Comments Off on Organizations Unite to Condemn Harassment of Maine Youth
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 25, 2025
Organizations Unite to Condemn Harassment of Maine Youth
Coalition stands together to call for adults to protect children from harassment
AUGUSTA, ME – Last week, an elected official used her online social media to share a photo of a child that she identified as transgender, resulting in statewide and national harassment of a non-consenting minor.
Our organizations stand united in declaring that adults should never harass, ‘out’, or instigate attacks on minors. All children deserve our safety and protection, so they can feel safe at home, at school, and in their communities.
This year, dozens of bills have been filed that seek to threaten, roll back, or undermine the rights of trans people in our state. As these bills go through their hearings, language will get heated and tempers will get high. We urge legislators and Legislative leadership to remember that children and private citizens are off-limits, and personal attacks go against Maine values, basic decency, and endanger families. It is never okay for people in positions of power to use their roles to draw attention or harassment toward people who are just trying to live their lives with privacy and safety.
We all want what’s best for our children. We expect our leaders will have a plan to keep the focus on the policy, not on personal attacks, and to hold policymakers accountable when their actions cause harm.
Affirming Behavioral Health affirmingbehavioralhealth.org
Campfire Institute campfireinstitute.org
Confluence Collective
confluencecollective.org
Defend Our Health
defendourhealth.org
Equality Community Center eccmaine.org
EqualityMaine
equalitymaine.org
Grandmothers for Reproductive Rights grrnow.org
Hardy Girls hardygirls.org
Kindling Collective kindlingcollective.org
Little Chair Printing littlechairprinting.com
Mabel Wadsworth Center mabelwadsworth.org
Maine Chapter, American Academy of Pediatrics maineaap.org
Maine Children’s Alliance mainechildrensalliance.org
Maine Council of Churches
mainecouncilofchurches.org
Maine Equal Justice maineequaljustice.org
Maine Family Planning mainefamilyplanning.org
Maine Medical Association mainephysicians.org
Maine Osteopathic Association mainedo.org
Maine Public Health Association mainepublichealth.org
Maine Women’s Lobby mainewomen.org
Maine Youth Power maineyouthpower.org
MaineTransNet mainetrans.net
Multi-faith Justice Maine mainepeoplesalliance.org
NASW Maine Chapter naswme.socialworkers.org
OUT Maine outmaine.org
Planned Parenthood of Northern New England ppnne.org
Aspen Ruhlin (they/them) Mabel Wadsworth Center Community Engagement Manager
This year would be, should be, the 52nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade being the law of the land. While the protections of Roe were insufficient and Reproductive Justice was not realized under them, the loss of those protections is something to be mourned. Roe was the floor, not the ceiling, and while it was a rickety floor, we are certainly worse off without it.
Those who fight against access to abortion care call themselves “pro-life,” but they are anything but. To oppose abortion access is to assert that you view pregnant people as nothing more than an incubator with legs. To oppose abortion access is to loudly and confidently state your misogyny. To oppose abortion access is to believe that the life and autonomy of a real, breathing person matters less than a theoretical life.
It is important to note here that abortion access is always essential. Someone does not need to have a medical emergency or be a victim of sexual assault to deserve control over their body. There is no circumstance where a pregnant person does not deserve autonomy.
Since the Supreme Court ruled on the Dobb’s decision and removed the protections of Roe in the United States, people have still had abortions. Banning abortion does not stop it from happening. It does, however, cause significant harm both in the form of criminalization and injury or death for those who can’t access the abortion care they need. We have seen people punished for self-managing abortions and for having miscarriages. Brittany Watts, a woman from Ohio, was criminalized for seeking medical care when she miscarried a pregnancy. She’s now filing a suit that argues that nurses and police conspired to fabricate evidence against her.
We know that abortion bans kill people. Unfortunately, while we may never know all of them, the names of some of those killed by abortion bans following the Dobbs decision have started to trickle out. Every single one of these people should still be here today.
Amber Nicole Thurman died in Georgia in 2022 only 2 weeks after the state’s abortion ban went into effect and hospital staff allowed her infection from retained fetal tissue to worsen without providing adequate medical care. It feels wrong to say that Amber left behind her young son and many loved ones, because her life was taken by a system that devalues the lives of pregnant people.
Candi Miller, also in Georgia and only a few months later, died at home when her body did not expel all of the fetal tissue after a medication abortion, as she justifiably feared that she would not receive the medical care she needed due to Georgia’s abortion ban. Candi is mourned by her husband, two children, and other loved ones.
Josseli Barnica died in Texas in September of 2021. While the Dobbs decision had not yet been passed down by the Supreme Court, SB8 was passed in Texas on September 1, 2021 and banned all abortion care beyond 6 weeks gestation. With Roe still considered the law of the land, Josseli was allowed to slowly die of a uterine infection when her pregnancy was no longer viable and hospital staff chose to not intervene, instead waiting for the fetal heartbeat to stop. Josseli suffered for 40 hours before finally passing. Her death bears many similarities to that of Dr. Savita Halappanavar, a dentist in Ireland who died under similar circumstances and whose death was a catalyst for abortion advocacy in the country. In 2018, abortion was legalized in Ireland by referendum vote. Josseli is mourned by her husband, daughter, and other loved ones.
Neveah Crain, only 18-years-old, died in Texas in 2023 due to being denied abortion care. She had gone to the hospital three separate times with clear signs of a miscarriage on what was supposed to be the day of her baby shower. Neveah was not provided with adequate medical care at any point, even though the second hospital visit showed she screened positive for sepsis. Her mother begged hospital staff to do something. Neveah suffered organ failure and died after hospital staff refused to save her life. She is mourned by her boyfriend, her mother, and other loved ones.
These are just some of the names we know. There are others who have been taken from us that we will never know the names of, and unfortunately, more who will be killed by cruel abortion bans. I have said this before, and I will say it again—there is nothing “pro-life” about being anti-abortion. Anti-abortion politicians, judges, and extremists have blood on their hands. People who are anti-abortion love to clutch their pearls about heartbeats—what about Josseli’s? What about Neveah’s and Amber’s and Candi’s? What about mine? Anti-abortion extremists are clearly not pro-life; they are pro-control.
There is never a circumstance where someone should be denied needed care, including abortion care. This is true whether a pregnant person is carrying an unviable pregnancy, has been assaulted, or simply does not want to be pregnant. Abortion is essential and its access should never be hindered. Josseli, Amber, Candi, Neveah, and so many others should still be here. Remember their names when you see anti-abortion protestors outside of clinics or anti-abortion politicians railing against the inherent autonomy of pregnant people.
Elle Little (they/them) Graduate student at University of Maine Communication Department and Mabel Wadsworth Center Intern
Many discussions surrounding transgender healthcare include conversations around surgeries and hormones. People may be most familiar with the concepts of “top” and “bottom” surgeries, which can help align someone’s body with either masculine or feminine representations. Some people may also be familiar with hormone replacement therapy to begin seeing new effects such as decreased facial hair or deepening of the voice. While it is true that many transgender people engage in surgery or hormone replacement therapies to alleviate symptoms of gender dysphoria, these are not the only stories that should take the focus of trans-inclusive healthcare.
It is also important to note that gender-affirming care is not exclusively accessed by cis people, or those who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is a great example of a cisgender man who got gender-affirming surgery. He has openly discussed how he dealt with a condition called gynecomastia. This condition causes enlarged breast tissue in men. He chose to remove the excess breast tissue so he was more aligned with his identity. This is very similar to gender-affirming top surgeries for transmasculine folks and shows us that all healthcare has the power to be gender-affirming. All healthcare, from primary care to getting the annual flu shot, has the power to affirm the person receiving the care simply by using a patient’s chosen name and pronouns.
Abortions are an example of healthcare stereotyped as something that only cisgender women have. Abortions can be initiated with medications, or can be performed in-office as a procedure that removes the products of conception from the uterus. Because we live in a ciscentric society that ignores the experiences of trans folks, binary and nonbinary alike, abortions are often thought of as only being accessed by women. However, we know that abortion care is accessed by anyone who can get pregnant, regardless of gender.
These two issues, the narrow view of trans healthcare and the narrow view of abortion healthcare, create disparities between which kinds of people need this care. This can mean that trans people might not know they have access to abortion care, and that cis people might not know they can access gender-affirming care as well. Gender-affirming care for cis people can include taking hormones to increase facial hair and getting surgeries that make them feel more like the gender they identify with, just like with trans folks. Abortion care for trans people should mean that they aren’t misgendered while receiving abortion care and that they are given adequate information on pregnancy risk.
Why is it important to talk about abortion as not just a cis-sue? By openly talking about who is having abortions we create a more inclusive environment for people having abortions. This continues to normalize this common experience and can help reduce stigma when we look at abortions as something that PEOPLE have, and not just women. We also further education in the field of healthcare and reproduction. Some people may start taking testosterone and cease to menstruate, but end up pregnant anyways. The more we include trans people in abortion stories, the more people we can reach who need this care.
Some easy ways to practice being inclusive when you talk about abortions is to start replacing “woman” with “people.” “People” is gender neutral, and allows for non-women to be included. Sometimes this is taken in a negative light when people argue that by doing this, women are now being excluded. However, women are people too and are included when we talk about people! Many catchy slogans that people use to advocate for abortion rights are also highly gendered. While the protest chant, “Her body, her choice,” might be popular, an easy switch can be, “Not the church/not the state/only we decide our fate.” This is inclusive and helps everyone who has had an abortion feel included.
Photograph from rally in downtown Bangor October 2021 in response to SB8 in Texas, courtesy of Aspen Ruhlin
Since our founding in 1984, Mabel Wadsworth Center has been dedicated to serving the Greater Bangor area and beyond as an independent feminist sexual and reproductive health center. Over the years, we’ve expanded our services to meet the needs of our community, and now provide a range of services including abortion care, prenatal care, STI testing and treatment, contraception, gender-affirming hormone therapy, vasectomies, and more.
We are not going anywhere.
As an independent clinic, we do not seek or receive restrictive state or federal funding. This means we can provide the care our community needs without meddling from politicians or having our funding suddenly pulled out from under us. It means we have to get more creative and lean on our supporters, but it is well worth it to provide normal, needed healthcare without overreaching government interference.
We are not going anywhere.
It is okay to feel afraid right now. This is true for everyone, and especially true for LGBTQ+ people, BIPOC folks, disabled people, and all other marginalized communities who have reason to fear for their rights. To quote Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear.” We are, all of us, more important than fear. Working together for a kinder world and coming together as a community is more important than fear.
We are not going anywhere.
Maine has laws protecting abortion care and gender-affirming care. Maine has people dedicated to providing and protecting access to the whole range of sexual and reproductive healthcare across the state. Along with the staff at Mabel’s in Bangor, we have our friends at Planned Parenthood in southern Maine and Maine Family Planning throughout the state providing care and community engagement. We have legislators and advocates in Augusta fighting for laws that further strengthen protections for the care we provide. We have the people of Maine who recognize how essential all sexual and reproductive care is leading conversations in their communities. We have SAFE Maine funding abortion so people can get the care they need.
We are not going anywhere.
Mabel’s has been here for 40 years. We are unquestionably dedicated to providing the care our community needs. We will weather the storm. We know that abortion care, contraception, and gender-affirming care are particularly under attack, and we will not stop providing or advocating for these essential, normal services.
Comments Off on Providing care to people who use drugs
by Eva White (she/her) University of Maine Social Work student and Mabel Wadsworth Center intern
Take a moment to consider the following scenario…
A person calls a health clinic and tells the front desk associate they’d like to have an abortion. They estimate their gestation at around eight weeks, they were assigned female at birth, and when asked about prior health conditions, they share that addiction runs in their family. They disclose their insurance information, birthday, address, and any other information required to establish them as a patient at this health center. They tell the clinic they’d prefer a procedural abortion instead of a medication abortion, and they thank the front desk person for their time. On the day of their appointment, the clinical assistant calls them from the waiting room and engages in typical pleasantries before beginning the pre-abortion counseling routine.
During the portion of the counseling wherein the patient is expected to disclose any prior medication use, the patient reveals to the clinical assistant that they injected heroin an hour prior to their appointment. When asked further about their heroin use, it becomes understood that the patient is a regular, recreational user of heroin and other opioids. The clinical assistant asks a few more patient- and condition-specific questions and the counseling portion of the appointment is finished. The clinical assistant leaves the patient to wait for a few minutes while she consults with the doctor about the best course of action. During this discussion, the CA and doctor determine how to safely proceed with the appointment while considering the patient’s individual needs. Now, it is time to administer medications if necessary and continue with the procedure.
Some people may feel judgmental after considering the above scenario. Some may feel shocked that the clinical assistant didn’t abruptly show the patient the door when they revealed their drug use. Some may feel nervous, because if a health center is offering care to someone that uses drugs, they cannot be legitimate and safe…..right?
Now, please consider the following scenario….
A person calls a health clinic and tells the front desk associate they’d like to have an abortion. They estimate their gestation at around eight weeks, they were assigned female at birth, and when asked about prior health conditions, they tell the associate that dangerously high blood pressure runs in their family. They tell the clinic they’d prefer a procedural abortion instead of a medication abortion, and they thank the front desk person for their time.
During their pre-abortion counseling, the clinical assistant takes the patient’s blood pressure and finds it to be quite staggering. The CA asks the patient a few patient- and condition-specific questions, leaves them to wait for a couple minutes, and finds the doctor. She consults with the doctor about the client’s current condition and together, they develop a plan for how to safely continue the patient’s appointment. After a conclusion is reached, it is time to administer medications if necessary and continue with the procedure.
How are these two scenarios different? How are they the same? It is reasonable to assume that for many people, the latter scenario is quite normal. In fact, it would be considered malpractice for the clinical assistant to show this person the door after they disclosed a prior medical condition and still expected to receive care. In fact, it is any medical professional’s responsibility to cater to their patient’s needs. If a patient has an allergy, this is accounted for in their care. If a patient has staggeringly high blood pressure, this is accounted for in their care. If a patient has a pacemaker, this is accounted for in their care. If a person uses recreational drugs, this is accounted for in their care.
The point of this exercise in consideration is twofold. The first intention is to dig up the fact that many people are affronted and almost personally offended by the idea that someone who uses illicit substances has the exact same right to healthcare as someone who has never touched a pipe, needle, or pill. The second intention is to describe exactly why it is safe and legitimate for healthcare workers to serve patients that use substances. It is understandable for someone to wonder if it is safe for a patient to undergo an abortion procedure while on heroin. Are they truly able to consent to the procedure? Is the procedure impossible to carry out because of the drugs in their system?
When any patient is served by a medical facility, the implication is that their care will be catered to them as an individual. If they have high blood pressure, an allergy, a heart condition, depression, or any other medical condition, it is expected they disclose that information to their provider. This is not so that they may be shamed for a lack of exercise, family history of diabetes, or drinking too much coffee; it is because some medications, surgeries, or medical practices are contraindicated when certain conditions are present. For example, in a study on female military Veterans, it was found that 29% of the women presented with a medical contraindication to combined hormonal contraceptive use (Judge et. al, 2018). The contraindications listed were smoking, hypertension, and migraines. The point of this study was not to indicate that people who smoke should be turned away at the door of a sexual health clinic. The point was to illustrate the myriad options these people have other than CHC and how to use these other options safely. Just as with any other contraindication, it is possible to work with and around a person’s drug use to offer them services safely.
Are people that use drugs able to give consent to their healthcare providers? There are forms to sign, medications to take, and pokes and prods that must all be understood and consented to when someone visits any doctor. Sometimes, being high on some kind of substance prevents someone from giving informed consent; their cognition may be impaired, their physical ability to sign something might be hindered, or their emotional state is so heightened that they are unable to listen to and absorb important information. This is not always the case when someone is on substances. Peoples’ capacity to make informed decisions may not actually be affected by their substance use. In fact, if people regularly use or misuse substances, they may not be impaired by those substances and find that they become impaired when sober from that substance. For example, it has been found that regular THC (marijuana) users do not experience acute neurocognitive impairment when given a set of tasks to complete while high on the substance. (MacCallum et. al, 2021). In another study that researched assessments designed to test someone’s decision-making capacity, it was found that in most cases of substance misuse, it is entirely unnecessary to assess their capacity and actually violates ethical principles (Kumar et. al, 2022).
People that use drugs are humans. Humans deserve healthcare and kindness. At any healthcare facility, doctors; practitioners; nurses; and social workers should be trained to serve all populations, including people that use drugs. Doctors are expected and able to work with patients with diabetes, liver failure, blindness, deafness, borderline personality disorder, eczema, coronary heart disease, and PTSD. They spend hours deliberating with nurses about the best course of treatment for patients with contraindications and ask question after question to patients about their needs. They try new medications, use hypoallergenic supplies, and implement trauma-informed practice with patients. Why is substance use any different from another medical need? Substance use is stigmatized to an extent that prevents people from seeking healthcare services because they are afraid of being turned away, they are abused by providers, or their needs are not otherwise met. This is unacceptable, inhumane, and something that must shift in the healthcare field.
Judge, C. P., Zhao, X., Sileanu, F. E., Mor, M. K., & Borrero, S. (2018). Medical contraindications to estrogen and contraceptive use among women veterans. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 218(2), 234.e1-234.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.020
MacCallum, C. A., Lo, L. A., & Boivin, M. (2021). “Is medical cannabis safe for my patients?” A practical review of cannabis safety considerations. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 89, 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2021.05.002
Kumar, R., Berry, J., Koning, A., Rossell, S., Jain, H., Elkington, S., Nagaraj, S., & Batchelor, J. (2022). Psychometric properties of a new decision-making capacity assessment tool for people with substance use disorder: The CAT-CAT. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 37(5), 994-1034. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acac010
