By Evan Popp | AUGUSTA, Maine | On Wednesday, the Maine House approved a proposed “protect rules” to shield the state’s health professionals who provide biological and gender-affirming care from being targeted by different states’ bans or restrictions on such procedures.
The room passed LD 227, sponsored by Anne Perry (D-Calais), by an 80-70 generally party-line vote, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed (with the exception of Democrat Rep. Bruce White of Waterville). The Senate will now be given the opportunity to vote on the bill.
According to Perry, “What this bill intends to do is to shield… from another state coming in and enforcing their laws on this state,” which is why it is called a shield law. “It is a sovereignty issue.”
Following the overturning of federal abortion rights in 2022, many Republican-led states have sought to restrict access to reproductive health, and they have also targeted gender-affirming care for transgender youth. So far, in response to such efforts, 22 states and Washington, D.C. have passed shield laws protecting abortion, and eleven of those states and D.C. also have protections specifically for gender-affirming care.
The Maine Legislature’s Judiciary Committee voted down a separate shield law proposal in January. The Health Coverage, Insurance, and Financial Services Committee presented and discussed LD 227’s text last month.
Democrats claimed that the bill is necessary to allow medical professionals to provide legally protected care without being targeted by out-of-state actors during the House debate on Wednesday night.
Republicans, in contrast, repeatedly asserted that the bill would encourage criminal activity, assertions that legal experts have refuted. They also expressed concern that the legislation would stifle law enforcement by preventing them from sharing information. They also expressed their general opposition to gender-affirming care for minors and reproductive health rights like abortion.
Rep. Joshua Morris (R-Turner) argued in his speech that the bill would facilitate traffickers’ access to safe haven in Maine, claiming that it would allow children to be brought to the state without parental consent for the services provided by the proposal.
Numerous opponents of the legislation also argued that LD 227 is a violation of parental rights.
“I have only scratched the surface of the issues with this bill,” Morris said, also citing issues with the procedure, such as the measure’s late introduction and a lack of text that is made public.
The claims made by bill supporters that the bill would facilitate kidnapping and trafficking are blatant lies. And legal authorities, including Attorney General Aaron Frey, have also pushed back against such arguments. The bill “makes no changes to criminal law, nor does it legalize any currently illegal behavior,” Frey told Maine Morning Star.
“There is no reading of the bill that would authorize criminal acts, like kidnapping or trafficking,” Frey stated.
Additionally, lawmakers on the Health Coverage, Insurance, and Financial Services Committee narrowed the bill to include protections for health care professionals and those who assist them rather than providing protections for anyone. This was in response to concerns about the bill. According to Kellyen McCarthy Reid, a legislative analyst from the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, the change was intended to emphasize the intended application of the law in response to the allegations of child trafficking and kidnapping.
During Wednesday’s debate, opponents of the bill also said they were worried about the bill’s impact on law enforcement. Rep. Scott Cyrway (R-Albion) referenced the opposition of the Maine Sheriff’s Association to LD 227. According to Cyrway, the legislation in the bill that forbids law enforcement from sharing information to aid another state’s investigation into a legally-protected health activity in Maine would make it harder for police to collaborate with colleagues in other places to investigate criminal activity.
However, LD 227 forbids police from knowingly releasing information for an interstate investigation into legally-protected health activity or making an arrest in connection with such activity. There are some exceptions to these exceptions, such as when federal law requires action, when police believe a warrant is valid in Maine, or when there isn’t enough time to comply with LD 227’s requirements and when there is a compelling need to take action because there is an imminent threat to public safety.
Republicans criticize gender-affirming medical care
Opponents of LD 227 also denounced gender-affirming care in general during Wednesday’s debate. They claimed that the bill would allow children who were outside of the state to receive what they termed an irreversible treatment. Gender-affirming services are untested and risky for youth, according to numerous Republicans.
“This bill will allow doctors to mutilate beautiful bodies, completely throw a child’s fertility away, and hide and ignore true mental health issues and struggles,” said Rep. Katrina Smith (R-Palermo).
However, advocates of the measure, such as Rep. Matt Moonen (D-Portland), pointed out that Maine’s extensive regulations for gender-affirming care and reproductive health care are still in place, particularly regarding youth.
According to a report from Maine Morning Star, parental consent is typically required for minors to obtain gender-affirming care in the majority of cases. A Maine law passed last session allows people who are at least 16 years old to receive non-surgical gender-affirming hormone therapy without the parent’s permission, but only in certain circumstances.
Democrats also pointed out that numerous health care organizations support gender-affirming care as a necessary form of gender dysphoria.
Providers express concern that restrictions on such services will worsen transgender youth’s mental health outcomes, with the American Medical Association calling efforts to combat gender-affirming care “a dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine.”
Rep. Sam Zager (D-Portland), a family physician, said safe and effective gender-affirming care is crucial to young people’s mental health and overall well-being.
People who do not match their assigned gender, in my opinion, deserve access to evidence-based health care for their full being, just like everyone else. Therefore, he said, “health care professionals can’t be frightened” of offering it.”
Republicans’ AGs’ letter is being pushed back by lawmakers
Multiple Democrats referenced a letter about the bill that was written in March by 15 Republican attorneys general from around the country in a bid to get it passed on Wednesday. The officials stated in the letter that a shield law would be constitutional and that they would “vigorously avail” themselves of “every recourse our Constitution provides” if the bill were to be passed.
The letter, according to Democratic lawmakers, was seen as an egregious attempt to intimidate legislators and a prime example of why the state needed a shield law in the first place. Additionally, opponents cited Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s actions, which he claimed violated Texas law by issuing investigative subpoenas to a Washington state hospital.
“At its core, this bill is about our state’s sovereign ability to set and enforce our state’s laws without interference from Texas, Tennessee or Kentucky,” said Rep. Amy Kuhn (D-Falmouth).
Following Wednesday’s vote, Planned Parenthood Maine Action Fund praised lawmakers for passing the bill.
The group’s vice president of public affairs, Lisa Margulies, stated in a press release that “Maine is one step closer to protecting our essential medical care providers from hostile attacks by out-of-state extremists. Margulies praised lawmakers who supported the bill “in the face of vile rhetoric and lies, political posturing and threats of violence” (poaching).
Evan Popp attended Ithaca College, where he majored in journalism. After spending three
years writing about state politics for the Maine Beacon, he now writes for the Maine Morning Star. Prior to that, he interned at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, ThinkProgress, and the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper.
The Maine Morning Star previously published the previous article, and it is now republished with permission.
Maine Morning Star is a nonpartisan, independent news source that covers state politics and policy and how they affect people in Maine. We want to expose how powerful individuals and organizations act in communities ranging from Kennebunk to Caribou and hold them accountable.
We’re part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.
