CT Mirror | CT bill on providing reproductive care info at religious hospitals dies
Originally Published by the CT Mirror
Leaders in the House and Senate declined to take up a bill this session that would have shielded medical providers at religiously affiliated hospitals and other health care centers who offer referrals and counseling on reproductive care, including abortions.
The clock ran out Wednesday night without action on the bill. The measure would have protected providers who offer information and counseling about contraception, termination of pregnancy, gender-affirming care and other reproductive health care, and who offer referrals for treatment.
Proponents had hoped the proposal would be the latest in a series of reforms broadening the state’s reproductive rights policies. Advocates said they planned to revive the issue during the next legislative session.
“We’re disappointed,” said Liz Gustafson, Connecticut state director of Reproductive Equity Now. “We, as advocates, knew, going into this short legislative session, that we were all working against the clock.
“We’re encouraged that it got out of committee, and by the House and Senate co-sponsors. … We’re going to use this time to see if there’s anything we can add or adjust in the language to strengthen the bill. And we’re confident we’ll be able to get it over the finish line next session.”
Gretchen Raffa, vice president of public policy, advocacy and organizing for Planned Parenthood Votes! Connecticut, said she was happy that discussion on the issue began this session.
“We are glad to have begun critical conversations with our legislative leaders on this bill and thank all the medical providers, community members and advocates who took time to testify,” she said. “While we are disappointed House Bill 5424 did not get voted on this session, we look forward to continuing to work towards this goal in future legislative sessions.”
House Speaker Matthew Ritter, D-Hartford, said opposition to the proposal, coupled with a short legislative session this year, played a role in the bill’s demise.
“I know of some internal opposition on our side,” he said. “I think, ultimately, we’re making decisions about bills and how much time we have. We knew this one would probably be a very lengthy debate. And so, it’s one we have to revisit next year when we have more time on the calendar.”
The measure would not have required physicians to provide counseling or referrals but would have shielded those who want to offer those services.
Connecticut is home to several Catholic hospitals. Trinity Health operates Saint Francis Hospital in Hartford, Johnson Memorial Hospital in Stafford and Saint Mary’s Hospital in Waterbury.
The measure drew opposition from anti-abortion advocates, officials with the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference and others.
“We’re happy to see House Bill 5424 did not move forward, because it was an attack on the religious liberty of Catholic health care and the consciences of pro-life health care workers,” said Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut.
“It basically would have compelled religious hospitals, like Catholic hospitals, to allow employees to engage in work conditions that are against the ethical protocols the hospitals run by, and that employees agreed to work by,” added Chris Healy, executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Conference. “We view it as an infringement on our religious discretion. We’re opposed to the bill and will be if it comes up again next year.”
In recent years, Connecticut has broadened its reproductive rights.
Legislation passed in 2022 made Connecticut a legal “safe harbor” state for those who travel here from another state to receive an abortion and for the clinicians who perform them. It also expanded the type of providers who can perform first-trimester abortions to include nurse midwives, advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants.
Last year, lawmakers passed a bill protecting medical providers in Connecticut who face disciplinary action in other states for performing abortions. Under the measure, those providers could not be denied a license, have their license revoked or be denied privileges here based solely on their out-of-state sanctions.
