Home Part of States Newsroom
News
Murrill among AGs who oppose Maine ‘shield law’ for reproductive, gender-affirming care

Share

Murrill among AGs who oppose Maine ‘shield law’ for reproductive, gender-affirming care

Mar 13, 2024 | 2:00 pm ET
By Greg LaRose
Share
Murrill among AGs who oppose Maine ‘shield law’ for reproductive, gender-affirming care
Description
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill. (Matthew Perschall for Louisiana Illuminator)

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has joined her Republican peers from 16 states in opposition to a proposal in Maine that would shield medical professionals who provide reproductive and gender-affirming care to patients from states where certain procedures and treatment are banned.

Maine state Rep. Anne Perry, D-Calais, has authored the proposed shield law. It comes in response to Republican-led states that have curbed access to reproductive health care following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. 

Louisiana is one of 14 states that have since banned abortion, and a handful of others have put strict limits on the procedure. In addition, 22 primarily GOP-controlled states have prohibited gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Louisiana enacted a ban on gender-affirming care last year, overriding a veto from then-Gov. John Bel Edwards.

Murrill, whose office did not respond to a request for comment, signed on to a letter that Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti sent to Maine’s governor, attorney general and legislative leaders — all Democrats. In it, the AGs threaten to sue the state if Perry’s bill becomes law.

“Maine has every right to decide what Maine’s laws are and how those laws should be enforced,” the letter reads. “But that same right applies to every State. One State cannot control another. The totalitarian impulse to stifle dissent and oppress dissenters has no place in our shared America.”

Maine’s Democratic AG Aaron Frey responded in writing to Skrmetti “to clear up the misconceptions upon which your concerns are based” and called them “meritless.”

The Perry bill “would simply protect providers of legally protected reproductive and

gender-affirming health care provided in Maine from interference or retaliation

from states with different policies,” Frey wrote, adding that at least 17 states and Washington, D.C., have approved shield laws to protect health care providers from actions by outside states.

Murrill’s former boss, current Gov. Jeff Landry, joined 16 other Republican attorneys general last summer in demanding that the Biden administration not deny them access to information about residents from their respective states who obtain abortions or gender-affirming care in other states. Landry’s action drew immediate criticism from reproductive health and privacy advocates.

The AGs pressed U.S. Health Secretary Xavier Becerra to drop a proposed rule change prohibiting states from obtaining data about its residents accessing abortion or gender-affirming healthcare in states where it is legal. The rule has since gone into effect.

Perry’s introduction of her bill last week, late in the second session of the Maine Legislature, came after lawmakers in the Judiciary Committee voted down another shield bill in January. It would have, among other provisions, prohibited Maine from enforcing out-of-state orders to remove a child from a guardian’s care for allowing the child to receive gender-affirming care. Committee members, including the bill’s supporters, felt that proposal was overly complicated and too broad.

The process around Perry’s bill came under fire from the conservative Christian Civic League of Maine, which in a recent email criticized its late timing as well as the measure itself, which it claimed is part of an “assault upon life, our children, and our parental rights.” 

Maine’s legislative Republicans also held a press conference in opposition to the proposal prior to a March 5 public hearing on the bill. 

Republicans on the health insurance committee attempted on Tuesday to have the proposal referred to the Judiciary Committee, arguing that the bill was more relevant to that panel’s purview, but Democrats voted that motion down. 

Maine Morning Star reporter Evan Popp contributed to this report.