A bill designed to protect medical professionals who provide abortion and gender-affirming care from legal actions by those in other states is at the center of a political firestorm that erupted this week.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Anne Perry (D-Calais), also seeks to clarify existing Maine law that protects access to reproductive and gender-affirming care.

Advocates say it’s the next step to protect access to those services following the 2022 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, which left it up to states to decide whether to allow abortions.

But opponents say it could have far-reaching implications, including making it difficult for parents to have a say in medical procedures for minors.

More than 600 people testified on the bill earlier this month and the measure, LD 227, is pending in the Health Coverage, Insurance and Financial Services Committee.

The bill made headlines earlier this week when 16 Republican attorneys general called it “unprecedented.” In response, Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey said he was “thoroughly dismayed” by the letter, describing it as “an attempt to intimidate” those who support it.

For Lisa Margulies of Planned Parenthood, the bill is the logical next step to protect reproductive rights in Maine, following the passage of a bill last year to allow women to have abortions later in pregnancy with permission from a doctor.

“What this bill ensures is Maine law can govern Maine health care without interference from out of state actors,” she said.

Following the Supreme Court decision, abortion is now severely restricted or illegal in more than 20 states. A similar number have also banned gender-affirming care for adolescents.

When it comes to protecting health care professionals from legal action by those in other states, 17 states have similar shield laws, Margulies said.

In her testimony in support of the bill earlier this month, Perry referred to a case in Texas, which is working to get the medical records of children who traveled to Seattle for gender-affirming care.

“We have Mainers and patients who come to Maine in need of reproductive healthcare or gender-affirming care, and as a Legislature, we cannot ignore this,” Perry said on March 5. “During a time when we are seeing an increase in restrictions on abortion and gender-affirming care across the country, Maine needs to be a leader and defend our patients and providers.”

Opponents not only question the bill's reach but expressed concerns about the process used to bring it forward.

LD 227 was released last year as a concept draft, which means it is a placeholder without any language. The title, “An Act Regarding Health Care in the State,” did not give any clues as to what it might entail, said Michael McClellan, a former Republican lawmaker who now works for the Christian Civic League of Maine.

The 21-page amendment was released on a Friday shortly before the public hearing.

And while the process is concerning, McClellan said he believes the bill strips away the ability of parents to intervene if their child is having a medical procedure such as an abortion or gender-affirming care.

“If this passes, this makes Maine a great destination if you want an abortion or if your kid wants to get transition care,” he said.

His interpretation of the language also raises the possibility that if a doctor at a Maine Catholic hospital performed a procedure contrary to the hospital’s mission, the hospital would have no legal right to object.

In the letter from GOP attorneys general, written by Jonathan Skrmetti of Tennessee, the attorneys say LD 227 violates the U.S. Constitution.

“One state cannot control another,” he wrote. “The totalitarian impulse to stifle dissent and oppress dissenters has no place in our shared America. We will not allow laws like LD 227 to deter us from protecting the integrity of our States’ democratic processes.”

Frey wrote in response that he is confident the bill is in keeping with the Constitution and that several other states have similar shield laws “to protect their health care providers from aggressive actions by objecting States.”

“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.