A proposal to enshrine a right to abortion and gender-affirming health care in the Connecticut State Constitution has received vehement criticism from religious and conservative groups who oppose the measure.
Ahead of a public hearing in the Government Administration and Elections Committee Monday, residents and activists submitted more than 200 pieces of testimony in opposition to the proposal that, if enacted, would amend the equal protection clause of the Connecticut Constitution to include an explicit right to abortion and gender-affirming health care.
The Connecticut Constitution currently reads: “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex or physical or mental disability.”
The proposed amendment would add additional language that states: “discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of civil or political rights because of sex includes, but is not limited to, discrimination, in intent or effect, based on pregnancy, including preventing, initiating, continuing or terminating a pregnancy; sexual orientation; gender identity and expression; and related health care.”
Committee Chair Sen. Mae Flexer said this amendment would protect access to reproductive health care, same-sex marriage and other freedoms that she described as currently under threat from a “right-wing extremist United States Supreme Court.”
Flexer said the proposal would ensure that Connecticut residents’ “rights to be an equal and full citizen in this state will be protected … no matter who serves” in the State House or the Senate.
“In far too many states in this country, people’s rights are going up and down, backwards and forwards, based on the whims of legislators, and that’s just not how it should be. People should have some continuity in knowing what’s protected,” Flexer said.
“While it’s important that people understand elections have consequences, I think that there are certain things that should be protected as equal rights no matter what, and that’s why we’re advancing this amendment,” Flexer added.
Despite these state-level protections, Flexer said the amendment may not hold up against a congressional abortion ban.
Flexer said Connecticut’s constitutional amendment would offer “additional protection that could give us some other avenues to maintain reproductive rights here in Connecticut if a national ban were to pass.”
In Monday’s debate, opponents to the proposal expressed a wide range of concerns, saying that the proposal would create unfettered access to abortion and gender-affirming health care for all ages, inhibit future debate and legislative action on such topics, limit parental and religious rights, and restrict opportunities and put girls at risk by allowing transgender athletes to participate in women’s sports.
Kim Jones, the co-founder of Independent Council on Women’s Sports, said that sex and gender identity are “inherently in conflict” with one another.
Jones explained that under the provisions in the proposal that protect transgender women and girls, a person’s “sense of self, is allowed to supersede or be equated to the value of the rights of a woman based on her sex.”
“As soon as you equate sex to gender identity, women are no longer protected on the basis of sex,” Jones said. “As soon as you say that, I have to recognize a man as a woman in sport, in a prison, in a rape crisis center in health care, in language, a woman no longer has representation and recognition as a member of the female sex.”
Ranking Member Rep. Gale Mastrofrancesco described the language in the amendment as “very concerning” both for the potential impact on girls’ sports, its application to gender-affirming care for minors and its potential to create what anti-abortion advocates described as unrestricted access to abortion.
“The language itself, it is saying that you could terminate a pregnancy on demand, up to birth, and I think it’s important that people know that,” Mastrofrancesco said.
In Connecticut, the right to an abortion is protected up to 24 weeks, or up until birth in cases where the life or health of the mother is in danger.
Flexer said the amendment would not supersede this restriction or any other reproductive health care policy or statute in the state.
“What we’re talking about here is making sure that the right to make your own reproductive health choices are enshrined in our Constitution,” Flexer said. “Anything that is specific is going to be in statutory language, just like it is now.”
Others who testified Monday expressed concern that the proposed amendment will lead to court rulings that could erode religious freedoms, parental rights and abortion restrictions.
Peter Wolfgang, the executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, said the proposed amendment would open up a “Pandora’s box of ill effects on our society.”
“This amendment is so vague that it will be open to whatever interpretation courts and administrative agencies choose to give to it,” Wolfgang said. “Absent language to the contrary, there is nothing stopping every radical consequence mentioned above from becoming a reality and still more radical things that we cannot as yet even conceive of.”
On Monday, the two individuals who testified in favor of the proposed amendment emphasized the need to make current rights and freedoms permanent through the Constitution.
“When it comes to enacting laws that protect our (LGBTQ+) community and families, Connecticut’s laws are indeed robust. At the same time, we know these rights and protections are not equitably realized, nor can they, can this progress be taken for granted,” Matthew Blinstrubas the executive director of Equality Connecticut said.
Gretchen Raffa, the vice president of public policy, advocacy and organizing for Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, said that reproductive health decisions are deeply personal and should not be subject to political interference.
“It’s clear that overturning Roe v. Wade was never the end game for anti-abortion lawmakers and allies,” Raffa said. “Attacks on sexual and reproductive health care continue at breakneck speed in Congress and in states across this country, with 21 states that have banned some or all of abortion care, and those states are also banning gender-affirming care.”
“Connecticut must continue to lead and do everything we can to protect this essential health care for people who need it,” Raffa added.
Flexer said the proposed amendment was modeled after a similar proposal on New York’s ballot this November.
The constitutional amendment process in Connecticut requires proposed amendments to secure a three-fourths majority in both the House and Senate before it is placed on the ballot for electors to approve in a popular vote.
If a proposal receives a majority in both chambers but does not pass the three-fourths threshold, the proposal is held and reintroduced after the next regular state election. If the House and Senate approve the proposal by another simple majority, the proposal can go on the ballot.
Flexer said that in all likelihood the bill would likely take this second route.
“I’m not sure it’s going to be on the ballot for this election year,” Flexer said. “The process is a lengthy one by design. It shouldn’t be easy to change our state’s constitution.”
If the proposal passes the legislature, the ballot question, as written in the current language, would ask state voters “Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to amend the equal protection clause to provide that discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination based on pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity and expression?”
Opponents criticized the question as deceptive and misleading. Many noted that language leaves out “termination” in relation to pregnancy and “related health care” in relation to gender identity.
“Most voters, unless fully informed, may think they are protecting pregnant women in employment situations, not authorizing unlimited abortions and repealing religious freedom. Some voters may believe they are just supporting transgender and gay rights, not eliminating the rights of girl athletes to fight to keep biological boys off their teams” Christopher Healy, the executive director Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference, said in testimony submitted to the committee.
In response to one woman’s testimony, Ranking Member Sen. Rob. Sampson said he agreed with the criticism, saying the proposed ballot question omits “very important words.”
