. Lytle. Well, thanks, Ranking Member Raskin.
I don't know the exact example of the measles situation you
are dealing with, but--
Mr. Raskin. No, but I am hypothesizing it.
Mr. Lytle. I would say--
Mr. Raskin. I have not heard of a doctor getting access to
other doctors' patients' material against their will or without
their knowledge before and then releasing it on the media.
Mr. Lytle. A couple of important points here. Dr. Haim
didn't break into any systems. He was authorized to see these
records that he reported on by the hospital.
Mr. Raskin. By whom?
Mr. Lytle. By Texas Children's Hospital, and the prosecutor
knew that. I talked about that in my order--
Mr. Raskin. He released their information with the--
Mr. Lytle. He was authorized to see this information.
Mr. Raskin. To see the information.
Mr. Lytle. Yes.
Mr. Raskin. Was he authorized to release the information?
Mr. Lytle. He was because he was a whistleblower, and he
was reporting wrongdoing.
Mr. Raskin. You were saying the hospital authorized him to
take this information to the media?
Mr. Lytle. The hospital doesn't have to authorize it. He's
a whistleblower, and you can go to law enforcement. Congress
authorizes whistleblowers.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Well, can you explain why Dr. Haim did not
follow Texas State law and went to the Department of Social
Services or another medical authority or law enforcement
authority; why he went to an ideological organization in the
media?
Mr. Lytle. He went to a law enforcement agency, the Texas
Attorney General's Office, and he went to the media. This body,
Congress, favors going to the media for whistleblowers. He also
went to an Attorney General. He went to the Attorney General.
One thing I wanted to comment about--
Mr. Raskin. You don't think he should have followed State
law? Every State in the country has a mandatory reporting
regime for people who are dealing with children, and you are
supposed to go to proper medical authorities or to the police
if you think someone is being subjected to child abuse.
Mr. Lytle. That's exactly what he did. He went to the Texas
Attorney General's Office, and he reported child abuse, which
was defined by the Texas Attorney General at that time as child
abuse.
Mr. Raskin. OK.
Mr. Lytle. One thing you mentioned about whether he
disclosed of--
Mr. Raskin. I understand that he went to Mr. Rufo and that
he went to the media--
Mr. Lytle. --not to disclose patient information. He
redacted patient records. I would like to point out that the
government in their indictment put initials of patients in
their indictment. That revealed more about the patients than
Dr. Haim ever did.
Mr. Raskin. All right.
Mr. Lytle. I think that's a problem.
Mr. Raskin. Reclaiming my time.
Dr. Haim. They never charged disclosure. Excuse me. They
never charged me with disclosure.
Mr. Raskin. Reclaiming my time. If I could have these 10
seconds back just so I can conclude, Mr. Chair.
We're going down a very dangerous road here where every
citizen can appoint himself or herself a medical vigilante. If
I don't like the way some other family is raising their kids
with their doctor, I can go get their information and release
it into the public.
Mr. Roy. [Presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Raskin. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I will now recognize the gentlelady from Vermont
for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. Balint. Yes. I have a unanimous consent request. This
is a letter that I received, and I believe both Mr. Jordan and
the Chair received, from Texas Children's Hospital saying that
TCH physicians have never performed a sex change operations on
minors. I believe it's a letter that you have received, and you
have in your possession. What was said earlier is actually not
in fact true. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. Is that a request to put it in the record?
Ms. Balint. Yes, I ask unanimous consent.
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
I will now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr.
Massie.
Mr. Massie. Dr. Haim, did you want to respond to something
Mr. Raskin said?
Dr. Haim. Well, yes. I can understand how whatever you
read, why you would be upset or have this idea that all these
awful things. The fact is that none of that is true. They never
charged disclosure. They tried in their first indictment, but
that wasn't true. That's why they had to change it. Who were
the patients in the indictment? Do you think they were
transgender patients like, right, the first count? No, it was
transplant patients, surgical transplant patients. Why would a
general surgery resident at Baylor College of Medicine, with
the largest transplant program in the world for kids, be
accessing surgical transplant patients?
Mr. Raskin. You didn't get a response from the Attorney
General--
Mr. Massie. Excuse me, it's my time.
Mr. Roy. No, it's the gentleman's time.
Dr. Haim. No, that's legitimate. Yes, because--no, you're
right. It's like you have to have a certain pathway to blow the
whistle. Yes, and that's things we tried. We reached out to the
Attorney General's Office, and we left them messages, but they
didn't get back to us.
Mr. Massie. Thank you. Thank you. This is my time.
Thank you, Dr. Haim. I now yield my time to Mr. Cline from
Virginia.
Mr. Cline. Thank you for yielding. I want to thank the
witnesses for being here.
Dr. Haim, you followed the whistleblower statutes. You
heard that letter being introduced. Do you want to respond to
that letter?
Dr. Haim. I have no idea about that. Because what they were
doing is inserting puberty blockers into children for gender
dysphoria. That was ICV code. Right? What these blockers do is
change the cellular chemistry of the entire body: The bones,
the brain, the heart, the blood vessels, and everything. That
is the second step on the pathway. Social affirmation first;
blockers, Tanner Stage II before the onset of puberty;
hormones; and then surgery.
That's sex-change procedures. Trust me, I've done these
procedures before on children with precocious puberty. Yes,
it's not that difficult to insert it, but removing it, that's a
real pain in the butt because you have to dig out those
implants from kids' arms.
Mr. Cline. That letter is misleading at best; false, if
worse?
Dr. Haim. I have no idea.
Mr. Cline. It's clear you followed the whistleblower
statutes. You did not reveal any individually identifiable
information about these patients. In response to that, you
faced baseless criminal charges from the Biden Administration
DOJ for alleged HIPAA violations, and thankfully the cases were
dismissed. You have spoken out about being targeted by the
Biden-Harris Administration for exposing these practices. From
your perspective, was this a case of the administration
weaponizing law enforcement to intimidate you and other
dissenters?
Dr. Haim. Yes, of course, and you know the other thing to
say is there was a lecture at the hospital where they were
talking about doing it. That's why I released. I have no idea
where that thing will come from. Of course, yet, this is one of
those situations where, of course, they see someone like me,
who has everything to lose at the beginning of my career,
right.
I didn't know anyone. We're very private people. I didn't
even have social media. They thought they were going to destroy
us. We're going to bring kids into this world. I wouldn't want
this to be done to anyone, not even liberals--even if they're
the craziest Communists ever. There's nothing that should be
done, because there is someone that's accused of crimes they
never committed. That's the important thing, there's no one in
this country who should be falsely accused, and the entire
power of the Federal Government should be brought down on them.
I can't even imagine that--my biggest fear is for something
like this to happen to anyone, even someone on the other side.
Mr. Cline. It has a chilling effect, doesn't it?
Dr. Haim. It's terrifying. I would never want this done to
any of the people who came after me, right? Even though they
were trying to send me to prison for a decade, I would never
want this to happen to them ever, right? Ever. If it's
happening to me, how many other people is it happening to? It's
not even political, right? It's just that there has to be a
certain standard with our justice system where people can't
just bring these charges and power through the courts and send
these people to prison because that's what was going to happen
to me.
Mr. Cline. Mr. Lytle, do you believe there's a double
standard in how the Federal Government treats whistleblowers,
depending on whether their disclosures help or hurt the
administration in power?
Mr. Lytle. Absolutely. This case is an example of that. You
have heard the testimony about references to a political
debate. Red State, Blue State, however that might have been.
Dr. Haim should never have been charged with a crime for
expressing his views and being a whistleblower. He came
forward.
It's extremely rare for anyone to be charged with criminal
HIPAA violations, let alone the maximum 10-year charge. It's
really outrageous. The fact that he was charged in this way
shows that the prosecutor was out to get him. He was biased.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Massie. My question is: Are these prosecutors and FBI
officials still employed by the Federal Government? Mr. Lytle,
do you know?
Mr. Lytle. I believe so. I don't know for sure.
Mr. Massie. Ms. Sivadge, do you know if those FBI
officials?
Ms. Sivadge. I'm not sure.
Mr. Massie. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky. I'll now
recognize the gentlelady from Vermont.
Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say at the top that the Chair said earlier
that we should really look at these as personal issues, family
issues. I agree. I don't know why we continue to have hearings
in here about the lives of transgender Americans and their
families.
I agree with you, Mr. Chair. So, I question what we're
doing here. I have spent a lot of time in Congress working to
demystify gender-affirming care. I never thought that's what I
would be doing in Congress. I ran on issues related to housing
and mental healthcare. I was an educator. I never thought I
would have to do this all the time in these Committee hearings.
I just want to get down to some basics. Let's get it out of
the way here: Transgender people exist. They exist, period.
They always have. Gender-affirming care is healthcare, and it
is evidence-based, and it has saved lives. Reputable medical
associations agree.
Decisions made for children by their families should be
made in consultation with their doctors. It should not be
Members of Congress trotting people out here to talk about
people's personal, private medical information, decisions, for
everybody to see.
In my very first session, we had another hearing in which
transgender Americans and their families were demonized.
Where you're sitting, Mr. Lesley, there was a parent
sitting right there, and she identified herself as a Christian
Republican mom of a transgender young person. She sat right
where you're sitting, imploring my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle to let it go because she was one of them, ``I am a
Republican.'' She said,
I care about my family. Why do you continue to demonize me and
my family? It's our personal business, and I'm trying to do
what's right for my kids.
That's what all families are trying to do. I have two kids
myself. So, again, I ask, what are we doing here?
Now, my Republican colleagues can continue to scapegoat,
and fear-monger this very tiny group of individuals in this
country at the same time saying they care about families, that
they care about helping kids and families.
When we look at the budget that they are trying to pass,
which my colleague has said,
It cuts $880 billion for Medicaid, which is going to impact
children's hospitals across this country. It's going to impact
food assistance programs. It's going to impact WIC.
Why don't we have a hearing on what we actually can do in
Congress to help children across that country? Why are we doing
that?
Mr. Lesley, I am so grateful that you are here. I was
looking before this hearing about all the work that you have
done on behalf of kids.
Just really quickly, is infant mortality rising in this
country?
Mr. Lesley. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman
Balint. Yes. The answer is yes, and for the first time in
decades. Yes.
Ms. Balint. Is child mortality rising?
Mr. Lesley. Child mortality is absolutely rising. Our
Nation's child mortality rate is well above all other healthy
nations.
Ms. Balint. Is child poverty rising, Mr. Lesley?
Mr. Lesley. Child poverty is growing. It has more than
doubled since the low in 2021 with the the expiration of the
Child Tax Credit.
Ms. Balint. Is the mental health crisis among kids and
teens rising?
Mr. Lesley. The entire children's advocacy community sees
that and argues that we are in the midst of an enormous
children's mental health crisis.
Mr. Raskin. Would the gentlelady yield really quick.
Ms. Balint. I will.
Mr. Raskin. Additional question: What is the leading cause
of death for children under the age of 18 in America?
Mr. Lesley. The biggest reasons for child mortality are
suicide and homicide.
Mr. Raskin. Gun violence.
Mr. Lesley. Yes, gun violence.
Mr. Raskin. I yield back to you.
Ms. Balint. Mr. Lesley, given that the number of trans-
Americans in this country is hovering at about one percent, do
you think we would be better served by really focusing on
policies that would help all children and all teens? What are
some of those programs, just briefly, that we should be focused
on?
Mr. Lesley. Absolutely. We believe strongly that medical
decisions should be made by doctors, parents, and children in
this country. We believe that we must improve Medicaid in the
Children's Health Insurance Program, not cut it by $880
billion. We believe that we should make sure that children
don't go to bed hungry. We should not be cutting SNAP and WIC.
We believe that education programs are fundamentally important.
I know that, in the tax debate that's coming up, there will
be a debate around the Child Tax Credit.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Lesley, I'm going to ask you to wrap up. We're
over the time.
Mr. Lesley. One of the crazy policies we have in this
country is that, when you have a baby and your income drops,
you're susceptible to losing your Child Tax Credit. It makes no
sense.
Ms. Balint. Yes.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady for her questions. I will
now recognize the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Haim, on June 23, 2023, you get a letter from the
United States Department of Justice, Southern District of
Texas, a letter that probably ruined your whole day, right?
Dr. Haim. Ah, well, so the agents came. This was a few
hours before I was graduating from surgical residency. The
ceremony was later that evening. I was meeting with my parents
and my sister. I was going with my wife. When the agents came,
I refused to speak with them. My wife had advised me to not
speak with them without an attorney present.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Dr. Haim. We knew that it was so corrupt what they were
doing that there was a certain sense of defiance. So, we
celebrated this new part of our life. It was kind of a hard
thing to describe, but something kind of came over us.
Chair Jordan. The first two sentences,
This office is involved in investigations due to Federal law
violations. You are a potential target in this criminal
investigation.
You didn't want to talk to these guys. You listened to your
wife, which was good counsel and good advice and good that you
did that. You did go get an attorney, and you got the guy
sitting beside you. Is that right?
Dr. Haim. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lytle, when you understood what was going on here, you
contacted--just like you would as an attorney--you contacted
the Southern District of Texas; you contacted the lady who
signed this--and sorry the Assistant U.S. Attorney. Is that
right?
Mr. Lytle. Yes, I did.
Chair Jordan. Tell me about that conversation.
Mr. Lesley. Well, I reached out to her as a defense
attorney would always do when there's a target letter out there
because that could mean that they are going to charge the
person right away. That's under Department policies; that means
they believe he's a putative defendant.
Chair Jordan. Normally, that means they think they got a
slam dunk case on this guy, right?
Mr. Lytle. That's right.
Chair Jordan. They're going to negotiate some guilty plea.
You reach out to her. What did she say? Did she know anything
about the case?
Mr. Lytle. She didn't know anything about the case. She had
to talk to the agents, and she would get back to me when she
knew more about the--
Chair Jordan. She signed the target letter, and she didn't
know what the target was about.
Mr. Lytle. That's my understanding.
Chair Jordan. Well, that was great. Then you had subsequent
conversations. I understand that one of these conversations
that happened after you learned she didn't know what the heck
was going on, even though she signed the letter that ruined his
day, the day he is graduating from medical school--you have
subsequent conversations, and she says, ``Well, maybe he isn't
a target. And maybe if he'd come apologize and say `pretty,
pretty please,' we'd downgrade it to a misdemeanor.'' Is that
right?
Mr. Lytle. That's true. She sort of was a wink and a nod,
like maybe we can pretend he's not a target. I said that the
train has left the station. There have been emails with her
calling him a target to me. I said, ``I just can't do that, but
why can't we talk about the case?'' She still didn't know the
facts of the case. She wanted to dead set to be interviewing
Dr. Haim, which I didn't want to do that as a lawyer because I
didn't want to reveal--I didn't know what she was getting at.
Chair Jordan. They wind up charging him with the maximum,
like 10 years you said, the maximum they could charge. They
were so determined to get Dr. Haim. She was so determined to
get Dr. Haim, even though he didn't violate HIPAA, didn't do
anything wrong, that she not only threatened him--``come talk
to me, apologize, say pretty, pretty, please, we'll make it a
misdemeanor''--she also went after your wife. She also went
after Dr. Haim's wife. Is that right, Mr. Lytle?
Mr. Lytle. That's right. She alluded that she would not
make any comments, or her agents would not make any comments
about the background investigators for Dr. Haim's wife, as she
is a new AUSA being hired, unless she became difficult.
I didn't really know what that meant, but I took it to be a
retaliatory phrase that, if she is going to be involved in
this, then there's going to be something that's going to come
for her, too.
Chair Jordan. Well, what's she supposed to do? She's a
lawyer. She's married to Dr. Haim. Is she not supposed to give
him advice or counsel or talk to him?
Mr. Lytle. This whole thing, any kind of--HIPAA as a
criminal case is so rare in this country. It's rarely ever
prosecuted. Then, in this context of this political debate
going on, to come forward and charge Dr. Haim, it seemed just
really out of control. It really was surprising to me to see
this kind of a charge.
Chair Jordan. It sort of begs the question, why did they do
it? Why did they do it? It seems so ridiculous. Why this
behavior? Why do you think they did it, Mr. Lytle, Dr. Haim, or
even Sivadge?
Mr. Lytle. I can say that we found a lot of bias, a lot
conflicts of interest, a lot of connections to the hospital,
and a closeness to these families. At the end of day, if there
was any kind of issue, it shouldn't be handled in the criminal
courts. It should be handled in the public arena, in the public
debate.
Chair Jordan. Yes. Doctor?
Dr. Haim. They went after me so hard to send a message to
everyone else.
Chair Jordan. Of course, they did.
Dr. Haim. Because I saw it in my residency, right? The
other people who thought this was awful, we actually had to
meet in dark corners. We knew that we couldn't say anything
publicly.
Chair Jordan. That's the point. It's to chill anyone else
from stepping forward. It's why they went and raid Mark Houck's
house with all these agents. Why they would send multiple
agents to--the ATF goes into Bryan Malinowski's house, and he
ends up getting shot. They thought he had like six gun
violations. It's why they do it. It's to chill anyone else from
coming forward: ``We will make life miserable for you,
miserable for Sivadge. We will do that because we don't want
anyone else threatening the Left's position.'' That is the
frightening thing.
I'll just say this, and I'll let you finish. God bless you
for doing it, God bless you for doing it, and Mr. Lytle for
defending you. Thanks for stepping forward and having the
courage to do so.
Dr. Haim. I'll say one more thing, right. They came after
me to make my life miserable and to send a message. They came
after me, right, to make my life miserable. We're going to make
their lives miserable, right? That's what we're doing to do.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman for his questions. I will
now recognize the gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution. In
the past, this has been a bipartisan issue. In fact, I have
worked closely with my friend across the aisle, the Chair of
the Committee, Mr. Jordan, on protecting the privacy of all
Americans. We both stood up to our own parties sometimes on
this issue. I am disappointed that it doesn't seem to be a
bipartisan mandate anymore, and that privacy is pushed to the
background. Because all Americans would be horrified,
absolutely horrified to know that, when it comes to healthcare,
Republicans are suddenly abandoning the need for privacy, that
Americans' private medical information could be released if
someone just doesn't agree with their personal treatment plan
or their private medical conditions.
Well, I refuse to give up the fight for privacy for all
Americans' medical information. A doctor's relationship with
their patients is predicated on trust and privacy. Patients
trust their doctors to keep their discussions private and
everybody else who can access the medical system to keep that
information private so that patients can freely provide
information that the doctor can use to best provide care.
So, Dr. Haim, please answer yes or no. Are you a general
and trauma surgeon?
Dr. Haim. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jayapal. When you graduated from medical school, like
every other doctor, did you take the Hippocratic Oath?
Dr. Haim. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jayapal. Does that oath include a promise to, quote,
``respect the privacy of patients''?
Dr. Haim. Probably.
Ms. Jayapal. It does. I can provide it for you if you need
a refresher.
If you or your colleagues had a patient who decided not to
undergo surgery because of its side effects, would you keep
that decision confidential in compliance with your oath?
Dr. Haim. Yes.
Ms. Jayapal. If there was a late-stage cancer patient who
didn't want to undergo aggressive chemotherapy, should any
doctor keep that decision confidential in compliance with the
oath?
Dr. Haim. Of course. Absolutely.
Ms. Jayapal. Yet, despite your oath to protect patient
privacy, you have admitted in your testimony today that you
released the medical records of children who were patients at
Texas Children's Hospital, correct?
Dr. Haim. Incorrect.
Ms. Jayapal. You didn't release that information?
Dr. Haim. DOJ never charged it.
Ms. Jayapal. Did you or did you not release the information
about children?
Dr. Haim. No. Not any identifiable patient information.
Ms. Jayapal. Actually, are you aware that the HIPAA
violations do not just say you can redact a name; you actually
have to redact multiple--let me--
Dr. Haim. No. No, everything I released was HIPAA
compliant, as confirmed by the DOJ's charges.
Ms. Jayapal. The removal of a patient's name alone is not
enough to satisfy HIPAA's privacy rule requirements. It
requires, privacy rule require the identified health
information to be stripped of 18 specific identifiers. Whether
the DOJ is choosing to charge--or I need to look at exactly
what you're alleging.
Let me just ask you, did the children and their parents
give you consent to release those records?
Dr. Haim. I was--no.
Ms. Jayapal. No. All of your patients now have to worry
that, if you don't agree with somebody's choices of medical,
whatever they're deciding to do, that you're just going to be
the sole arbiter of when something should be released. The
basic claim is, if you don't agree with whatever they're doing,
then you have the right to access that information under false
pretenses--under false pretenses--access that medical
information and release it? We're now depending on you as
arbiter of those--
Dr. Haim. When those children are being mutilated and
sterilized, right.
Ms. Jayapal. So, the answer is yes. You decide when
somebody's medical records should be released?
Dr. Haim. Wait--
Ms. Jayapal. Any American out there is going to look at you
and say, ``Oh, I see, Dr. Haim is the arbiter of whether or not
my medical records should be released and whether or not I
should actually pay attention to HIPAA.'' Is that correct?
Dr. Haim. Yes, first, it was never under false pretenses,
right. That entire allegation was incorrect. The DOJ's own
evidence confirmed that.
Ms. Jayapal. Let me just stop you, Dr. Haim, because--
Dr. Haim. Children are being mutilated and sterilized.
Ms. Jayapal. Dr. Haim, I am just going to reclaim my time.
Dr. Haim. I have a doctor.
Ms. Jayapal. I actually have the time. I am going to
reclaim my time because I have something very important to say.
Look, I think privacy is critically important.
It is also true that transgender children are literally 1.4
percent of all adolescents and teens. They are facing a massive
torrent of bullying and cruelty from Republicans, Members of
this Committee. When you heard Mr. Lesley say that suicide is
the number one cause of death among young people, what you have
done and what these Republicans have done is absolutely
shameful, in my view, that you are continuing to go after and
bully transgender children and their families, who literally
are doing what their doctors have told them, what they know
medical research to be safe, and you want to be the arbiter of
when medical information is going to be released?
Mr. Roy. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jayapal. I understand. I don't believe that any
American would want their medical records to be released. I
hope that my colleagues who have been with me on privacy will
understand that this is a grave violation. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Mr. Roy. Do you have a response?
Dr. Haim. Nothing could be more untrue, right. You have
people who are undergoing the mental anguish of believing that
they've been born in the wrong body. What these people need are
not the most powerful chemicals humans have ever discovered.
They do not need the most radical surgeries ever invented by
humans. They need people to listen to them.
Ms. Scanlon. Point of order.
Dr. Haim. What these doctors are doing are harming these
people.
Ms. Scanlon. Time is up. He can submit an answer.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Roy. The gentlelady is recognized.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. I would like to enter into the
record the second superseding indictment--not the one that was
brought by the first prosecutor, but the second one, where, on
page 3, it specifically says that Dr. Haim was under false
pretenses accessed the information that he needed and released.
Dr. Haim. The Department of Justice--
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
You'll have a chance to respond to that in the next set of
questions. We're going to have to recess because votes have
been called. We're going to recess, subject to the call of the
Chair.
I will tell you that, based on the vote estimates, I'm
going to guess it's going to be just slightly after 4:00 p.m.
The witnesses will be able to go back to the back.
Everybody wants to come back, let's come back immediately
following votes. We'll start pretty quickly. Let's try to rush
back after voting. In that, we're in recess.
[Recessed until 4:35 p.m.]
Mr. Roy. At this time, we'll call the Committee back to
order. I believe it is Republican side. I will now recognize
the gentlelady from Wyoming for five minutes.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you. Mr. Lesley, what is the success
rate of sex-change procedures for children?
Mr. Lesley. I am very sorry--if you look at the testimony
from medical societies, they indicate that--
Ms. Hageman. It's zero. You can't change your sex. So, it's
zero. I want the record to be clear that the Biden
Administration targeted and prosecuted Dr. Haim and Ms. Sivadge
for exposing medical procedures, surgery, and pharmaceutical
intervention that has a 100 percent failure rate. Am I correct,
Dr. Haim?
Dr. Haim. That is exactly correct.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Dr. Haim, you have exposed the fact that
medical providers were providing dangerous and illegal
treatments to minors. Both the Biden White House and activists
who are actually running the show behind the scenes didn't like
what you were exposing. Isn't that also correct?
Dr. Haim. That's correct.
Ms. Hageman. Do you think that their subsequent Federal
pressure was brought to bear on you merely--was that merely a
coincidence, or was it to try to stop you from exposing what
they were doing?
Dr. Haim. It was to prevent me from exposing what they were
doing and to silence other whistleblowers.
Ms. Hageman. Ms. Sivadge, what is gender dysphoria? I ask
that question because I'm a pretty well-educated person and
pretty well-read person. This is something that we didn't even
really know about or talk about three or four years ago? What
is this?
Ms. Sivadge. Gender dysphoria is when a child is confused
about their birth identity. The key there is the confusion.
Because the problem is not in the physical body of the child;
the problem is in their mind.
Are we pushing as a society a solution that will
irreversibly harm and sterilize children's bodies when truly
the problem is that they are confused about their birth
identity in their mind?
Part of what I've done here and part of why we're here
today is to affirm and to celebrate ultimately God's design for
our gender and sexuality, and that should be something that
should be defended.
Ms. Hageman. Well, are there industries that stand to
benefit financially from these procedures, these industries?
Ms. Sivadge. I refer to them as the unholy trinity, which
is the healthcare insurance companies, the pharmaceutical
industry, and the hospital system. All three of these
institutions have much to gain because this is a highly
lucrative industry that exploits the vulnerabilities of
children.
Ms. Hageman. Why don't you explain that a little bit
further?
Ms. Sivadge. Well, in my case, I came forward to expose
Medicaid fraud. I saw firsthand how Texas Children's Hospital
was illegally utilizing Texas Medicaid to fund, quote,
``gender-affirming care,'' which is really gender-denying care.
The taxpayers were billed for this. That is illegal in the
State of Texas.
This benefited the pharmaceutical industry because the
child is put down a path of medicalization making them a
medical patient for life. The pharmaceutical industry has a
vested interest in making sure that a child is initiated down
this irreversible path.
Ms. Hageman. Dr. Haim, sex-change hormones and puberty
blockers are presented to patients and their parents as life-
saving treatment. What is the reality and effects these
treatments actually have on children?
Dr. Haim. The reality is, is that what they're telling them
is the opposite of the truth. These hormones, the blockers, the
surgeries will put them down a path that they can never come
back from.
They always say that it's reversible. Once you start
changing your physiology from the inside out, right, because
that's what these hormones do--they change the cellular
architecture of every single cell in your body in a way that
you can't take back. It takes a while for the physical changes
to develop. Once they happen, there's no going back.
Ms. Hageman. OK. So, again, you've got lifelong patients as
a result of these interventions.
Dr. Haim. Yes, they were saying that suicide rates have
gone up. Is it any wonder that the suicide rates have gone up,
but also the society convincing people that they're born in the
wrong body, that the way they were created was a mistake, that
the name their parents gave them is their dead name? Of course,
the suicide rates are going up. It's exactly because of what
these people call, quote, ``gender-affirming care.'' What it
really is, is the destruction of the self.
Ms. Hageman. It's a pretty cruel industry as far as I can
tell. I have a lot more questions I would love to engage in
with all of you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for
your bravery, and thank you for being here.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming. I appreciate
her sticking to the clock for her questions.
Now, I will recognize the Ranking Member.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I have a couple of articles for
unanimous consent. The first is a news article entitled,
``Texas Children's Hospital Halts Hormone Related Prescription
Therapies for Transgender Children,'' dated March 4, 2022,
where the report notes Texas Children's Hospital said they're
pausing specific treatments after State leaders decided to ask
Child Protective Services to investigate.
The second one, ``Houston Pediatric Chief's Abrupt Exit
Triggers Fear and Disappointment within the Transgender
Community.'' It's a May 3, 2022, Houston Chronicle article
where the report notes that the hospitals continued to care for
transgender patients in light of a recent statewide injunction.
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr.
Goldman, for five minutes.
Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to
followup on your last answer, Dr.--is it Haim?
Dr. Haim. Haim, yes, sir.
Mr. Goldman. You believe that the suicide rate for people
identified as transgender is going up because they are being
told by other people that they are in the wrong body; is that
what your testimony is?
Dr. Haim. Yes.
Mr. Goldman. The suicide rate is not going up because there
are people like you who are telling them that they must be
mistaken if they feel something different than what you think
they should?
Dr. Haim. That question was a little worded--can you
clarify?
Mr. Goldman. Sure. It relates to Ms. Sivadge as well. It's
pretty remarkable to hear that the reason why the suicide rate
in the transgender community is so much higher than other
communities is somehow because these innocent kids, who don't
want any of this gender-affirming care, who don't go to their
parents and talk at length about how they're feeling, and
instead are through their parents that are controlled by some
transgender industrial complex to convince transgender people
that, no, even though unquestionably your life would be so much
simpler if you just carry on as you are, because you wouldn't
be the subject of a hearing in a Subcommittee based on one
case. It's pretty shocking to me that that actually is the
rationale. It does clarify a lot for me because I wonder--you
talk about the actual care and the impact that it has on these
children. Is it your testimony here today that the doctors who
provide that care to the children don't know what the impact it
has on the kids?
Dr. Haim. Yes, I would say, first, it's not care because
what they're doing is harming the patients. That's exactly what
I would say. The doctors who are doing this are misinformed
about what they're doing. They don't understand the pathology
they're treating because gender dysphoria is a problem of the
mind, but they're using solutions of the body. That is where
you're wrong.
Mr. Goldman. It's a dysphoria of the mind. So, psychiatric
care is what they need?
Dr. Haim. I believe yet--
Mr. Goldman. Maybe conversion therapy?
Dr. Haim. Excuse me.
Mr. Goldman. Conversion therapy maybe?
Dr. Haim. What do you mean by ``conversion therapy''?
Mr. Goldman. You know everything about the medical field;
I'm sure you understand what conversion therapy is.
Dr. Haim. Well, I would--conversion therapy is using
hormones the process--
Mr. Goldman. It was a concern. I'll reclaim my time. Let me
ask you a little bit about the process.
I am sorry. I only have five minutes. Let me ask you a
little bit about the process. I heard your testimony earlier to
be that you saw this happening,--and I'm not going to get into
the details as to what Texas Children Hospital represented it
was doing or not doing. They clearly say they never had
anything secretive; they were following the law. You felt like
you had come on something that was very damaging to child
patients.
Obviously, you're aware of HIPAA. I assume you're aware of,
as a medical doctor, what your obligations are to report
anything you see as child abuse or something similar through a
particular chain. Is that correct?
Dr. Haim. Yes, sir.
Mr. Goldman. I know you testified, and you said that you
saw one example or a couple of examples of parents who had
abused children being allowed in their hospital rooms.
Therefore, even though you knew that you should report to child
protective services, you decided unilaterally that it would be
worthless so you weren't going to follow the proper procedures.
Is that right?
Dr. Haim. Yes, CPS had proven ineffective to protect--
Mr. Goldman. Proven? Proven to who?
Dr. Haim. To me.
Mr. Goldman. To you. I see. You get to put your own
judgment in, instead of the parents, instead of child
protective services, or instead of the government, whatever you
think you get to do--``Well, they're not going to be good; so
I'm going to go to a journalist.'' Now, you are trying to call
yourself a whistleblower.
Let me ask you, you said something else I found something--
or maybe it was Mr. Lytle. Before you went to Mr. Rufo with
this information, did you try to reach out to the Texas
Attorney General?
Dr. Haim. Yes, sir.
Mr. Goldman. That's Ken Paxton, right?
Dr. Haim. Uh-huh.
Mr. Goldman. Who has been leading the charge against
gender-affirming care, correct?
Dr. Haim. Yes.
Mr. Goldman. I have an article here that you wrote in
January 2024, to defend yourself. You don't say anywhere in
here that you tried to reach out to the Texas Attorney General.
Dr. Haim. Yes.
Mr. Goldman. Which is true? The article or what you're
testifying to here today?
Dr. Haim. I am testifying here today that we reached out to
Ken Paxton's office before the story was released in May 2023.
Mr. Goldman. You didn't hear back.
Dr. Haim. No.
Mr. Goldman. I have a unanimous consent request. I would
like to introduce this article, written by Eithan Haim, here:
``Not on My Watch.'' It's Eye on the News, Social Order
Healthcare, dated January 12, 2024.
Mr. Roy. Without objection.
Mr. Roy. I will now recognize myself for five minutes. We
had, as I mentioned earlier, a witness last year named Chloe
Cole--I have become friends with and come to know--who
testified here. She is one example of many of people that I
have met and come to know through her and through others.
In her testimony--this is similar testimony; it wasn't the
exact testimony she gave here--she mentions that she is a
detransitioned 18-year-old woman. Now, this is older. This is I
think last year--from California who went through the process
of medical transition between the ages of 12-16.
Then, she goes through and describes how it happened, how
she was pushed by social media, and how she was pushed by
medical personnel to go down that road. She goes here and
explains because--this is relevant. I am going to ask a
question about what Children's Hospital was up to in Texas. She
said, quote,
I am suffering a multitude of complications from the blockers,
from the cross-sex hormones, and the surgery.
She had a double mastectomy.
My quality of life is still being impacted to this day. I had
puberty blocked when I was already about four years in. I
started experiencing some menopause-like symptoms, severe hot
flashes, and itching all over my body. This went away after I
stopped taking them. But I still have joint pains and shooting
pains in my spine.
During a consultation for testosterone, I was told by my
endocrinologist that I would experience vaginal atrophy. I was
not informed that this atrophy actually affects the rest of the
organs in the pelvic region.
She goes on to explain more, that she, ``would not be unable to
breastfeed.'' It's horrific. It's absolutely horrific.
What I want to point out is that--one of my colleagues said
on the other side of the aisle. I think he was asking you, Dr.
Haim, about whether or not Children's Hospital was engaging in
surgery. I wanted to just speak really quick to your allegation
that Children's Hospital was continuing to engage in puberty
blockers even after what was happening on the Texas--with
respect to the law in Texas.
Dr. Haim. Oh, yes, they were absolutely doing the surgeries
after they said they were not doing it.
Mr. Roy. They were doing puberty blockers and surgeries?
Dr. Haim. The puberty blockers are surgery. Implanted
devices into the child.
Mr. Roy. Right. That was absolutely happening. That's your
testimony?
Dr. Haim. Absolutely. There's evidence of that.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Sivadge, can you explain in a little bit more
detail about why that is so horrific?
Ms. Sivadge. Absolutely. There are so many harmful effects
from implanting puberty blocking devices and administering some
form of testosterone or estrogen therapies to children. Some of
those effects include ovarian atrophy where prolonged
testosterone--taking prolonged testosterone for a female will
result in ovarian atrophy, which ultimately results in
menstrual irregularities and then a cessation of the menses,
ultimately culminating in infertility, the inability to
conceive and to have children.
Mr. Roy. Mr. Lesley, a quick question of your work. I'm
going to try to ask some quick questions. I have got limited
time. Do you believe the government should intervene when
parents refuse to provide their minor children with access to
gender dysphoria treatment?
Mr. Lesley. My first focus, we believe that medical
decisions should be made by doctors, parents, and children.
Mr. Roy. Right. Yes or no, if the parents don't want to do
it, should doctors be able to intervene?
Mr. Lesley. Doctors, parents, and children should make
medical decisions based on best practices?
Mr. Roy. If the doctors are trying to do it without the
parents and the parental consent, should they be able to do it?
Mr. Lesley. Parents and children should be involved in all
medical decisions.
Mr. Roy. Involved. Should the parents be making the
decision with the child?
Mr. Lesley. Yes, in conjunction with doctors, though like
not--
Mr. Roy. All right. If the parents don't agree to do it,
does that constitute child abuse?
Mr. Lesley. There are cases where there's medical neglect,
but that's not my expertise. What I'm telling you--
Mr. Roy. Well, is it true that you published a column
stating the following in one article, that, quote,
On the other hand, children are less powerful than adults and
are particularly vulnerable for physical, emotional, and sexual
abuse, but also abuse of power by parents.
In another article, April 25, 2021, you published an article
stating,
There is no doubt that children need the support and protection
of parents. But children also sometimes need protection from
actions by parents and government that threatened their health,
education, safety, and well-being.
In other words, do you think it's abusive if parents choose not
to pursue this path? Yes or no?
Mr. Lesley. The path of gender dysphoria or generally?
Because what I was talking about in those columns were things
like abuse and neglect, had to with what Dr. Haim talked about
was think like--he testified that there's intentional
starvation, cigarette burns, and those kinds of things he sees
that the parents are still in the room.
I agree with him that, in those sorts of cases, we should
actually have protections for kids.
Mr. Roy. Do you have questions?
I would like to insert into the record an article by Mr.
Lesley: ``How Parental Rights Bill Threatens the Health,
Education, and Safety of Children.'' Another article by Mr.
Lesley: ``Governor DeSantis Should Veto Florida's Tragically
Flawed So-Called Parents' Bill of Rights.'' A number of Tweet
threads by Mr. Lesley on the same topic. Then, a First Focus
Campaign for Children letter that I believe that Mr. Lesley
authored, dated January 12, 2024, to Tim Scott and Virginia
Foxx on similar topics.
Without objection.
I'll now recognize the Ranking Member.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Sivadge, you issued some opinions here about the
proprietary of care for gender dysphoria. Now, you're a
pediatric nurse. Is that correct?
Ms. Sivadge. Yes.
Ms. Scanlon. You have a bachelor's in nursing?
Ms. Sivadge. I do.
Ms. Scanlon. You received that when, 21-ish?
Ms. Sivadge. When did I graduate?
Ms. Scanlon. Yes.
Ms. Sivadge. In 2015.
Ms. Scanlon. In 2015, OK. As you described your job, you
were working as a clinic nurse, where your duties were
refilling prescriptions, acting as a liaison between doctors
and parents, and obtaining insurance authorization. Is that
correct?
Ms. Sivadge. Yes.
Ms. Scanlon. OK. You don't have a medical degree. Is that
right?
Ms. Sivadge. I have a nursing degree.
Ms. Scanlon. Right, but you don't have a medical degree,
correct?
Ms. Sivadge. No.
Ms. Scanlon. You don't have a psychological degree?
Ms. Sivadge. I have commonsense.
Ms. Scanlon. OK. You don't have a license to practice as a
psychologist, a psychiatrist, or a doctor. Correct?
Ms. Sivadge. I know the difference between right and wrong,
yes, ma'am.
Ms. Scanlon. You do not have those things. OK. Moving right
along.
Mr. Lesley, you testified earlier that child poverty is
rising. We know that's happened since the elimination of the
expanded tax credit. Will Republican budget cuts make that
problem worse?
Mr. Lesley. Depending on what things we see in the
aftermath of the budget resolution, absolutely, depending on
what kinds of cuts. We're very concerned what we're seeing is
that they may be disproportionate to kids.
Ms. Scanlon. That's the kinds of cuts you talked about
earlier with respect to SNAP, WIC, and Medicaid, which is
funding CHIP for Children's Health Insurance?
Mr. Lesley. Absolutely. The Children Health Insurance
Program was a bipartisan piece of legislation that is
universally supported by Democratic and Republican Governors
across this Nation. The polling in America shows that it is the
most popular, and people strongly oppose cutting CHIP.
Ms. Scanlon. I have had a longtime concern about children's
hunger.
Mr. Lesley. Yes.
Ms. Scanlon. SNAP has been proven over decades to a really
effective way of alleviating hunger, as have school lunches and
school breakfasts. We've already seen cuts from this
administration eliminating millions and millions of dollars
that go toward school lunches. Now, we're faced with a budget
proposal that is, by necessity, to meet its parameters, going
to end up cutting SNAP and WIC. Can you talk about the impact
of that on children?
Mr. Lesley. Absolutely. The SNAP beneficiaries are
proportionately children, and the SNAP basically prevents
children from going to bed at night hungry. Some of the summer
meals programs, those things are also being targeted. It is
enormously important to reduce child poverty as well--huge
ramifications for families.
I testified earlier, my parents were educators, and they
would speak often about kids coming to school hungry, and they
had a food drawer, both of them. They would give kids food
because kids would come to school hungry. You can't learn when
you're hungry.
Ms. Scanlon. Yes, the image of a kid going to bed hungry,
it tugs at the heart strings. With having spent a significant
amount of time in public schools, kids who come to school
hungry absolutely don't learn. Are we seeing child hunger on
the rise right now?
Mr. Lesley. We are seeing child hunger on the rise. It has
more than doubled since 2021.
Ms. Scanlon. Another longtime concern that I've had has to
do with gun violence. School shootings. The absolute
proliferation of weapons on our streets. You testified earlier
that it is that gun violence is now the number one killer of
children under 19, both through suicide and through homicide.
We've already seen this administration cut community
violence prevention and gun safety grants to our cities and
communities, which actually had seen a reduction in gun
violence since the peak in 2021. Can you talk about what budget
cuts would mean with respect to reducing gun violence and child
mortality?
Mr. Lesley. Yes, I hope that we all agree that we should do
all we can to do prevention. Those grants are prevention
grants. They're not gun control grants. They're grants to try
to reduce--to improve prevention services. That's something
that hopefully is a very bipartisan thing.
Ms. Scanlon. Another thing that hit the news over the last
week was the fact that DOGE and the administration fired
everyone at the Federal Government, all 15 people who
administered the LIHEAP program. The LIHEAP provides emergency
funding to heat homes in the winter or cool them when it gets
so hot in the summer.
So, with no one there to administer the program, the
remaining $400 million for this year and whatever isn't cut
from the budget last year can't go out.
What does a cut to the LIHEAP do to kids?
Mr. Lesley. Oh, it's huge. I grew up, as I said earlier, in
El Paso, Texas. It's in the middle of the desert. It gets to be
over 110 degrees. My wife is from the State of Maine. It gets
freezing up here. The same thing. Her family's in the home
heating and oil business.
The LIHEAP is huge for no matter what end of the country
you live in.
Ms. Scanlon. Lifesaving, I would argue.
Mr. Lesley. Yes.
Ms. Scanlon. I really want to thank you for your testimony,
and I yield back,
Mr. Roy. I would ask for a unanimous consent request to
enter into the record a copy of the superseding indictment that
was referenced earlier to recognize that there are a number of
changes in that superseding indictment, that it dropped the
mistaken claim that it published HIPAA-protected information
obtained by Dr. Haim; counts 2-4, no longer contain the false
charge that Dr. Haim did obtain or wrongfully disclose HIPAA-
protected information. It no longer alleges that Dr. Haim
requested remote access so he could discreetly, covertly access
pediatric patient files, and a number of other changes in the
superseding indictment, acknowledging the extent to which the
original indictment was flawed and based on false claims.
Mr. Roy. With that, I will now recognize my good friend,
Mr. Onder.
In doing so, without getting too personal, we're all
humans, and we all have a lot of things going on, and we're all
praying for you and wishing you very well.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Roy. I recognize you for five minutes.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the Chair
for holding this important hearing.
As a physician, I want to personally thank you, Dr. Haim
and Ms. Sivadge, for having the courage to come forward.
While many doctors push these experimental procedures on
children, you and I both know that many others have been
pressured to comply or resign due to their refusal to knowingly
harm children in the way that we're talking about here today.
I personally know someone who was a Chair of Endocrinology
at a major medical center who had to resign from his position
because he wouldn't go along with the transgender madness that
we're seeing today.
Whistleblowers like you should be applauded as heroes, not
the subject of Federal investigations. One whistleblower who I
believe we're all familiar with in Missouri, Jamie Reed, came
forward about the blatant disregard for children. She was a
true believer. She was a truly believer. She thought she was
doing good by these so-called transgender children.
She was working at the Washington University Transgender
Clinic at St. Louis Children's Hospital. The Washington
University happens to be my alma mater. I have been aware of
this clinic and advocated for its closure for years.
That's why one of the first bills I introduced when I came
to Congress was H.R. 2387, the No Harm Act, because we as
doctors take an oath to do no harm.
I wanted to--do you pronounce as Ms. Sivadge?
Ms. Sivadge. Yes.
Mr. Onder. Sivadge, yes. It's ironic some of my Democratic
colleagues today are talking a lot about hypothetical reforms
to Medicaid and so on. As long as we're on the subject of
Medicaid, let's talk about it. I'm a physician. I have taken
Medicaid patients for over 30 years.
I appreciate your courage in exposing Medicaid fraud
because we know these transition medications and procedures are
expensive. It's--you're doing a great service. You did a great
service both to the taxpayers in Texas and, of course, the
children and the family and to all of us by exposing prohibited
Medicaid coverage of transition procedures diagnosing children
with hormone deficiencies instead of gender dysphoria.
Another game they play is regarding puberty blockers
diagnosing precocious puberty when, in fact, these drugs were
being used as kind of chemical castration drugs to block
puberty.
I will have to say I treated children for 30 years in my
practice, not endocrinology but in a field where I saw lots of
kids. I don't think I ever saw a kid with precocious puberty on
his or her chart, and yet in some places.
Tell me a little bit, what was going on? They were
downright putting the wrong ICD-10 code in these patients'
charts?
Ms. Sivadge. Yes. Thank you for that question.
Yes, Texas Children's Hospital, through two particular
doctors, were intentionally misdiagnosing patients, and I saw
this with my own eyes. They were, for example, labeling a male
with a testosterone deficiency to administer testosterone. They
would do this because, on the medical chart, they would put the
preferred gender identity of the patient and not the biological
sex.
This makes it very difficult to detect fraud for any
insurance company who gets the billing code. It's very
difficult to distinguish what is actually happening.
Mr. Onder. Right. What I have here behind me are charts,
hormone therapy and puberty blockers, where the gender, the
diagnosis gender dysphoria was actually the reason for
treatment. These are cases where the correct diagnosis code,
the correct ICD-10 code, was used in children ages 6-17.
If we take into account fraud, where hormone deficiency or
precocious puberty is used, these bar graphs would be far
greater. Quite a few children are being treated inappropriately
with these drugs.
Dr. Haim, I've been reading your story and following you.
I'm running short on time. I just want to say I cannot imagine
the courage that you and your wife, by the way, thank goodness
your wife was an attorney and counseled you because you know
what would have happened? You would have made some
misstatements that they would have taken out of context, and
you would be in prison today for, quote, ``lying to a Federal
agent.''
You illustrated great courage. You did not violate HIPAA.
There are HIPAA violations all the time that are never
prosecuted. They came down on you because you were standing up
for kids.
God bless you, and I'm proud to have you as a fellow member
of my profession.
Dr. Haim. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.
Mr. Onder. Thank you.
Mr. Roy. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Onder. I yield back.
Mr. Roy. I appreciate that. I'll now recognize, once I give
him a little second here to get seated, my friend from Texas,
Mr. Gill.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for holding
this hearing today.
In foreign countries, we refer to gender reassignment
surgeries as child genital mutilation. In the U.S., we have a
much more medicalized and sterile terminology that we use of
gender reassignment surgery. It's utterly barbaric. Thankfully,
we have a President who is serious about ending it.
Dr. Haim, thank you so much for being here. We really
appreciate all the work that you have done and your bravery
throughout this process.
I'd like to ask you a few questions. There is a far-Left
organization, and it's known as the Campaign for Southern
Equality, and it publicly posts a fact sheet with commonly used
insurance codes.
The group claims that, quote, ``This information can help
provide, guide providers about insurance codes for trans
healthcare that are commonly accepted and rejected.''
Are you aware of this fact sheet?
Dr. Haim. I am aware.
Mr. Gill. You are. Could you explain maybe a little bit
about the sheet and what it's commonly used for?
Dr. Haim. This is really important because, when you type
in ``gender-affirming care diagnosis codes,'' on Google, this
is one of the top search results. What this document does is
inform doctors at these clinics how to get insurance companies,
whether private or government, to cover interventions without
revealing that it's being used for gender dysphoria, right.
How do you do a mastectomy, but the bill an insurance
company and not raise any red flags. For example, if it's
happening in a Red State, right, well, you bill it as breast
reduction instead of a mastectomy, right.
If you have a girl, right, like a 14-year-old girl who you
want to prescribe testosterone for, quote,
Gender-affirming care, you put a ``male sex'' in the medical
chart and then you prescribe testosterone for testosterone
deficiency.
The only thing the insurance company sees is ``male
testosterone deficiency.'' No red flags are raised. They don't
know that they're getting defrauded.
This guide is essentially a template for how to commit
medical fraud. We should all remember this is something that
people go to prison for. This is a major deal. They have entire
departments at hospitals for this.
Mr. Gill. That's right. This is a way of guiding doctors of
how to defraud insurance companies. Is that correct? How to lie
to them?
Dr. Haim. That's what it says in an other language, right,
they try and dress it up and make it sound nice, but that's
what they're saying.
Mr. Gill. This is something that could and likely is being
used to subvert the President's Executive Order. Is that right?
Dr. Haim. Yes. It's my suspicion this is happening all over
the country, especially in Red States.
Mr. Gill. In your time in the medical field, have you seen
this tactic being used to defraud insurance companies or to
misrepresent surgeries that are being done?
Dr. Haim. In my personal practice, no. No, because it's
such a big deal. Everything you do has to be by the books.
Everything you write on a medical chart has to be true. It has
to support a certain diagnosis. That diagnosis has to be
related to a treatment. If there is any break in that link,
that's a big problem. People go to prison for that.
Mr. Gill. Have you ever heard of a healthcare provider
using some of these tactics or using a wrong insurance code?
Dr. Haim. I've heard about it, and those people are in
prison.
Mr. Gill. You suspect, to be clear, that this is currently
a recurrent practice?
Dr. Haim. Yes. There's a few cases in Texas where the
Attorney General in Texas, of course, this is before
litigation; We have to remember that people are innocent until
proven guilty. He brought three doctors in Texas up for
violating SB14, right, for this similar scheme, which has been
outlined in his suits against them, where they are using false
diagnoses and then misrepresented sexes to bill insurance
companies to conceal, quote, ``gender-affirming care in Texas
after the passage of SB14.''
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Dr. Haim. I'd like to yield the
remainder of my time to the Chair.
Mr. Roy. I appreciate my friend from Texas. I appreciate
the witnesses.
Ms. Sivadge, earlier, your credentials as a nurse were
challenged with respect to your ability to make the
observations you came here to testify. Would you like to
respond to that?
Ms. Sivadge. I would, yes. The sterilization and the
medicali-
zation of children is not lifesaving in the same way that the
dismemberment of the unborn in the womb is not healthcare. That
does not take a person with credentials to recognize that.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Sivadge.
I appreciate the witnesses.
That concludes today's hearing. We thank the witnesses for
appearing before the Subcommittee.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Without objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
.aspx?EventID=118128.
[all]