Elon Musk’s X intervenes in high-profile medical mutilation case
Observers are putting pressure on a federal court to honor the First Amendment in a high-profile case against a whistleblower surgeon, with Elon Musk’s X being the latest company to intervene.
The Department of Justice has indicted Dr. Eithan Haim, a surgeon who blew the whistle on Texas Children’s Hospital last year for secretly operating a gender clinic for kids. Children who came to the hospital with anxiety or depression were diagnosed with gender dysphoria and administered puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. These interventions, which cause irreversible conditions like sterility, are referred to by many doctors as medical mutilation.
X intervenes: DOJ is ‘gagging the public speech’
Last week, the DOJ asked the court to issue a gag order against Dr. Haim, who has been tweeting about the progress of the case. The government wants Dr. Haim and his lawyer forbidden from posting about the case on X and other public platforms, complaining that their “inflammatory” speech could lead to “the online bullying of prosecutors” and might invite “the public to harass prosecutors.”
On Monday, X Corp filed a motion to intervene in United States v. Haim, asking the court to protect Dr. Haim's right to free speech by denying the government’s request for a gag order.
“Stripped of its rhetoric, the Government’s Motion for an order gagging the public speech of Defendant Eithan Haim and his counsel seeks to accomplish one goal: to suppress public reaction to the Government’s use (or abuse) of prosecutorial discretion in this action,” the company wrote in the filing.
X slammed the DOJ for fretting that the defendant’s speech about his own case would lead to criticism of government prosecutors.
“What irony for this complaint to come from federal prosecutors, whose awesome powers and nearly limitless resources make them the Goliath to Dr. Haim’s David. And it is precisely because of their extraordinary power that prosecutors must be held accountable to the public and not permitted to hide behind a veil of court-imposed secrecy through litigation tactics such as sealing their filings from public view and seeking gag orders against defendants, the actions challenged in this motion,” the company said.
Not the Bee intervenes: Unseal the docs
Not the Bee, the sister site of Babylon Bee, also intervened this week in United States v. Haim. On Monday, Dhillon Law Group filed a motion on behalf of Not the Bee asking the court to unseal four critical filings it believes will reveal whether the government is legitimately attempting to uphold the law or persecuting a whistleblower for challenging the transgender agenda.
“At Not the Bee, we make a living from finding humor in the absurd, but this case is no laughing matter,” said Not the Bee CEO and Co-Founder Dan Dillon in a statement. “When a doctor risks everything to shine a light on medical practices involving children, especially in the controversial realm of gender transitions, the public has a right to see the full picture.”
In the motion, Dhillon Law Group stressed the lack of justification for sealing the documents and argued that United States v. Haim is a high-profile, public-facing case that should have maximum transparency.
“Transparency in this case is essential—not just for justice but for public trust in the system,” said Dhillon Law Group Founder and Managing Partner Harmeet K. Dhillon. “The requested sealing [of] these documents is inconsistent with applicable law, violates the public right to examine the government’s conduct, and further would deprive the public of the First Amendment right to hear commentary about a matter of significant public interest — namely, the prosecution of a whistleblower raising alarm about alleged medical misconduct and mistreatment of minors in Texas.”
The DOJ responded to Not the Bee’s motion by insisting the court continue to seal two of the documents because they contain copies of tweets from Haim and his lawyer, even though the tweets are already public.
Background
After the State of Texas announced in 2022 that it would begin investigating medical mutilation as a form of child abuse, Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH) announced the closure of its clinic. Days later, however, it reopened and continued to operate in secret. One social worker even bragged about concealing the clinic’s activities from parents.
When Dr. Haim discovered this, he partnered with journalist Christopher Rufo and went public with the information. The data he provided Rufo was “de-identified,” which means it did not disclose any patient identifiers. De-identification is one of the few ways a healthcare provider can disclose patient information without running afoul of HIPAA privacy laws.
Within 24 hours of the exposé, the Texas legislature voted to ban medical mutilation procedures for children. Three days later, AG Paxton announced an investigation into TCH. After a week, then-TCH CEO Mark Wallace announced the program would (again) be shut down.
Just over a month later, Dr. Haim was visited at his home by armed agents who informed him he was the target of a DOJ investigation. In May, Assistant District Attorney Tina Ansari had Dr. Haim indicted on four counts of HIPAA violations for which he faces 10 years in prison. Ansari, who comes from a wealthy Iranian-American family of elite Democrats heavily involved with TCH, later admitted to securing the indictment based on false information and without reviewing the evidence beforehand.
The DOJ’s case has largely been a legal disaster. Since the government’s first indictment was based on false information, it was forced to bring a superseding one to replace it. But even that indictment contained significant errors that have confused the court and are likely to puzzle the jury. Ansari, who at one point during the case was practicing without a valid law license, was removed from her post as lead prosecutor last week. Nevertheless, the DOJ insists on prosecuting Dr. Haim — even though it is still unclear what crime is being alleged.
“Although the whistleblower redacted all personal information and remained within the bounds of federal privacy laws, the Biden Administration wanted to make a point: those who challenge trans orthodoxy will be punished by the state,” Rufo wrote.
