Prosecutors Can’t Demand New York Trans Kids’ Medical Records, Judge Says ⁠57%

By Sophie Hurwitz⁠63%

6/24/2026, 1:18:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Fundamental Attribution Error, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 54.7% saturation with 181 hits. Analysis detected 857 faulty-reasoning hits from 331 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠57% (9,607 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.10% of the article peer group.

Yet another Trump administration effort to gain access to trans kids’ private health information has been, for the moment, halted. 
A district judge today handed down a temporary restraining order, preventing the Trump administration from forcing disclosure of the health records of trans children treated at New York University Langone and Mount Sinai hospitals in New York City. 
The injunction will remain in place at least until July 8. 
The US Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Texas sent out a grand jury subpoena to the hospitals seeking confidential information about patients under age 18 according to a statement released by NYU Langone May 11. 
The Trump administration spent much of the past year seeking similar information from hospitals across the country via administrative subpoenas, none of which have succeeded in court. 
“ But undeterred by its disastrous showing in the courts, DOJ decided to issue nearly identical document requests in the form of grand jury subpoenas emanating from the Northern District of Texas,” District Judge Katherine Polk Failla said. 
Shannon Minter, the legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, called the subpoena “a blatant attempt to harass and intimidate medical providers based on this administration’s ideological opposition to transgender people and to this healthcare. 
” 
“It’s just an egregious abuse of federal power,” Minter told me at the time. 
“This is mafia-type behavior.” 
Three families of trans kids sued in early June, alleging the subpoena violated their children’s rights. 
“We’re thankful the court has granted our emergency request to protect the privacy interests of transgender New Yorkers and their families,” said Chase Strangio, Co-Director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project, in a statement. 
“For the past year, the Trump administration has not only decided that it knows better than these families and their doctors what their medical needs are, but has also sought to obtain troves of sensitive information about patients in New York.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 6.2%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.1%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 4.7%Mother Jones: 3.3%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.9%Mother Jones: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 9.4%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect14.8%This article: 10.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion10.9%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.5%Mother Jones: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 54.7%Sophie Hurwitz: 13.0%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias54.7%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 35.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.7%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error35.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.5%Mother Jones: 1.0%In-Group Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.0%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.7%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect6.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.6%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem1.2%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.6%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 3.1%Mother Jones: 3.6%Appeal to Authority11.5%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.2%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.6%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 7.9%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.6%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 39.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 9.9%Mother Jones: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion39.9%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.6%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.2%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof4.8%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 5.4%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.7%Mother Jones: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.7%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote4.2%This article: 14.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.8%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection14.8%This article: 3.3%Sophie Hurwitz: 9.6%Mother Jones: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice3.3%This article: 12.4%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.0%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination12.4%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 4.9%Mother Jones: 4.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

331 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers51%attributed speech161writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDistrict Judge Katherine Polk Failla • 38 words • 100.0% coverageShannon Minter • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageShannon Minter • 14 words • 100.0% coverageShannon Minter • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageChase Strangio • 36 words • 0.0% coverageChase Strangio • 41 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words22% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+93.2 ptsWriter: 6.8%District Judge Katherine Polk Failla: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -12.4 ptsWriter: 12.4%District Judge Katherine Polk Failla: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%District Judge Katherine Polk Failla: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.