Conservative groups, lawmakers accused of spreading disinformation about proposed shield law

The Maine Legislature has engaged in many contentious debates this year. But perhaps no legislation has generated as much inflammatory — and oftentimes unsupported — rhetoric as LD 227, a proposed “shield law.” 

The bill, which awaits votes in the Maine Senate and House, is designed to protect Maine health professionals who provide reproductive and gender-affirming care from being targeted by other states’ bans or restrictions on such treatments.  

Sponsored by Rep. Anne Perry (D-Calais), the measure comes as many Republican-led states have sought to curb access to reproductive care following the overturning of federal abortion rights in 2022 and have also targeted gender-affirming care for transgender youth.

The Maine Legislature’s Judiciary Committee voted down a separate shield law proposal in January. The text of LD 227 was subsequently introduced and advanced by the Health Coverage, Insurance and Financial Services Committee last month. 

Process concerns — such as the later than usual introduction of the bill and the lack of publicly-available text — have frequently been cited in arguments against the measure. The bill also drew the attention of 15 Republican attorneys general from around the country, who penned a letter in March arguing that the measure is unconstitutional — a complaint dismissed by Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey. 

Maine Republican lawmakers have decried the legislation, as well. But in doing so, they have often used rhetoric that bill supporters describe as disinformation and that legal experts say doesn’t match what the legislation would actually do. 

Opponents’ arguments

One refrain from critics is that LD 227 would enable child trafficking and kidnapping. In a March radio address, Sen. Lisa Keim of Oxford County, the assistant Republican minority leader in the Senate, said the measure would offer protection for “transgender traffickers” by allowing any adult to “transport a minor across state lines in Maine to obtain transgender drugs, surgeries and/or abortion services.”  

Reps. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) and Katrina Smith (R-Palermo), along with Sen. Stacey Guerin (R-Penobscot), have all used similar rhetoric, as has the Christian Civic League of Maine and the Maine House Republicans’ Facebook account. 

Libby, Smith and Guerin did not respond to requests for comment asking them to provide specific evidence for their arguments.

In his response to Maine Morning Star’s inquiry, Christian Civic League of Maine policy director Mike McClellan asked what evidence exists that the bill “does not do these things” and claimed trafficking will happen because the bill “tells law enforcement to stand down.” He added that the measure is “open ended and not definitive” and that there are unanswered questions such as “who will pay for someone to come to Maine for these services.” 

John Bott, spokesperson for the House Republicans Office, claimed the proposal allows for children to be brought to Maine without parental knowledge by anyone and that the bill blocks police from investigating potential criminal activity. 

“It is pretty straightforward unless people are blind to the problems that exist now and unwilling to consider the dangerous loopholes this law will create,” he said, noting that child trafficking is already a significant worldwide problem. 

Bill does not allow for kidnapping or trafficking, legal experts say

Legal authorities in Maine, however, say arguments that the bill would facilitate criminal activity are simply not accurate.

In an email to Maine Morning Star, Attorney General Frey said the bill makes “no changes to criminal law, nor does it legalize any currently illegal behavior.”

“There is no reading of the bill that would authorize criminal acts, like kidnapping or trafficking,” Frey continued.

And in testimony on March 5, the Maine Prosecutors Association also said the bill doesn’t make any adjustments to state law that would affect the group’s ability to prosecute Maine’s criminal statutes. 

Last-minute bill to protect reproductive and gender care in Maine draws hours of testimony

In an interview, the association’s executive director, Shira Burns, agreed with Frey that claims the bill would promote kidnapping or trafficking are not grounded in reality. If such actions took place, those responsible could be prosecuted under existing laws, regardless of whether LD 227 passes, she said. 

Burns also pointed to a section of the bill that says a court cannot issue a summons or warrant if someone providing legally-protected health care in Maine is being prosecuted under the laws of another state unless required by federal law or unless the conduct constitutes a criminal offense under state law. 

“We do think [lawmakers] were purposefully and carefully carving out to make sure that this would not shield prosecution of criminal conduct,” Burns said. 

Furthermore, in response to concerns about the bill, lawmakers on the Health Coverage, Insurance and Financial Services Committee amended the measure in March before moving it forward, narrowing the bill to provide protections specifically for health care professionals and those who assist them, rather than offering protections for any person. 

Colleen McCarthy Reid, a legislative analyst from the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, said the change was meant to emphasize the bill’s intended use following the claims about child trafficking and kidnapping. 

Lawmakers also amended aspects of the bill related to law enforcement. LD 227 does prevent police from knowingly providing information for an interstate investigation seeking to punish legally-protected health activity or arresting someone in relation to legally-protected health care activity. However, it provides some exceptions to these rules in an effort to address the concerns of law enforcement, including: if federal law requires action, if police have a good faith belief a warrant is valid in Maine, or if there isn’t enough time to comply with the provisions of LD 227 and there is a compelling need for action because of an imminent danger to public safety. 

Given the safeguards included in LD 227, Lisa Margulies, vice president of public affairs at Planned Parenthood Maine Action Fund — one of the groups supporting the measure — said the rhetoric used by some lawmakers opposed to the bill has been extremely inappropriate.

“It is disappointing and unfortunate and more importantly irresponsible and reckless for elected officials to spread such blatant lies about any piece of proposed legislation but in particular one that seeks to protect providers of medical care and access to care for people who need it,” she said. 

“Crimes that are already crimes are still crimes [under this bill]. And that’s just facts,” Margulies added.

She also noted that the health care services mentioned in the measure are legal under Maine law. And Margulies pointed out that numerous other states have passed similar shield laws without calamitous consequences.

Bill protecting reproductive, gender-affirming health care providers in Maine advances to floor

Extreme arguments by opponents put people at risk, Margulies argued, including health care providers, patients and the people who help patients access needed medical care. 

Underscoring her point, the State House was evacuated last month after an emailed threat against two legislators: Perry and LD 227 co-sponsor Sen. Donna Bailey (D-York). The threat was ultimately deemed to be a hoax.  

Gender-affirming care continues to be targeted 

As arguments about LD 227 have played out, a large amount of opposition has focused on gender-affirming care, mirroring the significant increase in 2023 of laws introduced across the country seeking to ban such treatment. 

For example, Smith — one of the Republicans opposed to LD 227 — called “gender transitioning” a “social contagion” while Keim referred to gender-affirming care as “gender-destroying care.” 

Despite these types of statements, gender-affirming treatment is widely supported by medical and public health associations, and providers say they fear prohibitions on such services will lead to worse mental health outcomes for transgender youth. 

For example, the American Medical Association called efforts to curb gender-affirming care “a dangerous intrusion into the practice of medicine.”  

“We believe it is inappropriate and harmful for any state to legislatively dictate that certain transition-related services are never appropriate and limit the range of options physicians and families may consider when making decisions for pediatric patients,” the group wrote.