logo
Maine lawmakers renew push for rape kit tracking system, plus requiring backlog testing

Maine lawmakers renew push for rape kit tracking system, plus requiring backlog testing

Yahoo26-02-2025
A photo of Leda Health's at-home sexual assault evidence collection kits. (via Leda Health)
In light of known backlogs of untested rape kits but in unknown numbers, a bipartisan group of lawmakers are pushing to establish a statewide tracking system that would also ensure survivors know the status of their kits.
Maine is one of few states without a statewide rape kit tracking system.
An effort to create one last year ultimately failed due to end of session procedural scuffles. Some counties recently received funding to create local systems, though recipients are concerned the money could be at risk of being cut by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.
Last year, the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault received a $90,000 federal grant to fund a pilot program to track rape kits in Kennebec and Penobscot counties.
Separately, Cumberland County received a three-year $2.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Justice to help with tracking rape kits. This grant is a first for the state under the National Sexual Assault Kit Initiative. The District Attorney's Office estimates that there are 500 untested kits in Cumberland County alone.
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget had listed the National Sexual Assault Kit Initiative, State Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalitions and Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Training and Services, among others, as programs whose funding would be freezed, before walking the widespread freeze back amid legal challenges.
'Given the uncertainty of federal grants and whether this funding will be released to Cumberland County, the state legislature should act now to ensure reform is funded and expeditiously implemented,' said Rebecca Boulos, executive director of Maine Public Health Association, the state's largest association for public health professionals.
Members of the Legislature's Judiciary Committee on Wednesday also heard another bipartisan proposal to get ahead of an issue cropping up around the country: companies marketing self-administered rape kits as a viable alternative to state forensic examinations.
They're not, prosecutors, law enforcement and lawmakers said, and instead weaken a survivor's path to justice.
Boulos testified in favor of a bill that would establish a statewide sexual assault forensic examination kit tracking system, LD 549, sponsored by Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford) and a group of bipartisan lawmakers.
Currently, 36 states and Washington D.C. have passed legislation calling for statewide inventories of such kits, commonly called 'rape kits.'
These preserve evidence left behind during an assault through a forensic medical examination, which typically takes four to six hours, that survivors can choose to undergo immediately after a sexual assault. DNA evidence from these kits can then be used to solve and prevent crimes.
The Legislature passed an earlier iteration of this bill last year, however LD 2129 failed to become law as it was among the dozens of bills Democratic Gov. Janet Mills refused to sign when they were sent to her desk after statutory adjournment.
'It was a really bitter pill,' said Rep. Valli Geiger (D-Rockland) of that outcome. Geiger sponsored LD 2129 and is the lead co-sponsor of the bill this session.
Because of the time that has now passed, this year's version is slightly different, Geiger explained. The bill last session aimed to create an inventory and tracking system. The legislation this session would do that but also require testing backlogged kits.
'When I was a 17-year-old college freshman,' Geiger said, 'I was invited to the dorm room of a fellow student, a cute boy with red hair and freckles. When I tried to leave, he slammed me up against a wall and sexually assaulted me.'
She did not seek out medical care. She did not report the assault. She did not tell anyone about it for fifteen years.
'I would like to say that in the 50 years since that assault happened that things have changed,' Geiger said. 'But I cannot.'
About 6,000 people call the Sexual Assault Hot Line annually in Maine. Roughly 400 Forensic Sexual Assault kits are requested from the Maine Crime Lab annually. Less than 20% of those kits are returned to the Crime Lab for testing.
'Why are so few requested? We don t know,' Geiger said. 'Why so few returned? We don't know. How many completed but untested kits are sitting in hospitals, police stations, rape crisis centers or district attorney offices? We don't know.'
Several recommendations from local and national groups preceded these legislative proposals.
Joyful Heart Foundation, a national advocacy group founded by 'Law & Order: SVU' actress Mariska Hargitay, has been instrumental in passing state-level rape kit reform. In 2016, the nonprofit published proposed reforms to help states address testing backlog and provide more transparency for survivors.
Maine is now the only state that hasn't adopted at least one of the reforms, Burcu Sagiroglu, policy and advocacy manager for the nonprofit, wrote in testimony submitted to the committee.
Additionally, through a state grant, the Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault in partnership with the Muskie School of Public Policy completed a statewide study on the status of these kits in Maine. In 2018, those finding led to several recommendations, including creating a statewide rape kit tracking system, an inventory of untested kits and state funding for testing backlogged rape kits, among others.
If the bill is passed this year, by June 1, 2026, law enforcement agencies that receive or store kits would be required to complete an inventory of all kits in its possession and report those findings to the department, which would then be tasked with compiling that information and presenting a comprehensive report to the Legislature and governor by Jan. 1, 2027.
It would also call for testing backlogged kits.
Also by Jan. 1, 2027, and every five years after that, all completed kits that identify an alleged victim and are being stored by a law enforcement agency would be required to be transferred to the Maine State Police Crime Laboratory and processed on a rolling basis.
Some raised concern about how the rolling component would impact those who submit kits anonymously, specifically whether processing the information would threaten anonymity, and lawmakers floated the option of exempting anonymous kits.
Bennett, the bill sponsor, urged committee members to find a way to make the fiscal note for the bill as low as possible to make it more feasible to pass as an emergency measure outside the state budget. However, both Bennett and Geiger said reducing costs could be a challenge because the Maine Crime Lab already lacks physical space and the market for trained forensic examiners is tight.
The bill last session had a total cost of $349,572 for the biennium.
When this bill was presented last year, municipal officials asked police chiefs about the burden of a proposed indefinite hold on this type of sensitive material, but officials found that most law enforcement agencies already held onto rape kits indefinitely because of local policy, according to Rebecca Graham, who submitted testimony on behalf of the Maine Municipal Association.
'This process places no additional burden on municipal police,' she said. 'However, the current process and lack of centralized data does impede the ability of victims to locate which agency is holding their kit or for an agency to assist a victim.'
Jason Moen, chief of the Auburn Police Department and the President of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association, echoed this point in his testimony in support of the bill, which he said would strengthen Maine's enforcement of sexual assault laws.
'Victims of sexual assault have experienced unimaginable harm,' Moen said. 'We want to ensure that these survivors can easily access real-time data about the status of their own kits, while also getting valuable data statewide on the journey of these kits as they move from healthcare facilities to law enforcement agencies and eventually to the state crime lab.'
Like the bill sponsor's, Moen cautioned that the Maine Crime Lab will need adequate funding to make this work feasible.
'The worst thing that could happen to sexual assault survivors is provide an unrealistic expectation that they will have reliable access to their kits, only to have processing stalled due to the lack of needed supports for the Crime Lab to carry out this mission,' Moen said.
LD 412, proposed by Rep. Ellie Sato (D-Gorham), would prohibit the sale and distribution of self-administered rape kits as a violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act.
'First and foremost, this bill is a consumer protection issue,' Sato told the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
These kits are rarely, if ever, admissible in court, all those who testified said, due to chain of custody issues and other collection errors likely to occur because survivors do not have the training and skills required of sexual assault forensic examiners.
'This is a prosecutor's nightmare,' Shira Burns from the Maine Prosecutors Association said of the self-administered kits.
These kits also do not offer emergency medical care that may be needed when a sexual assault occurs, such as treatment or monitoring after strangulation, Sato added.
Maryland and Washington have passed similar bills banning these kits. One of the companies that sell these kits, Leda, challenged Washington's ban but the law was upheld in federal court.
Rep. David Sinclair (D-Bath) said he was worried about survivors in service deserts, arguably much of the rural state, and questioned whether it would be better to regulate these kits rather than prohibit them.
'While it's true that many survivors face barriers to seeking professional forensic exams, whether due to distance, fear of law enforcement or personal trauma, these kits do not resolve those challenges,' said Senate President Mattie Daughtry (D-Brunswick), one of the bill co-sponsors. 'In fact, they add new risks. The evidence collected is not legally admissible, or properly preserved, unknowingly weakening their case.'
Instead, Daughty, Burns and others argued Maine should focus more on expanding the capacity of procedures proven effective.
'We keep putting the criminal justice system on the back of the victims,' Burns said. 'We need to stop and start going the other way.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Hospitals across nation brace for Medicaid cuts under ‘big, beautiful' law
Hospitals across nation brace for Medicaid cuts under ‘big, beautiful' law

The Hill

time9 hours ago

  • The Hill

Hospitals across nation brace for Medicaid cuts under ‘big, beautiful' law

Hospitals are bracing for the impact from the Medicaid cuts in President Trump's sweeping spending and tax cut law. While most of the cuts won't happen immediately, rural facilities in particular say they likely will have to make difficult financial decisions about which services they can afford to keep and which may need to be cut. Hospitals loudly raised alarms about the legislation, but their warnings went unheeded, and now they say they will bear the brunt of the changes. The new law cuts about $1 trillion from Medicaid, primarily through stringent work requirements as well as reductions to how states can fund their Medicaid programs through provider taxes and state directed payments. Rural hospitals rely heavily on Medicaid funding because many of the patients they care for are low income. 'Restrictions on state directed payments and provider taxes cut off critical financial lifelines for hospitals,' Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals said in a statement. 'State directed payments are a critical source of support for hospitals, particularly in rural areas, and provider taxes help reduce the gap between Medicaid and other payers, ensuring that physicians can take Medicaid patients and hospitals can be adequately staffed. Cutting these lifelines is not sustainable, and it will harm patients.' More than 300 rural hospitals in the U.S. are at risk of closing down because of the bill, according to research conducted by the University of North Carolina's Sheps Center for Health Services Research and released last month by Democratic lawmakers. Rural hospitals already operate on thin margins. The law's Medicaid cuts will lead to more uninsured patients, meaning rural hospitals will not get paid for the services they are required by law to provide to patients, according to the report. In turn, they will face deeper financial strain. Medicaid-dependent services — like labor and delivery units, mental health care, and emergency rooms — are some of the least profitable, yet most essential, services that hospitals provide. But experts said those will likely be cut as hospitals try to stay afloat. In rural communities, Medicaid covers nearly half of all births and one-fifth of inpatient discharges, according to health research group KFF. Republicans pushed back the start date for the provider tax reductions until 2028, and they won't be fully phased in until 2031. The bill was only signed into law on July 4, so hospitals said it's too early for them to know specifics on which services they'll have to cut back on. But the discussions are underway because hospitals need to start planning. 'If they see a very negative outlook in terms of Medicaid revenue reductions, increases in uncompensated care costs, I think that will tip the scales towards cutting services, cutting staff, not hiring, not expanding,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University. Mark Nantz, president and chief executive officer of Valley Health System, oversees a network that includes six hospitals in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia and West Virginia, ranging from a 495-bed regional facility in Winchester to a 36-bed facility in Front Royal, about 70 miles outside of Washington. Nantz said Medicaid expansion and provider taxes have allowed the system to break even when taking care of Medicaid patients. Previously, they were losing about 25 cents on every dollar. Once the cuts are fully phased in, Nantz said Valley Health will lose about $50 million a year in revenue for Medicaid patients. The most likely casualty will be new construction and expansion plans, but he said it's too early to know more. 'We're not in a situation where we need to knee-jerk because we're a pretty stable healthcare system, but it's definitely going to change the way we look at expanding and the types of services that we offer in our six hospitals,' Nantz said. Valley Health was able to expand the services it offers because it was not losing money on Medicaid, but that may not be able to continue. While hospitals may not close, some types of specialty care may be moved from rural facilities and centralized at the regional facility. 'We've got, really, two and a half to three years to make those kinds of decisions and prepare for what we will do. So we're not threatening to cut jobs or hospitals or service locations or any of that right now,' Nantz said, 'but we have to look at whether or not we can continue' offering the same types of services. Republicans concerned about the impact of the provider tax reduction on rural hospitals inserted a $50 billion relief fund into the law. The law calls for the money to be distributed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) over five years. The federal government will distribute half of the program's $50 billion allotment equally among all states with an approved application over the next five years. But experts said the money isn't nearly enough to make up for the impact of the cuts. According to a KFF analysis, federal Medicaid spending in rural areas is estimated to decline by $155 billion over a decade. The states and hospitals that will be hit the hardest will benefit the least, Park said. He noted the law gives the Trump administration a lot of discretion on how they divide up the funds, so there's potential for favoritism. Every state has until the end of 2025 at the latest to apply for funds by submitting a 'detailed rural health transformation plan' that addresses the program's aims, according to the legislation. But if CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz doesn't agree with how states are using their funds, the law says he then 'may withhold payments to, or reduce payments to, or recover previous payments from, the State.' 'It's a fig leaf,' Park said. 'The fund is temporary. These cuts are permanent.'

Democrats thought they found their midterm message on the megabill — but it could hit some snags
Democrats thought they found their midterm message on the megabill — but it could hit some snags

Politico

time11 hours ago

  • Politico

Democrats thought they found their midterm message on the megabill — but it could hit some snags

'We will need to remind voters that the impact is going to kind of come in waves, and that a lot of the brunt of the damage won't be felt until next year, or even after the midterms,' Stevenson said. 'We just will have to remind them that provisions of the bill are still coming, that deadlines are looming.' But the bulk of the health care cuts Republicans built into their megabill — including reductions to the so-called provider tax many states use to help fund their Medicaid programs and new work requirements that could cost millions of people their coverage — won't kick in until after the midterms. Republicans have signaled they'll use the popular parts of the legislation like a tax deduction on tips to go on offense against Democrats. NRCC spokesperson Mike Marinella said Democrats were using 'desperate and disgusting fear-mongering tactics' and added the GOP would 'use every tool to show voters that the provisions in this bill are widely popular.' Polling shows voters are receiving mixed messages on Medicaid. A tracking survey from nonprofit health policy group KFF shows 63 percent of independents said they believe the bill will strip health care coverage from people who need it, but they also broadly support adding work requirements to the program. 'If Republicans are able to characterize these changes as simply fraud and waste, there may not be as drastic political implications,' said Ashley Kirzinger, associate director of KFF's Public Opinion and Survey Research Program. Another potential pitfall for Democrats: States use different names for the Medicaid programs — Medi-Cal in California, SoonerCare in Oklahoma, Health First Colorado — that could leave some voters unaware that the cuts are from national Republicans. Democrats will get a trial run for their Medicaid messaging in this year's gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, New Jersey Democrats' nominee to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy, has attacked her opponent for being 'fully on board' with Republican cuts, and argued that New Jersey is 'the first chance to hold them accountable at the ballot box.' Laura Matos, a Democratic strategist in New Jersey, noted that Republicans are 'counting on people not paying attention' to the impact of the bill, but also warned Democrats not to get too bogged down in national issues. 'For Mikie, it's this nebulous thing,' she said. 'You can talk about national issues, but what she really needs to do is pivot to the things she's going to do here to improve affordability and quality of life.' Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., speaks at a 'Get Out the Vote' rally, June 7, 2025, in Elizabeth, New Jersey. | Heather Khalifa/AP But other Democrats are brushing aside concerns that voters won't register the impacts of the bill, pointing to substantial news coverage of its cuts to Medicaid and the more immediate changes to Affordable Care Act tax credits that could dramatically increase some Americans' health insurance costs.

Trump officials cutting $1bn in NIH grants is ‘void and illegal', judge rules
Trump officials cutting $1bn in NIH grants is ‘void and illegal', judge rules

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

Trump officials cutting $1bn in NIH grants is ‘void and illegal', judge rules

A federal judge ruled on Monday that the Trump administration's termination of more than $1bn in research grants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was 'void and illegal'. US district judge William Young added that the cuts, which targeted research with a perceived connection to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, represented unlawful 'racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community', Reuters reported. Young, who was appointed to the bench by then president Ronald Reagan, added that he had 'never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable'. Young ordered that grants previously awarded to the organizations and 16 Democratic-led states that filed the lawsuit against the Trump administration be reinstated. In a statement, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) director of communications, Andrew Nixon, said that the agency 'stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people. 'Under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy and the Trump administration, HHS is committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars support programs rooted in evidence-based practices and gold standard science – not driven by divisive DEI mandates or gender ideology. HHS is exploring all legal options, including filing an appeal and moving to stay the order.' Related: NIH scientists go public to denounce Trump's deep cuts in health research In February, the Trump administration slashed billions of dollars in NIH funding, in an attempt to shrink the federal government and national debt led by then presidential adviser Elon Musk and his so-called 'department of government efficiency'. The move came amid efforts to cut 10,000 jobs from federal health agencies. In April, the American Public Health Association; the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America; and other health experts filed suit, saying the cuts had targeted research with any connection to race, gender identity, vaccines or equity. The legal complaint claimed that the NIH broke from its science-based review process in preference of 'vague' new priorities. According to a letter signed by dozens of NIH employees, the NIH has cut 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12bn since Donald Trump took office. During a Senate committee hearing last week, the NIH director, Jay Bhattacharya, said he 'didn't take this job to terminate grants', and was evaluating ways to restore some funding. Young's ruling on Monday only applies to some of the grants mentioned in the lawsuit. The federal judge will rule on further claims after both sides present additional evidence.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store