Tag: transgender

Maine Sheriffs’ Association Announced That It Opposes “Shield Law” Bill / by Zane McNeill

Officers with the Somerset County Sheriffs gather outside the courthouse at the Cumberland County Courthouse in Portland, Maine, on September 12, 2019 | SHAWN PATRICK OUELLETTE / PORTLAND PRESS HERALD VIA GETTY IMAGES

“They clearly demonstrate that law enforcement is NEVER on the side of LGBTQ+ people,” Allison Chapman said.

Reposted from Truthout

The Maine Sheriffs’ Association has come out in opposition to LD227, a shield law that would protect health care providers offering gender-affirming and abortion care to patients from states where such health care is prohibited.

LD227 would designate Maine as the 18th state, according to Maine’s Attorney General Aaron Frey, to implement a shield law. Additionally, according to transgender activist and journalist Erin Reed, the bill would “ban healthcare providers, practitioners, facilities, and similar institutions from disclosing protected healthcare information about their patients to out-of-state investigators.”

Mary-Anne LaMarre, executive director of the Maine Sheriffs’ Association, said in a letter to the Joint Standing Committee on Health Coverage, Insurance, and Financial Services on March 21 that law enforcement collectively opposes the bill.

“Maine Sheriffs have announced they are opposing LD227, which would shield abortion and trans healthcare from out of state prosecution and would protect Maine health records,” Reed said on social media. “Why is a police org supporting Texas demanding medical records of trans and abortion patients in Maine?”

LD227 recently passed out of committee, despite the legislature facing bomb threats after legislators were targeted by the anti-LGBTQ activist Chaya Raichik, who runs the far right account Libs of TikTok, and anti-transgender activist Riley Gaines, who recently was among a dozen college athletes who sued the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) over its trans-inclusive policies.

“Riley Gaines in recent months has successfully inspired threats of violence against state legislators in Maine which resulted in the dropping of a bill similar to LD227,” LGBTQ legislative researcher Allison Chapman told Truthout. “Riley and others attempt to use stochastic terrorism to force their opinions into law via sheer terror. In the United States, we do not negotiate with terrorists and that should apply to domestic stochastic terrorism as well.”

In the absence of protective shield laws, states may conduct criminal investigations into trans people seeking gender-affirming care outside of their state. For example, in November of 2023, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sought confidential information concerning transgender patients from Texas who had received gender-affirming care at clinics located in Georgia and Seattle. Paxton also recently made requests for records from PFLAG, a prominent LGBTQ advocacy organization in the United States, concerning their support for families of transgender minors seeking treatments such as puberty blockers and hormone therapy.

“It’s rather disturbing that a Sheriffs’ Association wants to be able to prosecute and execute out of state requests against LGBTQ+ individuals, abortion providers, and more,” Chapman told Truthout. “While it’s disturbing, it is not surprising. They clearly demonstrate that law enforcement is NEVER on the side of LGBTQ+ people. Once again, all cops are bastards.”

Sixteen attorneys general representing Republican-led states, including Texas, Florida, and Kentucky, are also opposing the shield law, and threatened to sue Maine earlier this month should it enact LD227. Frey said that he was “thoroughly dismayed” by the attorneys general.

“We do have a right to disagree and I fully concur that one state cannot control another. Recognizing these shared values, I welcome your respect for Maine’s ability to decide what access to health care people in Maine receive, free from interference by out-of-state actors,” Frey said in response.

Zane McNeill is a trending news writer at Truthout. They have a Master’s Degree in Political Science from Central European University and is currently enrolled in law school at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. They can be found on Twitter: @zane_crittheory.

Bill protecting reproductive, gender-affirming health care providers in Maine advances to floor / by Emma Davis

Pro-choice activists demonstrate outside the Supreme Court on October 04, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Other states have enacted such laws in recent years to protect providers and patients from legal and professional repercussions from other states’ bans on certain types of healthcare

Reposted from Maine Morning Star

A proposed “shield law” in Maine designed to protect healthcare providers from other states’ bans on reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare advanced out of committee Thursday with a favorable but split vote along party lines. 

The Health Coverage, Insurance and Financial Services Committee voted 8-4, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed, to recommend that the Legislature pass the bill. 

“I wish we were not in this situation in the United States,” said bill sponsor Rep. Anne Perry (D-Calais). “I would be much happier if this was not something I felt we needed to do.”

Other states have enacted such laws in recent years to protect providers and patients from legal and professional repercussions from other states’ bans on certain types of healthcare, which has increasingly occurred in Republican-led states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. 

Abortion is now banned in 14 states, with a handful of others passing restrictions to the procedure earlier in pregnancy than the standard established under Roe. Gender-affirming care has also come under attack, with 22 states passing laws or policies banning this care despite it being supported by every major medical association. 

So far, 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 legislation proposed in Maine, LD 227, would fall in line with the latter. It would protect from litigation health care practitioners or people assisting practitioners who provide gender-affirming health care and reproductive health care services, which are both legal in Maine.

“This is about Maine sovereignty,” Rep. Sally Cluchey (D-Bowdoinham) said of the bill. “We get to make the laws for the state of Maine and other states’ laws can’t trump us.” 

What the Maine bill would, and would not, do

The bill would shield providers from civil actions, foreign judgements and forced testimony, as well as prevent law enforcement from sharing information in out-of-state investigations regarding healthcare activities that are legally protected in Maine.

LD 227 doesn’t change what health care is available in Maine. “Those who do not like the laws we’re covering,” Perry said, “that is a whole other issue.” 

The version of the bill the committee advanced incorporates several amendments that directly respond to concerns raised to the committee. 

In written comments, the Maine Chiefs of Police Association said they had concerns about how the law would impede their work because law enforcement agencies often collaborate. 

“In some cases, requests for assistance are are urgent and time-sensitive, leaving no opportunity for Maine law enforcement to question our law enforcement partners about the genesis of their investigation,” Auburn Police Department Chief Jason Moen wrote on behalf of the association, adding that declining to provide such assistance could break down inter-agency relationships. 

The amended version of the bill clarifies that police cannot knowingly provide information or expend money in connection with an interstate investigation or proceeding that’s trying to impose liability on someone for a legally protected healthcare activity. 

The amendment also outlines some exceptions. Police cannot provide this information unless they are responding to a warrant or extradition demand on the “good faith belief that the warrant or demand is valid in this state” or when exigent circumstances make compliance impossible. Exigent circumstances are defined as circumstances where the agency “has insufficient time to comply with this section and a compelling need to act as the result of an imminent danger to public safety.” 

The bill also narrows the definition of the “hostile litigation” the bill prevents to legal actions specifically against healthcare providers and those who assist them, rather than any person, which Colleen McCarthy Reid, the committee analyst from the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis, said is a means to emphasize the bill’s intended use following concerns from opponents about the bill allowing for child trafficking and kidnapping. 

The bill does not change existing laws about child custody or parental consent required for minors to access reproductive or gender-affirming health care — a clarification repeated by Reid throughout the work session for the bill on Thursday. 

The amended bill also added further clarity on this point. It now states that the bill may not be construed to conflict with or alter the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Further, it states that if a court finds that a foreign subpoena seeks information related to an out-of-state custody battle of a minor that involves legally protected health care activity in Maine, “the court shall direct the clerk to issue the subpoena.” 

Combating misinformation about the bill

The custody-related claims about LD 227 can be traced back to the main point of opposition to a different proposal, LD 1735, that the Judiciary Committee voted down in January. 

LD 1735 had focused solely on gender-affirming care but was deemed overly complicated and broad by proponents. It went beyond the protections advocates were seeking for healthcare providers and patients, including a provision that would have 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. 

Although never a part of the text for LD 227, opponents and legislators have continued to raise questions about custody, as well as gender-affirming care itself, though already protected by law in Maine. Planned Parenthood Maine Action fund and other advocates praised Thursday’s vote, but concern about misinformation remains as the bill now heads to the House. 

“It can be really hard to be in a room when people are talking about you as a person and they’re using language that is not supportive and downright hostile,” said Gia Drew, executive director of EqualityMaine. 

“You could hear it in the committee today,” Drew said. “They keep repeating the same things that aren’t connected to the bill and aren’t grounded in the experiences of trans people or the providers who provide this care.” 

Drew, now in her 50s, said that as a child she’d had to deal with gender dysphoria on her own and did not feel like she could talk about it with medical providers. 

“Now we know there are ways to mitigate a lot of different things that happen with folks who are trans or have gender dysphoria, and gender-affirming care is one of those things family and trans youth can talk about with their providers.” Drew explained, “What’s the right thing for you — that’s so important.”

The individualized aspect of this care is often not captured in legislative discussions, Drew said. This care also differs for minors and adults. For the most part, parental consent is needed for minors. A law in Maine passed last session allows for people who are at least 16 years old to receive non-surgical gender-affirming hormone therapy —  not gender reassignment surgery – without a parent’s consent, but only under a set of specific circumstances.  

While discussion about the bill’s contents dominated committee work, there was also a kerfuffle about the legislative process. 

Perry submitted the text for LD 227, previously a concept draft, a month after the Judiciary vote on the other bill and less than a week before its public hearing. While not unique to this bill, legislators criticized the late timing of the language. On Thursday, Perry said she is working with the Legislature’s Executive Director’s Office to introduce new rules about concept drafts for the future.

“This was never my intent to make this secret,” Perry said.

National attention

LD 227 garnered national attention earlier this month after 16 Republican state Attorneys General threatened to sue the state of Maine if the bill passed. 

In a March 11 letter addressed to Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey, Gov. Janet Mills, House Speaker Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Portland) and Senate President Troy Jackson (D-Aroostook), the Republican AGs described the provisions in the bill as “unprecedented” and in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, which requires that state courts respect the laws and judgments of courts from other states.

Frey called the legal concerns raised “meritless” and an attempt to intimidate proponents. “Unfortunately, shield laws have become necessary due to efforts in some objecting states to punish beyond their borders lawful behavior that occurs in Maine and other States,” Frey wrote in response.

Frey also dismissed the Republican AGs’ claim that LD 227 is unconstitutional “because Maine will honor out-of-state judgments as long as they were issued in accord with basic requirements for due process and the court had sufficient jurisdiction.” Frey added, “Harmony between our states would be best preserved and promoted by the exercise of restraint by all parties seeking to control health care related policy choices in other states.”

Earlier on March 8, days after the public hearing for LD 227, the State House was evacuated when an email sent to state officials claimed bombs had been placed at the State House, the headquarters for the Maine Democratic Party and the homes of bill sponsors Perry and Sen. Donna Bailey (D–York). The email referenced mutilation, which is a common mischaracterization of gender-affirming health care.

Maine Capitol Police determined the threats were a hoax. Days before the hoax, the rightwing account Libs of TikTok also posted about LD 227 to its nearly 3 million followers, including pictures and contact information for Perry and Bailey.

This incident was the third bomb scare at the State House this year, which has led police to take a more proactive approach to security.

Emma Davis is a reporter based in Portland, Maine, where she focuses on government accountability.

Trans People in Utah Could Face 6 Months in Jail for Bathroom Use Under New Bill / by Zane McNeill

The Utah State Capitol is pictured in Salt Lake City, Utah / Halbergman / E+ / Getty Images

“I’m scared for every transgender person,” said the only openly LGBTQ member of the Utah legislature.

Reposted from Truthout

Three days into Utah’s general session, the state’s House of Representatives passed the country’s first anti-trans bill of 2024. H.B. 257 would criminalize transgender people for using a bathroom that doesn’t correspond with their birth certificate, end the legal recognition of trans people by redefining “sex” to exclude trans people, and bar local governments from enacting laws to protect trans people from criminalization.

“This will profoundly impact travel for trans people,” transgender journalist Erin Reed said on social media. “Salt Lake City is a major connecting flight hub. Trans people could be arrested in the airport under this law.”

In addition to affecting transgender people in airports, the bathroom ban would also be applied to public schools, colleges and universities, and convention centers. Transgender adults would only legally be allowed to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity if they have an updated birth certificate and can provide proof that they underwent gender reassignment surgery. Those in violation of this bill could be guilty of criminal trespassing and voyeurism, punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

According to the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), nine states currently prohibit transgender individuals from using restrooms and facilities that align with their gender identity in government-owned buildings and/or educational institutions, including K-12 schools and colleges. If H.B. 257 is enacted, Utah would have one of the most extreme anti-transgender bathroom bans in the country and join Florida in being one of the least safe states for trans people in the U.S..

“Should this bill pass, Utah would join Florida in becoming a ‘Do Not Travel’ state for transgender people on the risk assessment map, a position held only by Florida after several organizations issued travel advisories warning of bathroom laws that could put them in legal jeopardy,” Reed wrote.

Although H.B. 257 contains an exception for transgender people with revised birth certificates who have also undergone gender reassignment surgery, the bill includes a provision that could render this exception ineffective. This provision modifies the legal definition of “sex” with the aim of excluding transgender people from legal recognition and protection.

In 2023, Kansas implemented a similar law, prompting Attorney General Kris Kobach to issue a directive mandating the reversal and cease of any alterations made to the birth certificates of trans people. Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly’s (D) administration continued to allow license changes in conflict with Kobach’s directive, triggering a lawsuit by Kobach in July which is still working its way through the courts.

Moreover, according to MAP, birth certificate changes are currently prohibited in five states. These anti-trans restrictions make it impossible for transgender people from Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee to meet the exceptions outlined in H.B. 257, exposing them to the risk of criminalization when they are in Utah.

“I’m scared for every transgender person who has to choose between holding their bladder or potentially being seen as a criminal,” Rep. Sahara Hayes (D), the only openly LGBTQ member of the Utah legislature, said on Friday. “And I’m scared for my family. We have had multiple discussions about what our lives would look like if this should pass.”

LGBTQ advocates have highlighted that the bill would also pose a risk to cisgender people, as there are multiple examples of cisgender people being mistaken for trans while in the bathroom. With this in mind, H.B. 257 provides two defenses for cisgender people if they are criminalized under this ban.

Finally, H.B. 257 would authorize the attorney general to intervene against any local government failing to enforce the ban. Under this provision, the attorney general could fine local governments up to $10,000 if they attempt to protect transgender people in their jurisdiction from the law.

Zane McNeill is a trending news writer at Truthout. They have a Master’s Degree in Political Science from Central European University and is currently enrolled in law school at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. They can be found on Twitter: @zane_crittheory.

Pride 2022: A rooted and engaged celebration of queerness / by V. Ruvalcaba

Kathy Willens / AP

This year marks the 53rd anniversary of the modern U.S. LGBTQ+ Pride movement. Gains from the movement have made it possible for many of us to celebrate our queer identity and to enjoy rights that we have been historically denied.

But what does it mean to celebrate Pride at a time when many of these gains seem to be threatened? Physical gatherings have become commonplace again, and the feeling of making up for time lost is palpable.

In what ways can we honor those who lost their lives and continue to—to the virus, illness, and to all of the life-threatening issues that didn’t go away as the pandemic raged on? How can we support those who have been left behind by a government that time and time again has prioritized capital over the wellbeing of its people?

Now that vaccines have become available—how universally is debatable—we’ve each come to terms with the levels of risk vs. reward that we feel comfortable with as we engage in social activities.

As I cautiously re-establish the physical connections that have facilitated my own expression of queer joy, I realize that the world has changed in many and big ways. I can’t shake a new feeling of deep mourning and dread. It bubbles up when I’m listening to records with friends, dancing over a sticky floor, or pulling in someone close for a kiss. And how can I shake this feeling when so much life has been lost, stolen, and when queer people, specifically trans people, are increasingly disrespected, injured, and murdered? Black trans women struggle the most to remain housed and are often the target of horrific violence. Queer people are called predators.

The ultra-right, once hidden in dark corners, has stepped into mainstream media, poisoning our friends, families, co-workers, and neighbors. I realize that I can’t let this dread steal more of my time that could be spent enjoying beautiful moments with my community. I can’t let the ugliness of this world continue to claim so many of my trans and queer siblings’ lives.

The rise of fascism in this country and the utter failure of our government to really protect us in a time of crisis pose an existential threat not only to queer people but to all Black, Indigenous, and people of color. The only way to protect our communities is to fight fascism and its root causes head-on.

My queer joy does not feel genuine if I’m not contributing to the liberation of all of my comrades because our collective liberation is inseparable from queerness. It’s the foundation of Pride.

It’s impossible to ignore the anti-establishment roots of LGBTQ+ Pride. Modern Pride marches—later parades—evolved directly from anti-police and anti-establishment demonstrations. This history has resurfaced in mainstream media in recent years, thanks to the fallout of 2020’s national uprising against racist police violence and to the consistent advocacy of queer Black, Indigenous, and people of color.

The first big, popular Pride demonstrations can be traced back to the Stonewall Uprising, which erupted in response to police brutality in the summer of 1969. The modern U.S. Gay Liberation movement came about directly from this collective show of force in New York and other major cities after decades of harassment and violence by police. Any gains made from the Gay Rights Movement are due to the collective and consistent organizing of activists, most notably Black trans women.

Colleen Walsh summarizes, in her 2019 piece for the Harvard Gazette, the McCarthyist policies of the 1950s that targeted, threatened, and terrorized not only Communists but anyone who deviated from white American patriarchal and puritanical culture, including anyone engaged in “deviant sexual behavior.”

Walsh refers to the Vietnam War, the women’s equality movement, and the Black Panther Party as cultural elements of the 1960s that contributed to the conditions that led to the Stonewall Uprising. However, the revolt eventually transformed into a primarily white, cis, gay-led movement for marriage and legal equality. While these gains are crucial for liberation, the systemic oppressive forces of the 1960s have not evaporated. While McCarthyism is no longer a blatant focus of congressional hearings and American society, many of its sentiments have resurfaced as anti-trans and anti-leftist “culture wars.”

Significant gains in trans, gay, and women’s rights made in recent years have emboldened the ultra-right. The modern rise of fascism threatens the legal and cultural gains of the queer liberation movement, as well as our lives.

A crucial part of celebrating Pride is continuing to chip away at the oppressive systems that activists have been fighting. Queer Black, Indigenous, and people of color have often faced the ugliest and most intense manifestations of this country’s systemic oppression of poor people.

Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera formed the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR) in 1971, which provided housing and other basic resources to trans people disproportionately denied the gains of the civil and gay rights movements. Trans people, especially trans women of color, have always been at the forefront of Pride. They’ve asked for the bare minimum of this country, to be treated with respect and to have basic needs met, and have instead been met with a lack of resources and support, and with violence.

The foundation of Pride lies in the protection and solidarity with trans and genderqueer siblings of color, and the dismantling of the oppressive systems that have created the perfect conditions for the rise of fascism.

This country has seen a concerted move by the right to curtail the bodily autonomy of trans people. Fringe opinions in fascist spaces have spread so far and wide that trans youth’s participation in sports has become a national debate. Providing minors with gender-affirming care has become a crime in several states.

Anti-transgender bills currently exist in Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, South and North Carolina, and New Hampshire. Manufactured bathroom panic has turned into calling queer people predators outright, and punishing by law any mention of LGBTQ+ subjects in schools. The imminent repeal of Roe v. Wade and all the new anti-abortion bills throughout the country demonstrate this highly organized effort by conservatives and the ultra-right to deny women and queer people their bodily autonomy.

So what has and can be done to counteract this wave of conservative legislation and a concurrent rise of fascism? A widespread collective shift onto movement-building is essential at this crucial point in history. Conservative efforts to codify anti-women, anti-queer, and racist bigotry must be stamped out at the source. Oppressive imperialist systems rooted in white supremacy and patriarchy have led to the rise of fascism in this country by design. It’s crucial to understand that there is a key intersection between limits on reproductive rights, anti-trans legislation and violence, worker exploitation, racially motivated violence, and an urgent shortage of housing for working people.

We can’t work toward liberation in silos. Housing, healthcare, worker protections, and bodily autonomy are queer issues. Our collective actions to combat state-sponsored violence and our government’s ever-growing alignment with capital over people are essential.

As we celebrate Pride this year, let’s learn, remember, and honor the roots of Pride. Let’s continue our struggle for liberation by supporting our comrades of every stripe in our collective actions to build power, whether at a localized, communal scale or in statewide and national campaigns and movements. Let’s find comfort and energy in engaging with our communities’ struggles.

Much work is to be done at the local and state level. Tenant rights organizing, local budget reallocation efforts, union organizing, labor strikes and boycotts, socialist political campaigns, reproductive rights campaigns, community safety initiatives, localized food production, are just a few of the many radical community-building efforts that grow stronger every day.

And in this election year, it behooves us all to fully engage with the process, as voters, volunteers, and contributors. I urge you to celebrate your queer joy by continuing to practice love and empathy through liberation.

V. Ruvalcaba is a writer and activist based in the San Diego-Tijuana region. Areas of focus include affordable housing, transportation justice, urban planning, political education, and building community power.

People’s World, June 6, 2022, https://www.peoplesworld.org/