US DHHS and Maine discussed bills to bar transgender participation in sports
Apr. 9—The Office of the Maine Attorney General spoke to the federal Department of Health and Human Services last month about a pair of bills proposed in Maine to exclude transgender girls from girls sports, records show.
Following a virtual meeting the week of March 10, Assistant Attorney General Kimberly Patwardhan highlighted LD 233 and LD 868 in an email to Daniel Shieh, associate director of HHS' Office of Civil Rights. The correspondence was obtained through a public records request made by the Portland Press Herald.
"Per our call earlier, the pending legislation that we mentioned is L.D. 233 and L.D. 868," Patwardhan wrote on March 12. Details of the conversation, including how those bills came up, were not clear Wednesday night.
Shieh replied in an email five days later.
"We have reviewed the proposed legislation at L.D. 233 and L.D. 868 that your team sent on Wednesday," he said. "We are not prepared to stay the investigation at this time, but please let us know if those bills become law in Maine."
In that email, Shieh also attached an updated notice of determination, which expanded its scope to include the Maine Principals' Association and Greely High School alongside the Maine Department of Education for allegedly violating Title IX by allowing transgender girls to compete in girls high school sports.
LD 233, presented by Rep. Richard Campbell, R-Orrington, would bar any school receiving state funding from allowing "a person whose biological sex assigned at birth is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designed for females."
LD 868, presented by Elizabeth Caruso, R-Caratunk, would require athletic teams be designated for men, women or mixed participation, based on whether individuals have ever or will ever have a reproductive system that produces either eggs or sperm, designated female and male, respectively.
The latter bill applies similar rules to bathrooms and changing spaces. It also bars government entities, accrediting organizations and athletic associations from entertaining complaints about the gender policy, and would allow individuals to sue educational institutions for knowingly violating the regulations.
Neither the attorney general's office nor DHHS immediately returned requests sent late Wednesday for details about the meeting, including how the bills came up.
Copy the Story Link
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 days ago
- The Hill
Trump stokes fear, confusion with pulled emergency abortion guidance
The Trump administration sowed confusion and fear among physicians with its move this past week to rescind Biden-era guidelines to hospitals that provide life-saving abortions. While the move doesn't change the law, doctors and reproductive-rights advocates fear it will have a chilling effect on health care workers in states with abortion bans, ultimately harming pregnant women. Earlier this past week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced they would rescind guidance issued during the Biden administration, which reinforced to hospitals that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA,) abortions qualify as stabilizing care in medical emergencies. Emergency rooms in states with abortion bans have been struggling since the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade to understand when they can legally provide emergency abortions. After President Trump pulled the Biden-era guidance seeking to clarify that question, emergency room doctors will experience 'more confusion' and 'more fear,' according to health and legal experts who spoke with The Hill. 'Clinicians are scared to provide basic medical care, and this care is clearly in line with medical ethics … medical standards of care, and they're being put in this situation where they can't win,' said Payal Shah, director of research, legal and advocacy at Physicians for Human Rights. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, at least 13 states have enacted near-total abortion bans, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute. There are exceptions in these states when continuing a pregnancy poses a threat to the health or life of the mother. However, most of the language in state laws is unclear on how that determination is made, resulting in instances of emergency rooms denying care. Doctors in states like Idaho, Texas and Tennessee have filed lawsuits requesting that lawmakers clarify when an abortion is allowed to save the life of a pregnant person. The doctors and patients involved in the lawsuits argue that state laws do not adequately protect pregnant patients in emergencies. Many of these states have severe punishments for doctors who violate abortion bans, like steep fines and prison time. 'For clinicians, there is actually no safe way to navigate this in this moment, and ultimately, that's how these laws are designed,' Shah said. 'They're designed to cause chaos and confusion. They're often written in ways that don't use medical terminology.' Without clear guidance, pregnant women suffer and sometimes die, as ProPublica has reported. One striking example of this is the 2023 case of Kyleigh Thurman, a Texas woman who was repeatedly denied care for a nonviable pregnancy after days of experiencing bleeding and pain. Health care workers discovered that she had an ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg implants and begins to grow outside of the uterus, usually in a fallopian tube. Ectopic pregnancies are never viable and are life-threatening if not treated properly. It wasn't until her OB/GYN 'pleaded to hospital staff that she be given care,' that the hospital administered a shot ending her pregnancy, according to a complaint filed by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Thurman. The shot came too late, and the ectopic pregnancy ruptured Thurman's right fallopian tube, which was then removed. 'If a patient is actively hemorrhaging or experiencing an ectopic pregnancy which is also life-threatening, doctors need that clear guidance that yes, EMTALA applied,' said Autumn Katz, associate director of U.S. litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights. A federal investigation into Thurman's case found that the Texas hospital violated EMTALA, according to a recent letter from the CMS. 'I finally got some justice,' Thurman said in a statement. 'I hope this decision will do some good in encouraging hospitals to help women in situations like mine.' Hospitals that violate EMTALA are subject to heavy fines and, in some extreme cases, risk losing a portion of their Medicare and Medicaid hospital funding, according to the National Institutes of Health. Former President Biden leaned on the law to preserve access to emergency abortion across the country, leading to a legal fight with Idaho, which has a strict abortion ban. The Supreme Court last year dismissed the case, declining to rule on the merits of a politically charged case. The rescinding of these guidelines also means hospitals that violate the law will likely not be investigated as often as they were under previous administrations, according to Shah. That lack of punitive risk means that hospitals could be incentivized to deny life-saving care for patients. 'The standard of EMTALA is pretty high,' said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy adviser at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. 'This kind of takes that layer of reassurance away, and it will make a lot of providers feel very vulnerable.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Nearly 100 House Democrats urge RFK Jr. to restore millions in family planning grants
Nearly 100 House Democrats are calling on Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to restore tens of millions of dollars in federal family planning grants to more than a dozen organizations that have been frozen for more than two months. In a letter to Kennedy sent Friday and seen first by The Hill, 95 lawmakers said the organizations that had their Title X funding frozen on March 31 — including nine Planned Parenthood clinics — are still in the dark about the status of their grants. At the time, the clinics said they received letters from the administration saying the grants were being 'temporarily withheld' due to possible civil right violations and President Trump's executive orders prohibiting the promotion of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and 'taxpayer subsidization of open borders.' More than two months later, the lawmakers said the grantees 'remain without funding and have received no communication from the administration regarding the status of the investigations, the expected timeline, or the future of their funding.' HHS declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation. The agency is being sued over the freeze by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 'Congress has already appropriated these funds, and the administration has a responsibility to distribute them without undue delay or obstruction, ensuring that critical care is not disrupted for millions of people who rely on Title X services,' the group of lawmakers wrote. The letter was led by Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas) and Sharice Davids (D-Kan.) and signed by 91 other Democrats. Title X is the country's only federal program dedicated to providing affordable birth control and other sexual and reproductive health care to low-income Americans and has done so since the 1970s. The lawmakers timed the letter to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a constitutional right to privacy regarding contraception and reproductive decisions. 'However, due to the actions of this administration, reproductive freedom is under threat,' the lawmakers wrote. The first Trump administration prohibited providers from receiving Title X funding if they mentioned abortion or referred patients for abortions. It also required clinics to construct separate facilities for the procedure and other services. More than a dozen grantees, including all Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide, left the program in protest because of the rule. The Biden administration reversed Trump's Title X rule in 2021. Updated at 3:26 p.m. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
Maine lawmakers try to thread the needle on forest protections
Late last year a team of ecologists came to a dire conclusion: without new conservation and management initiatives, half of the oldest forests in Maine's unorganized territory could be gone in the next 35 years. A bipartisan bill introduced by state Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford) aims to reverse that trend while also protecting Maine's undeveloped lakes and ponds through prescriptive conservation measures. After overcoming initial opposition from state officials and forest industry groups through multiple compromises, the bill was unanimously voted out of committee and approved by the state Senate this week. Although the version of L.D. 1529 the full legislature received is drastically different from what Bennett originally proposed, it now has support from both conservation and forestry groups. In Bennett's original draft, agencies under the state Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry would have been tasked with prioritizing the acquisition of mature forest stands for conservation and placing dozens of undeveloped ponds and lakes into a new management classification, further shielding them from development. By instructing the Land for Maine's Future Board — the state entity that funds conservation land acquisitions — to place parcels with mature tree stands at the top of its acquisition list, Bennett said his original bill would have provided protective actions without regulatory processes. The bill also included measures to promote the study of Maine's oldest forests, intended to spur new conservation strategies down the line and entrench late-successional, old-growth forests at the center of forest management plans. And the bill went beyond forest protections. Bennett also included a provision directing the Land Use Planning Commission, which oversees Maine's unorganized territory, to reassign undeveloped lakes and ponds to a more protective class that limits development near shorelines. Such proposals won approval from conservationists and environmental nonprofits across Maine, but drew criticism from DACF officials and forestry groups like the Maine Forest Products Council. DACF official Judy East testified that the proposals were developed without input from key stakeholders and would be a costly addition to the department's already heavy workload. Similar criticism arose from the Maine Forest Products Council, a trade group representing landowners, loggers, truckers, paper mills and foresters across the state. In his testimony, MFPC Executive Director Patrick Strauch wrote that L.D. 1529 'establishes predetermined outcomes for forest stands on private land without any consultation with the landowner community.' Instead of jumping forward to land acquisition policies and reclassifying Maine lakes, Strauch said the state should first work with stakeholders to determine how and where to conserve older forests and lakes while acknowledging the multiple uses, like recreation and timber production, that state management plans allow for. John Hagan, who co-authored the 2024 report from environmental nonprofit Our Climate Future that surveyed the state's unorganized territory, encouraged both sides to come to the table the same way they did to support his team's mapping project. 'I hope we can all come together, work together, support this bill, and come up with a practical plan to conserve (late-successional or old-growth) forest before it's gone and the question of saving it becomes moot,' Hagan wrote in his testimony. Ultimately, both sides did. The amendments added across two committee work sessions removed more immediate, sweeping development restrictions but maintained and fine-tuned instructions for state agencies to study and incorporate forest and lake protections in long-term management plans, all for an estimated cost of $75,000. Instead of reclassifying undeveloped Maine ponds and lakes in the near future, the new version now instructs the Maine Land Use Planning Commission to evaluate the decades-old Lake Management Program and determine whether reclassification is needed. It also instructs the state Bureau of Forestry to conduct research that follows the work done by Our Climate Future and sets a 2026 deadline for the DACF to compile statewide strategies to enhance its conservation. The end result is a bill that the Maine Forest Products Council and environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Council of Maine both support. 'Mainers recognize that these are really unique resources that we have,' said Luke Frankel, director of NRCM's Woods, Waters, and Wildlife Division, and the bill is 'a promising path forward to protecting older growth forests.'
