A recent letter to the editor suggested that Gov. Mills’ public spat with President Trump simply reflected her support for LGBTQ rights generally. In fact, the governor’s personal views with respect to LGBTQ rights are irrelevant with respect to the transgender portion of this acronym.

In 2019, Maine amended its Human Rights Act. The Legislature clarified the act’s “gender identity” provision. “Gender identity means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s assigned sex at birth.” (see Public Laws 2019, Chapter 464). The amendment is clear. Maine law allows one to alter their gender post-birth.

Gov. Mills has no latitude to limit gender identification to the sex assigned at birth. She has a constitutional duty to enforce Maine law. That’s what she’s committed herself to do.

No federal law accepts Trump’s definition of gender, or bars adults from altering their gender when they choose. To enforce his singular view that gender is assigned at birth, Trump has cut off Maine’s share of unrelated federal aid dollars. This seems to be unconstitutional.

Further, without legislative authority, Trump has unilaterally barred trans people from military service. His executive order was immediately challenged and is now before the Supreme Court awaiting final disposition.

In sum, 1.6 million U.S. trans people are directly affected by Trump’s executive orders. But millions more will be harmed by his palpable distaste for trans people. Stay tuned.

Orlando Delogu
Portland

Copy the Story Link

As a psychiatrist, I sit across from Mainers every day: retired electricians, young mothers, business leaders. Some come to me sick or scared. Others come to think out loud. But lately, one thread ties their stories together: fear that Maine is slipping away, either from rising taxes or from a fraying safety net. Let me tell you about three patients. Their names have been changed, but their stories are real.

Walter is 82. He’s a retired electrician with diabetes, arthritis and early signs of dementia. He lives alone in subsidized housing and relies on MaineCare for his medications. “Doc,” he once told me, “If I lose my nurse, I lose everything.” That nurse checks his blood sugar and keeps his fridge stocked. Her salary comes from taxpayer dollars.

Claire is 29. She fled an abusive relationship and lived in a shelter with her two children. She’s been clean for six months, sees a therapist weekly, and is working part time. Her child care is covered by a state voucher program that’s barely holding on.

Then there’s David, a wealthy entrepreneur from southern Maine. He built his company from nothing and gives generously to his community. But recently, he looked at me and said, “Doctor Jeff, if they raise taxes much more, I’ll move to New Hampshire. I love Maine, but I can’t be the only one writing the check.” And a financial planner in the Portland area shared with me that high-earning taxpayers are, in fact, leaving Maine for New Hampshire: “We lost five wealthy families just last year.”

Here’s the hard truth: all of these people are existentially connected. The safety net that keeps Walter alive and helps Claire rebuild her life? It exists, in part, because of taxes paid by people like David.

That’s why this isn’t a simple case of “tax the rich” versus “protect the poor.” Not some catchy three-word phrase attempting to solve one of the most important and complicated issues. It’s about balance. About keeping Maine whole. We are already one of the highest-taxed states in the country. Top earners here pay over 7% in state income tax compared to zero just over the border in neighboring New Hampshire.

According to Maine Revenue Services, the top 1% of earners contribute nearly a quarter of all income taxes collected statewide. And when they leave, they don’t just take their dollars. They take jobs, charitable giving and civic leadership with them. Again, wealthy high-taxed people do leave Maine. And when they do, it weakens our ability to help those who remain.

But that doesn’t mean we abandon the safety net. Quite the opposite. Right now, rural hospitals and birth centers are closing. Foster families are overwhelmed. Nursing homes are shuttering their doors. If we don’t invest in these services, we’ll all pay, not just in dollars, but in lives.

So, how do we move forward?

First, we need to stop framing this as a war between the wealthy and the vulnerable. Most Mainers, whether they own a business or rely on public services, want the same things: a state where people can live safely, raise families and grow old with dignity.

Second, we need better data. How many people are truly leaving due to taxes? What do we lose when they do? Let’s answer those questions honestly before writing new laws and budgets.

Third, let’s think creatively. What if we offered tax incentives for high earners to donate directly to Maine-based services such as rural health clinics, food pantries, legal aid, job training, and infrastructure? What if we made giving as rewarding as leaving?

And finally, let’s not forget who we are. Maine is a small state with a big heart. We dig each other out after snowstorms. We show up with casseroles. We wave at strangers on back roads. But we can’t do any of that if we drive away the people who help power our economy or if we look away from those sinking beneath its weight.

As a psychiatrist, I’ve seen what happens when the safety net fails. Patients end up in jail instead of treatment. Children go hungry and don’t graduate. Elders die alone. These aren’t abstract budget items. These are people. With names, fears and dreams. And as a Mainer, I see the value in keeping our most successful neighbors here, not out of guilt or fear, but out of both necessity and pride. Pride in a state that works for everyone.

So, let’s hold both truths close: that we need our wealthiest neighbors, and that we must never abandon our most vulnerable ones. Because in the end, Walter, Claire and David aren’t just stories. They are us. And if we lose even one of them, something in Maine is lost for good.

Copy the Story Link

State lawmakers are considering a bill that would increase oversight of the private vendors who transport MaineCare clients to medical appointments following years of complaints from users.

The Maine Department of Health and Human Services currently pays more than $70 million a year in state and federal funds to help MaineCare patients who lack access to transportation get to the doctor, to the pharmacy or to other non-emergency appointments.

But MaineCare patients have complained for years about the difficulty of arranging rides. And they say the private contractors sometimes show up late or not at all, causing them to miss appointments or leaving them stranded far from home.

“It is our duty not only as stewards of taxpayers dollars but as servants of the public to ensure the system is working as it should,” Republican Sen. Rick Bennett of Oxford told members of a legislative committee on Friday. “LD 1835 is about keeping that promise. It’s about oversight, accountability and transparency.”

Bennett’s bill, LD 1835, would require DHHS to create a publicly accessible dashboard that tracks the performance of transportation brokers. His bill would also establish an independent ombudsman to receive and investigate complaints about the network and to create advisory groups in each of the state’s eight transportation regions.

Advocacy groups as well as clients of MaineCare — the state’s Medicaid program — told lawmakers about transportation requests being denied for no apparent reason and about language barriers experienced by people with disabilities when trying to use the automated phone system. Multiple people spoke about drivers showing up late, leaving before they could get outside because of their disability and about being stranded at doctor’s offices afterward because no one came.

Zoe Miller, executive director of the advocacy group Moving Maine Network, said her organization has heard “an overwhelming number of stories” from people who have experienced issues with the MaineCare non-emergency transportation program. Miller also said an evaluation of the program conducted for DHHS about five years ago recommended multiple changes.

“We’ve been really honestly waiting to see if the department would implement these recommendations and make progress and have been just frankly forced to take this avenue to make something happen after many, many efforts,” Miller said.

DHHS opposed the bill, however.

In written testimony submitted to the committee, the department said it already collects and reports many of the performance metrics proposed by Bennett. For instance, the department provided statistics from March 2025 showing that 95% of calls were answered within 60 seconds and 91.6% of trips were performed on-time.

“If the intention of LD 1835 is to reduce the number of missed and late trips and improve member experience by providing more transportation options to members, this bill does not increase general public or private transportation system capacity or workforce; these important factors are outside of the department’s control,” Michelle Probert, director of the Office of MaineCare Services, wrote to the committee.

Probert also said more staff would be needed to gather additional data and to work with a new ombudsman.

Last year, DHHS sparked controversy by awarding a 10-year, $750 million contract to a private vendor, Colorado-based Modivcare, to provide MaineCare transportation services statewide. Modivcare already serves parts of the state but some MaineCare clients and advocacy groups have criticized its service.

The transportation division of the community action program Penquis, which primarily serves Penobscot, Piscataquis and Knox counties, contested the contract and eventually filed a lawsuit. Waldo Community Action Partners is an interested party in the lawsuit.

Asked about the controversy during Friday’s committee meeting, Miller with Moving Maine Network said LD 1835 was not a response to that contract controversy.

“This bill is representing years of work and listening to our members and really feeling that if we did not come forward to do something on their behalf, we would be irresponsible as an organization,” Miller said. “We simply need to do better for the people who are being left behind.”