Maine has legislation in the pipeline that would enshrine a right to puberty-blocking and transgender surgery. Maine can do what Maine wants to do, but according to Tennessee’s AG and fifteen other AGs, it ‘creates a private right of action for damages against law enforcement, prosecutors, and officials in other states.
As currently drafted, LD 227 violates the United States Constitution and flouts the federalist structure that allows each of our States to engage in self-government responsive to the will of our citizens. The Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause, and federal statutes implementing it, mean no state cause of action should ever accrue from a different State lawfully enforcing its own permissible laws or executing valid judgments.
LD227 is titled “An Act Regarding Health Care in the State,” but I was unable to locate the full text of the bill, so we will have to take those sixteen AGs at their word. And it seems appropriate given their concerns. What is being sold as a way to protect “rights” appears to deny them to other states and those in these states tasked with enforcement of laws in those states.
According to sixteen state AGs, as written, Maine’s legislation infringes on other states’ rights and sets the table for regulator civil war.
From a practical perspective, LD 227’s ill-considered attempt to influence and intimidate officials in other States could also trigger a rapid tit-for-tat escalation that tears apart our Republic. One could easily envision a First Amendment Protection Act that creates state law liability for people, even people out of state, who seek to suppress purported hate speech, or a Second Amendment Protection Act that creates liability for those who seek to regulate firearms, or laws that impose harsh penalties on people who express support for one side or another in the war between Israel and Hamas. If one State does not like another State’s regulatory regime with respect to cars, or food, or alcohol distribution, or whatever else, it could create a tenuous jurisdictional hook to allow the same sort of extraterritorial bullying attempted by LD 227. State officials would be dragged into legal battles in far-flung jurisdictions, thwarting their ability to focus on protecting their own citizens consistent with their own duly-enacted laws.
We also know that New Hampshire’s AG, John Formella, is not concerned enough to add his name to the letter. None of the other New England states is represented, either. I guess they are okay with interstate bullying. Is that because they have plans to do something similar, they don’t see it surviving, and it is therefore not a threat? Are they fine with Maine infringing on the rights of residents in other sovereign states, or is it because they would like to legitimize puberty-blocking drugs and surgeries that even transgender advocates admit can lead to cancer or death?
Update: A reader sent me an infographic on LD227 that clarifies what it permits—child transition trafficking/kidnapping across state lines.
The Letter from the 16 AGs is below.
pr24-26MaineLetter transgender surgery
