Maine lawmakers look to shore up supports for survivors of military sexual trauma
Staff Sgt. Myra Estes, a dental hygienist of the Maine Army National Guard Medical Detachment mentors Pfc. Allison Alcantara, a dental specialist with the detachment during a land navigation course at the Bog Brook Training Site in Gilead, August 11-17, 2017. (Photo via Maine National Guard)
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle urged the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee to provide funding to increase services for both active duty military and veterans who are survivors of sexual assault and harassment.
The Legislature approved one of these measures last session, which aims to fund military sexual trauma liaisons, however end-of-session procedural scuffles resulted in it ultimately failing to become law.
Rep. Morgan Rielly (D-Westbrook) re-introduced that initiative this session, along with another bill aimed at lowering barriers for survivors who already have a military protective order and are seeking the additional protections available through Maine's courts.
While there was no opposition during Wednesday's public hearing on the renewed push for liaisons, the plan to streamline Maine courts' abilities to consider military protection orders when ruling on abuse or harassment cases was opposed by the state's judicial branch, representatives of which argued the change would negatively interfere with a defendant's due process rights.
For the third time, Rielly came before the committee to ask for funding for military sexual trauma liaisons — this time through LD 662, which is also co-sponsored by three other Democrats and one Republican.
Last session, a similar bill from Rielly, LD 2263, initially passed both chambers but got caught up in the funding process. Initially drafted to fund two liaisons at community-based organizations, the Appropriations and Financial Affairs Committee adjusted the fiscal note to only approve funding for one. When the amended bill was sent back to the Legislature for approval, it was not voted on again before the session ended.
Veterans of all ages, racial backgrounds and branches have experienced military sexual trauma, a term used by Veterans Affairs to refer to sexual assault or harassment experienced during military service. However, MST is most common among female veterans, with about one in three reporting it to their veteran affairs health care provider.
Veterans and those who work for organizations that support active and former service members repeatedly cited these statistics but with the caveat that the true number of cases is much larger, as MST is underreported because of fears of retaliation, skepticism about being believed and stigma surrounding blame.
In Maine, specifically, a Bangor Daily News investigation in 2021 found assaults and harassment against women in the state Army National Guard had continued unchecked for more than a decade and created a predatory culture that drove women out of the service.
These liaisons wouldn't replace nor interfere with existing supports, such the Maine National Guard Sexual Assault Response Coordinators, Rielly clarified.
'These positions are purely for support out in the community, and they're also for veterans who aren't able to access SARCs and for any Guard members who feel the need to reach out to them for additional support,' Rielly said.
He also pointed out that liaisons have been recommended on the state level by the Advisory Council on Military Sexual Trauma and the federal level by the Department of Defense's Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military.
Bill co-sponsor Rep. Mathew David McIntyre (R-Lowell) said while he understands there are some existing resources for the state's active duty reserve and veteran uniform military who have faced sexual trauma, he believes the funding in this bill is both nominal and reasonable to improve the portfolio of support available to victims.
'I have been provided assurances the program will remain under the careful watch of stakeholders to ensure that resources sought and authorized do not grow beyond a defined need and, most importantly, that we will not accidentally create layers of bureaucracy that impede timely victim access to these critical support resources,' McIntyre said.
Rielly's proposal last session sought to fund liaisons at organizations such as Sisters in Arms, which offers temporary housing and resources to female veterans, representatives from which turned out in support of the measure reintroduced on Wednesday.
Recently retired soldier Brian Kresge, who told lawmakers he was sexually assaulted during a hazing ritual, said he has seen Sisters in Arms help house both veterans and active duty members.
As the former treasurer for Sisters in Arms, Kresge said while the group has recently increased its donation revenue, it cannot continue to meet the demand for services or provide more meaningful wrap-around support without commitment from the state.
'The more we can offer beyond just housing, the more we can tap into grants and funds,' Kresge said. 'I would urge this committee to see this relatively small apportionment as planting a seed that will grow into something meaningful for this underserved group of veterans in Maine.'
A Military Protection Order is issued by a commanding officer to protect a victim of alleged abuse, harassment or threats by restricting the actions and movement of the service member who is alleged to have committed harmful behaviors, however MPOs aren't recognized or enforced outside of military installations.
Melissa Willette, regional liaison for the U.S. Department of Defense, told lawmakers that explicitly allowing MPOs to be introduced in court as evidence when a victim is seeking a temporary protection from abuse order would provide greater access to protections, services and advocacy that aren't otherwise available to victims through a standalone MPO.
That's what Rielly has proposed allowing through LD 665, which has Democratic and Republican co-sponsors.
'If a victim can swiftly convert a military protective order into a temporary protection from abuse order, we are helping to ensure consistent safety across jurisdictions, which is crucial for a population that relocates often,' Willette said, testifying in support of the bill.
'Violence and harmful behavior extend well beyond an individual victim, as the effects of violence directly impact our service members and their families, the unit's to which they are assigned and our greater national security.'
The bill is also supported by the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence and the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault, however its opposed by the Maine Judicial Branch.
Julie Finn, legislative analyst for the judiciary, told lawmakers that such a change puts due process protections at risk.
Currently, a plaintiff seeking an order of protection — commonly referred to as a restraining order — under state law can request that the court issue a temporary order, which if granted remains in effect until the final hearing on the complaint.
Because a temporary protection order can be issued when only one party is present in the courtroom, Maine law requires the plaintiff to put their allegations in writing under oath for the court to determine that the strict standards necessary for such an order have been met and before the defendant is notified.
The proposed amendments would remove these requirements, Finn said, allowing the court to issue a temporary protection order based solely on the existence of a military protective order.
'Military protective orders do not afford the respondent the same important due process protections as Maine statute,' Finn explained. 'Specifically, a military protective order does not require a written sworn request, does not need to be made by the alleged victim. It can be requested by a victim advocate or certain limited other people, and does not involve a hearing or any opportunity for appeal.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Illinois woman with terminal illness fights for legal right to die
The Brief Debra Robertson, a Lombard woman with terminal cancer, has been advocating for the right to die with dignity. The Illinois General Assembly failed to legalize medical aid in dying during its spring session. Supporters say the bill would provide terminal patients with end-of-life options, while skeptics argue it could allow doctors to violate their oath to "do no harm." LOMBARD, Ill. - Lombard resident Debra Robertson has been fighting for the right to die on her own terms for the last three years. She's been advocating for a bill that was considered but ultimately not passed by state lawmakers, to allow her the option to stop her suffering. The backstory Robertson said she understands why that might be controversial, but she has one request: don't call it suicide. "I get very upset when people talk about this being assisted suicide," Robertson told FOX 32 Chicago. "I'm already dying. I want to die with dignity and I wanna die the way I wanna die." Robertson was diagnosed with an aggressive rare form of cancer in 2022, called neuro-endocrine carcinoma. She was given six months to live. "I think I was just in denial for a while because I couldn't believe that's where I was at, because the doctor said I was gonna die," she said. Three years and four debilitating rounds of treatment later, Robertson said she's out of options and fears she will suffer if not given the option to die via medication. "I know that my death is going to be painful based on the type of cancer I have," she said. Robertson said she's already expressed her wishes to her two children and grandchildren, and they've come to accept her decision. "At first they struggled because they said, 'Granny are you gonna die now? Are you gonna die today?'" Robertson said. "And I said no and I explain to them about what medical aid in dying is and what it means to me and other people, and now they're very supportive of it. They have some sort of a peace." Big picture view Illinois would become the 11th state in the nation to legalize medical aid in dying if the legislation passes. Last month it stalled in the Senate, after some Democrats joined all Republicans in opposition. The sponsor, State Rep. Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston), said the debate was passionate, and lawmakers simply ran out of time. "These complex pieces of legislation need time to make sure we get them right," Gabel said. Under the bill, a patient would need to be diagnosed with a terminal illness and given six months or less to live. They must be evaluated for mental health concerns and get verbal and written approval from two physicians, five days apart. And doctors who prescribe would be immune from any prosecution, unless they coerce a patient, in which case, they would face felony charges. Gabel said the bill is simply about giving terminal patients end-of-life options. "Just because you ask for the medicine doesn't mean you have to take it – 38% don't take it. What they tell me is it gives them peace of mind knowing they can," Gabel said. Downstate Republican Rep. Bill Hauter is also a physician. He said the medical community is split, but believes the bill would allow doctors to violate their Hippocratic oaths that state "first do no harm." "Medicine is a field of healing, taking care of patients and comforting them and trying to solve their issues and not to partake in the act of suicide," Hauter said. Gabel said she believes lawmakers will have the votes to pass the bill next year. Robertson realizes she might not be around to see it, but said she hopes to pave the way for others that are suffering. "I'm dying and I don't have any control over it. The only thing I could have control over is how I die if this was passed," she said. A representative from the Illinois State Medical Association said the organization took an official position to support the bill, but that they "remain a house divided," with physicians advocating passionately on both sides of the issue.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
GOP scores win as Legislature repeals health care for undocumented adults
GOP scores win as Legislature repeals health care for undocumented adults originally appeared on Bring Me The News. Minnesota lawmakers voted Monday to strip MinnesotaCare health insurance from undocumented adults. The measure, which was the most controversial of the legislative session, passed both the House and Senate after leaders reached a budget agreement to avoid a government shutdown. In the evenly-divided House, DFL caucus leader Melissa Hortman was the only Democratic lawmaker to vote for the bill's passage. In the DFL-controlled Senate, Majority Leader Erin Murphy, Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope and others joined Republicans in voting for the bill. "I cannot vote to shut down our state, I just can't," Rest said in brief remarks on the Senate floor. "I made an agreement, I gave my word," Murphy said shortly before the vote. "I will vote for this. And it's among the most painful votes I've ever taken." The move rolls back a 2023 legislative accomplishment for Democrats, handing a major win to GOP lawmakers who refused a series of offers from DFL leaders and continued to leverage the threat of a government shutdown to get the bill across the finish line. Around 17,000 undocumented adults are currently enrolled in MinnesotaCare, which offers state-subsidized health care plans for low income people who pay premiums in exchange for coverage. The move is expected to save the state $56.9 million in the 2026-27 biennium. Opponents of the bill decried the measure as shameful and several Democratic lawmakers have said the change will cause some undocumented immigrants to die as serious health issues go undetected or untreated. Democrats have also claimed fiscal responsibility is not the motive of the GOP, as the change could drive costs associated with emergency hospital care. This story was originally reported by Bring Me The News on Jun 9, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. ousts entire CDC vaccine panel
The Brief Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all members of the CDC's vaccine advisory committee. He claimed the committee had too many conflicts of interest and plans to appoint new members. The panel's work has been in limbo since Kennedy took office, including a delayed February meeting. WASHINGTON - Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday announced he had removed every member of a scientific committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on how to use vaccines and pledged to replace them with his own picks. What they're saying Kennedy, who was one of the nation's leading anti-vaccine activists before becoming the nation's top health official, has not said who he would appoint to the panel, but said it would convene in just two weeks in Atlanta. Although it's typically not viewed as a partisan board, the Biden administration had installed the entire committee. "Without removing the current members, the current Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority of new members until 2028," Kennedy wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. "A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science. " Kennedy said the committee members had too many conflicts of interest. Committee members routinely disclose any possible conflicts at the start of public meetings. The other side Major physicians and public health groups criticized the move to oust all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, called Kennedy's mass ouster "a coup." "It's not how democracies work. It's not good for the health of the nation," Benjamin told The Associated Press. Benjamin said the move raises real concerns about whether future committee members will be viewed as impartial. He added that Kennedy is going against what he told lawmakers and the public, and the public health association plans to watch Kennedy "like a hawk." "He is breaking a promise," Benjamin said. "He said he wasn't going to do this." Dr. Bruce A. Scott, president of the American Medical Association, called the committee a trusted source of science- and data-driven advice and said Kennedy's move, coupled with declining vaccination rates across the country, will help drive an increase in vaccine-preventable diseases. "Today's action to remove the 17 sitting members of ACIP undermines that trust and upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives," Scott said in a statement. Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a doctor who had expressed reservations about Kennedy's nomination but voted to install him as the nation's health secretary nonetheless, said he had spoken with Kennedy moments after the announcement. "Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion," Cassidy said in a social media post. "I've just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I'll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case. Dig deeper The 17-member Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices had been in a state of flux since Kennedy took over. Its first meeting this year had been delayed when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services abruptly postponed its February meeting. RELATED: RFK Jr. orders review of baby formula: What to know The backstory Kennedy, who was one of the nation's leading anti-vaccine activists before becoming the nation's top health official, recently took the unusual step of changing COVID-19 recommendations without first consulting the panel. The committee had been in a state of flux since Kennedy took over. Its first meeting this year had been delayed when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services abruptly postponed its February meeting. During Kennedy's confirmation, Cassidy had expressed concerns about preserving the committee, saying he had sought assurances that Kennedy would keep the panel's current vaccine recommendations. Kennedy did not stick to that. He recently took the unusual step of changing COVID-19 recommendations without first consulting the advisers. The webpage that featured the committee's members was deleted Monday evening, shortly after Kennedy's announcement. The Source The Associated Press contributed to this report. The information in this story comes from a Wall Street Journal opinion piece written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as well as official records from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This story was reported from Los Angeles.