Legitalk:

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Alright. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to convene the judiciary committee public hearing for Monday, 03/02/2026. Some ground rules. We have a very lengthy sign up, let's say, which we would like to try to get through on an expeditious enough basis so that folks aren't waiting here all night to testify. So it is a strict three minutes. When you come up, there's a bell. If you've submitted written testimony, do not read your written testimony to us. We have it. It's in front of us. There's no need to read into the record what's already been submitted to us. You can summarize. You can direct our attention to parts of your testimony, but, to sit here and read read the testimony to us, frankly, is is not helpful and, and just delays other folks from being able to to testify. Also, if you're here with somebody and you want to buddy up, that's fine. You can come up together. You maintain the three minutes, but you can both sort of highlight. We've each submitted written testimony and we direct you to that and here's a a point or two we wanna make. Committee members, I'll ask to be brief in their questioning as well, so that we can, again, out of deference to members of the public who want to testify today. Alright. With that, we will start with our list. Oh, and one other thing. Signs are not permitted. I was asked to relay that again. Kathleen Johnson will be first. And, also, if folks could identify at the outset whether they are which bill they're testifying on and their position on it, that helps orient us to your testimony if you submit written testimony.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: You you may proceed. Just push the button in front of you. There you go. Yep. You had it. To do it. There you go. You're on.

[Dr. Kathleen Johnson]: Okay. Thank you. Good morning. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee and sponsors for moving HB fifty three zero nine forward. My name is doctor Kathleen Johnson. I'm a registered nurse. I'm nearly forty four years. I have a doctorate in nursing practice with specialization in nursing leadership from Quinnipiac university. I live in Avon and I'm currently the CEO and executive director of St. Gerard center for life in Hartford. I am here to urge you to support HB fifty three zero nine legislation that will require parental notification before a minor obtains an abortion in the state of Connecticut. And my previous role as a school nurse, I could not administer Tylenol to a 14 year old without parental consent. Yet we are here asking that parents of minors be notified before they can obtain an abortion. One of the most serious medical decisions a young girl can face as a nurse. My first concern is safety, physical, emotional, and spiritual teenagers are simply not younger adults, neurologically their prefrontal cortex. The part of the brain responsible for long term planning impulse control and risk assessment is still developing well into their twenties. When a minor is asked to make a significant medical decision under stress and fear, we must ask whether she truly has the wisdom and maturity to weigh the short term and long term implications alone. We must also acknowledge that abortion, whether chemical or surgical is a medical procedure, like any medical intervention, it carries risk while complications may be uncommon, they can occur and minors in particular need responsible adults, monitoring them afterwards for signs of infection, excessive bleeding, or other concerns beyond the physical recovery. Many young women need emotional support. In my years of practice, I have met many women decades after their abortions who still describe complex feelings, grief, regret, or unanswered questions. Others may feel relief, but even then the experience is rarely insignificant. A minor should not have to process something so waiting alone. There are many questions. Younger is often asked about fertility, future fertility and long term health. Well, men, we go on to have healthy pregnancies later in life. Those fears are real to them. They deserve trusted adults to help them understand the facts, ask good questions and assure continuity of care. Most importantly, teenage girls need support. They need someone to drive them home, sit beside them, pray with them if they desired spiritual guidance to hold their hands through recovery. As a nurse, I can provide medical care and compassion, but I cannot replace a parent parental notification and consent laws recognize that minors generally require guidance for major medical decisions. This policy would not eliminate difficult circumstances, but it would create an added layer of protection for vulnerable girls. We are not talking about politics. We are talking about children navigating adult crises. They deserve transparency, protection, and the unwavering support of

[Betty Hines]: those who love them most. Thank you for your time.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or questions from members of the committee. Comment or question. Just let me make sure I check the people online. Comment or question. Seeing none, thank you very much for joining us this morning. Next, we will have Betty Hines. You may proceed when you're ready. Just identify yourself again.

[Betty Hines]: My name is Betty Hines, and I'm here for my daughter. She's a domestic violence survivor, and she's, incarcerated for six years now. And I witnessed her abuse being abused. And I would see her face swollen, looking deformed, and she was going through a lot. I also took her to counseling, and I would make sure she went to counseling because I would take

[Speaker 4]: her there myself, and I would drop her off and pick her

[Betty Hines]: up, going to counseling. It's a lot on us. And with this bill, I believe it could help them if they just, you know, reach deep down in their soul and understand

[Speaker 4]: domestic violence

[Betty Hines]: because it's a lot. It's a lot on the mothers, written out. And in my daughter's situation, you know, I wanna see her come home, you know, and, you know, be a help to me because I'm getting older and I'm gonna need somebody to help me to take care of me. And it's just, you know, a lot, but I urge the committee to be the vote favorably on the survival justice act. We need a system that recognizes that you cannot have true justice without understanding the context of the domestic violence and survival. And no parent wishes their daughters to experience domestic violence, including harm, injury, or abuse. I ensure that my daughter receive appropriate support because I'm always gonna be there for her no matter if she incarcerated or not. But if they pass this bill, she has a chance, a second chance of coming home. And I just wanna thank the committee for just having the time to take with me today.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. And could you just, for the record, say what number of the bill is you support?

[Betty Hines]: HB5306 Okay. Of support.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: And I just want to say thank you to you before I ask if there are any questions. Thank you to you for showing up and, your daughter is lucky to have you advocating for her.

[Betty Hines]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Are there comments or questions for members of the committee representative Fishpond?

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Good morning, ma'am. And, and also I thank you for coming here.

[Betty Hines]: Thank you.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: I know it's important anytime a family member, is incarcerated because I mean, you didn't do anything bad, but, you know, I've experienced that myself. Can you just tell us a little bit more? So you said that she got convicted for she's incarcerated for six years.

[Speaker 4]: Mhmm.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Do you recall what she was convicted of?

[Betty Hines]: Yeah. She that she killed her husband.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Mhmm.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: So a six year sentence on a it was a manslaughter or a murder case?

[Darlene Pollock]: She's done six years, but she was sentenced.

[Betty Hines]: She'd done six years, but she was sentenced longer.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. That's what I would think. Yeah. So she's been in for six and she probably got, like, twenty five, maybe more than that. Is that is that your understanding?

[Betty Hines]: She got fifty years. Okay. But then they gave her another hearing, and they gave her twenty.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So she's already had a a reduction program that presently exists?

[Betty Hines]: No. She didn't go through the program yet.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Well, she was

[Betty Hines]: She was gonna have a whole new trial.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So I'm just trying to figure so originally when she was convicted, she was sentenced to fifty years.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: And then somehow it got reduced from fifty to twenty.

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: Yes.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Yes. And I would expect that that's through some sort of rehearing, resentencing program that already exists. Correct?

[Betty Hines]: Well, I think why she got that because they violated her constitutional rights. So that's how she ended up with the twenty years.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So I'm trying to figure out I mean, the bill that's before us here today, fifty three zero six. Mhmm. What's your understanding? How would this bill help your daughter?

[Betty Hines]: Because my daughter I really don't wanna get into everything, but what what with my daughter, they said I'm going by what they said. They said she wasn't there and she didn't pull the trigger, but she had somebody to do it. Now but they don't have nobody else but my daughter. Okay.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: So I'm just trying to you know, because I've taken the position that we already have programs that assist in this area, which brings me to the next subject. When she was convicted. Was there discussion about the fact that she was a victim of domestic violence and the counseling and all that stuff?

[Betty Hines]: Yes, we told them, but they didn't take that into consideration. They switched it and said she was it was the mess divide on his half, but it wasn't. It was on her behalf because she was going to counseling and everything.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So it's your impression that they said that she was the perpetrator of domestic violence instead of that she was the victim?

[Betty Hines]: Yes.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Well, that's you know, I guess that's their determination. I've just been wrestling with how this would help considering that in my experience, those things are already brought to the attention of the court. So that's what I'm wrestling with. But once again, you know, like the chairman said, thank you for coming here today. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from other members of the committee comment or question from other members of the committee seeing none. Thank you again very much for joining us this morning.

[Eliza Harris]: Okay. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Charmice Walcott. Good morning. You're on

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: good morning, Senator Winfield, Senator Winfield, representative staff, strong ranking members, senators, Kissels, and Fishbein, and distinguished members of your judiciary committee. My name is Charmise Walcott. I'm the state's attorney for the Hartford Judicial District and testifying today on behalf of the division of criminal justice in support of s b two ninety. The division of criminal justice strongly supports this bill, allowing prosecution for a sexual assault, crime to be charged based on a single act or multiple acts committed over a period of time as a continuing course of conduct. I'm gonna read some of my comments, so that I can stay within the three minutes and still point out all the things that I'd like to, highlight for this committee. We have submitted written important to survivors of sexual assault, especially child victims. My comments and focus while on children also support,

[Speaker 4]: the importance of this bill for vulnerable

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: populations who suffer this form of importance of this bill for vulnerable populations who suffer this form of abuse. We know that the vast majority of children victimized over an extended period of time are unable to distinguish individual repeated acts In cases where a victim is able to provide specific testimony regarding multiple separate incidents of sexual assault, a prosecutor can decide to charge the offense as multiple independent counts. However, in cases where there's general testimony of multiple incidents of sexual assault that occurred over a period of time, but precise details regarding time and location are indistinguishable, often as a result of the length and severity of the abuse, they cannot be charged because it's unclear in our current sexual assault statutes that a single count of sexual assault can encompass a continuing course of conduct. Numerous children have been impacted by this simple issue of statutory construction. And to highlight that, I just wanna point out for this committee that every time a child meets with prosecutor and has to relive their abuse so that the prosecutor can determine separate and discriminate charges for abuse that spanned years, the child is traumatized. If the child does not provide enough detail about specific incidents in the years of abuse, the only remedy for a prosecutor is to reduce their this child's experience to one charge, if any, that is then internalized by the child as a result of them not being strong enough, not remembering enough, not being believed enough. And that's a wrong message to send to child children. Without a continuing course of conduct, the child is told that it is just the one instance that the jury is to consider, and they are often precluded from testifying to their full story. This pretrial work does not replace a child then having to take the stand in a court of law to tell in vivid detail about their abuse. Again, their testimony is before a jury of eight to nine strangers in a courtroom that's often full of over 20 people where they are then subject to cross examination by an attorney with the charge abuser sitting feet from them. And then if there is a finding of guilt at sentencing, the judge is reminded how the state charged only one incident that the jury convicted the defendant of only one incident and that the court's consideration should reflect only that one incident. This all results in children that suffer and endure long periods of abuse, having their abusers shielded from hearing that child's experience, from being judged for all of their actions and being sentenced for the years of torture and abuse the victim endured. This legislature has the opportunity to close a loophole that allows perpetrators of abuse to benefit in a court of law from a child's vulnerabilities and inability to provide dates and times in a precise linear fashion. I thank the committee for affording this opportunity and provide input on the matter. We would be happy to answer any questions that you may have regarding SB290.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee representative Fishburne.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, mister chairman. It's nice to see you again.

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: Thanks too.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: You know, I guess the concern that I have is the due process on the defendant's side. You know, I was recently involved in a case where there's allegations that a young lady aged eight to 14 was sexually abused. Dates were not provided. The gentleman was arrested for three counts of sex assault. First, the DNA came back negative and charges were reduced as a result to say on a, on a due process concern, John Smith, did something internally, let's just say to a child, on more than one occasion. And to be able to go to conviction on that without specifics, that's, that's actually what we're dealing with here. We've got an identified perpetrator. We've got an identified victim. We may have a location, but we don't have a date time, that kind of stuff. That's what we're taking out of the scenario.

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: Is that a quick, can I answer that? Well, no, I think that the, and that's where, some of the confusion comes in. The issue is not whether or not the child can provide details, contextual details, idiosyncratic details that that that that lend credibility to their abuse over the time period. The issue is that when children cannot, say that this abuse happened, you gave the example of eight to 14. So that's six years when they cannot say in that six years that, okay. I was abused in January, June, October of, you know, each year over those three years. And this is how that abuse scenario happened. Then prosecutors are left with an inability to charge except for maybe one count. Right? So let's just say, and, and, and using your example, let's just say that that that child can say precise dates, maybe they kept a journal and they can say I was abused in this month, this month, this month, and that month, And to substantiate their abuse, they're able to testify and give details of of the abuse and the assault. Great. Prosecutors and a prosecutor then has to decide, do I charge six counts, per year for six years for a total of 36 counts? Do I charge one count per year? They have charging decisions to make. But if that same child did not keep a journal, let's just say, and what they what they can testify to is the context and the details of their abuse, but they can't tell you when over that six years. They could just say between eight and 14, this is what happened. Right? And it's like brushing your teeth between eight and 14. I brush my teeth every single day. I might have missed a day here and there, but overall, I brush my teeth every day. They can't tell you what would have distinguished an abuse incident in January from an abuse incident in June at nine versus 13. Right now, the way our statute is set up, I can't charge a continuing course of conduct. I can't bring a count that says this child suffered abuse over these six years. If I can't show individual counts, then I can't charge a sexual assault. And so, the statutory fix and and and what's proposed in this legislation is to simply say that a sexual assault could be one specific incident. That child was abused on January 1, January 15, and January 30, or it could be the child was abused during January 2025.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: I'm still wrestling with this. Right.

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: So when the So so, you know, and just kind of taking it a step further, Once that charge is made, right? Let's just say, the decision is made to charge a single count of sexual assault as a continuing course of conduct for abuse that span, we'll make it easy. That's been a month Child can't say what day in that month they could just say every day for this month, I was abused. We charge one count sexual assault, continuing course of conduct. We go into a court of law. When that child takes a stand and testifies, the jury still has to decide based on the testimony that the child gets, whether there is enough context and details for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that that that the story of the child is saying is credible. Right? We still have to meet each and every element of sexual assault, first, second, third, whatever it is that we're charging. We still have to meet all the elements. The only thing that that this bill changes is when we get to the time. Right? Can we say that the jury can consider that child's full testimony of the abuse they experienced over the time period charge, which in our hypothetical is thirty days? Can they look at that that that that child's testimony, in full context and say, based on this child's testimony of what they experienced in that thirty days, I find that they suffered, or, or that a, that this defendant is guilty of committing a sexual assault.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: I understand. I but the thing that I don't understand is let's just say that the child tells the prosecutor police it happened on two occasions in January. Why you can't just charge two two charges?

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: If that's the case, then we could just charge two two charges. And we're and and and and that is a, that is the uncommon scenario. Right? The more common scenario that we see, especially with child sexual abuse, is that it happens over a period of years, and they're not able to say it happened on this day, that day, that day, and the child's not keeping a journal, that says on this day, this is what happened, and and and and there's details. In cases where we have that great, but the vast majority of them, we don't. If it is a case where, where where where where the details are, it happened again on the first and the fifteenth, we could charge the first and the fifteenth, or in that same case, we could say, you know, we're only gonna charge a first or only charge a fifteenth, but we have decisions, and, and we have an ability to charge based on the disclosure of this child. When it happens over a year under our current statutory framework, we don't have a charge that, that we can bring if that child cannot say this is when it happened.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: You can't charge or it's a more difficult case?

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: We cannot charge a sexual assault in that scenario.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Because of the unidentifiable

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: date. Right. So going back pre pre, pre Joseph This is Joseph, Josephine. We would charge the year. Right? Let's say we're talking 2024. Let's say between January and December 2024, this child, suffered abuse, a sexual assault, and that was determined to be charging a continuing course of conduct. And under statutory, statutory current statutory language, it's not clear that a continuing course of conduct can be charged. And I, and I shouldn't even say it's not clear. The Supreme court has said we cannot charge a continuing course of conduct, as a sexual and an a sexual assault.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: And the concern there was the concern that I raised, I believe, is the due process. No. So able to defend against a claim like that. Like, I wasn't in town. Right? That's usually when you led somebody that something on a particular date,

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: they're able to

[Speaker 4]: say that

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: they were not in town. So the court decision did didn't specify a due process claim. It looked at the plain language of the statute and said, our legislature has not said that you could do this, therefore, you cannot do this. And, in fact, the the case lays out, how difficult their decision makes it, not only for child victims, but also for prosecutors. The due process claim you're raising, right, is to say, well, a defendant should should be you know, we we we we should ask, victims who suffer abuse over a period of time to document each and every time the abuse occurs so that a defendant could say, well, I was out of town on that date, that date, or that date. Okay. But that's not the way this crime happens. Right? We're normally talking about somebody who has access to that child on a regular basis, And we're talking about a a a a crime that happens in secret, in the middle of the night. Our most common defense is simply it did not happen at all and the child's making it up. Right. And the defense is a, a, a inquiry into that child's credibility. And we just say, well, well, not weed. They did the defenses, they're lying. It's not that I was out of town for that. Now, if we do have two simple indiscreet incidents, then that defense is open and defendants have said, well, I was out of town on that date, or I was away on that date and it's there. But the issue here, and, and the issue flag wise Supreme court was not, was not due process. Due process is still served. This does not eliminate any element that the state has to prove.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Representative Howard.

[Representative Greg Howard]: Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, Charmeese. Thank you for those answers. I'm trying to and I appreciate let me just say this for those of us who aren't lawyers. Am I correct in my understanding that the Supreme Court in their finding in Joseph actually suggested that the legislature may take a look at changing our statutes to me or other states because they weren't concerned about due process. They were concerned that our statutes were were written in a way that sort of made it this way. Is that right?

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: That's exactly it.

[Representative Greg Howard]: So I I'm trying to draw a parallel elsewhere in statute, and and the best I can come up with is an embezzlement case. Right? So if you have an employee of a company who's embezzling funds over three year time frame, say, right, you you correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't have to prove the elements on this particular day that that defendant stole $25,000. And on this particular day, where it's it's generally one larceny over that period of time, not 70 different larcenies for each time they did it, but, basically, they stole x amount of money over this period of time. Now in an investment case and, again, I'm I'm I'm asking. I'm this is my understanding that it's not it wouldn't be say over three year time, you're looking at the amounts, 30 counts of larceny fourth. It'd be one count larceny one if it reached that. Is is that right?

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: Yes. Yep. That that that's correct, and and and that's a great analogy. Right? So if we charge as one count of larceny first, the the the charges, twenty year felony, versus, let's say, 40 counts of larceny four, which would be, you know, one year one year misdemeanor if you had 40 counts, and you actually have an exposure of forty years. So so so you have a larger exposure with the, smaller stacked cases, but we generally bring it all together and charge one course of conduct.

[Representative Greg Howard]: So correct me if I'm wrong, but if so am I hearing then that we're telling businesses in in in the state of Connecticut that as the victim of an embezzlement, that they don't have to prove or or the or or the state the state on their behalf, so to speak, doesn't doesn't have to prove the elements of each individual larceny, but provided that they can convince a jury the state can convince a jury for that victim beyond a reasonable doubt that this individual stole x amount of funds over x period of time, that is sufficient. But yet we're telling child sex assault victims a totally different thing that they they in order for the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for them, this traumatized child has to remember and be able to help the the the state prove the the the elements of a single crime on a single date. Is that fair, what I just said?

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: That's accurate, what you just said, and that's completely unfair to child victims. And that's

[Representative Greg Howard]: Thank you.

[Speaker 4]: That was Yes.

[Representative Greg Howard]: Thank you for clarifying that. I'm sorry. So, yeah, what I said was a fair representation of the current law. Is that correct?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: Yes.

[Representative Greg Howard]: Okay. Yeah. I and I think the unfairness of it sort of speaks for itself. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Are there comments or questions from other members of the committee? I I just have a question for you. Did you read the testimony of the public defenders and criminal defense lawyers?

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: Candidly, senator Winfield on this round. I did not.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. I

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: have read it previously.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yep. No. It's fine. They they in part talk about some of what representative Fishbein was talking about and then also definition of the term used here about continuous conduct and how it's not well defined, and they have some concerns there. I understand what you're trying to do, and I think you know that I'm a child victim of a sexual assault myself that function in exactly the way that that that you're talking about. And so I get it, but I do have concerns about the definitional part. Can you speak to that or would you need to?

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: No. We, we we had gone, the this bill is is in some ways is not new. Right? Like, well, like we we had addressed it back back back in 2024. The issue with a definition and what the public defenders, were historically asking for, is to define a a elongated period of abuse. So at one point they had said, I I think it may be California that that that that has, like, the child would have had to suffer abuse longer than three months in order to qualify, as a victim where a continuing course of conduct charging element could be used by prosecutors. And the issue with that, again, is that depending on the age of the child, we're asking them to, identify dates and times and to say, well, you know, when did your abuse start? If it started February 12, then we gotta show that the last incident happened after May 13. And and and we're again in that same area of of asking them to do what, at what they cannot do at an age. And, and, and it just didn't It's not fair with that. And, and, and last time we talked about California, California also has an increased penalty. Right? And, and, and so what we've done here and, and what the legislature has done here in the city of Connecticut was to, you know, not impose the, these mandatory minimums on, on child sexual assaults. Right? Like we don't have twenty five year mandatory minimums, California. They do. If you meet that threshold where you can show that the abuse lasted longer than three months and and and there's some additional elements and all of a sudden, it's a twenty five year maximum penalty. And so there were things about the statute that were good and there were things about statute that that weren't good. And so where we settled that with with this language just adding in the the the addition of the continuing course of conduct, it satisfied Joseph v. It did not add any elements to to to to current prosecutions. It did not take away from defendant's ability to challenge, and and and raise their due process and then say, you have to prove me guilty. It does not diminish what is expected of the child when they appear in court and they testify. And so we really, distilled it down to its most basic element to just address the the issue that was highlighted by the court in Joseph Bay.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Thank you. Further comment or question? Further comment or question. Seeing none, thank you very much for joining us again. Okay. Next, we have, Janine Tarantello. Janine Tarantello. I guess this is a great point to say to folks. If you get missed and it's not someone online who I can see trying to get on, We're gonna put you at the back because we have a lot of folks and they need to be able to get through. So please, when it's your turn to testify, try to be ready. I know it's a long day, but, that's what we're going to do. Mark Desrosiers Desrosiers? I'm gonna you tell me how it is, and when I next say your name, I'll get it right.

[Speaker 4]: Thank

[Mark Derosier (retired dentist, deacon)]: you, Senator Winfield, representative Straffstra, and members of the judiciary committee. My name is Mark Derosier. I am a retired dentist, a deacon in the Catholic church. I reside in, Columbia. I come before you today in support of House Bill five three zero nine. Abortion causes the life because of the loss of the life of an unborn child. This evil is compounded when it is done on a mother who is a minor. I am sure others will testify how it compounds the murder. I want to point out the inconsistencies when the procedure is being done on a mother who is a minor. As a healthcare provider, I am obligated to obtain informed consent for any care I deliver. This important concept requires the provider to explain the procedure in such a way that the patient understands the risks of continuing the care as well as the risks of refusing it. When I treat patients, I am not allowed to obtain a legal consent from a minor. I need their parent or guardian to grant the consent. The presumption is the minor cannot provide a proper consent because they are too immature to understand. If I treat a minor without first obtaining consent, I am not only liable for malpractice, but could also be subject to a battery claim. An adult must authorize treatment before it is performed. Consider your own children. Don't you want to know what treatment they will receive? As an adult and a parent, you have the knowledge, the judgment, and the maturity that a minor does not. You are the one best positioned to give the options to your daughter. Are we as a society so determined to abort our future that we are willing to not only kill the unborn child, but lower our health care standards so that parents can no longer help their daughters through difficult times such as a pregnancy. No one but a loving parent is best suited to guide the child through this difficult time. While reviewing the written testimony submitted on this bill, I noticed that those against the bill are the ones benefiting financially from performing abortions on these immature minors. Please make sure that parents are involved in their children's lives even when their life faces an unwanted pregnancy. Our family is such an important unit of society. I thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration of this issue. Urge you to vote yes. And I am happy to answer any questions.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee, comment or question. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you. We have Mariah Taher. Taher?

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. Good morning.

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: I'm here. Morning.

[Mariah Taher (Sahiyo/CT Coalition to End FGMC)]: My name is oh, good morning. My name is Maria Tahir, and I am a cofounder and executive director of SAO, an organization that uses storytelling to address female genital mutilation and cutting or FGMC. I also helped form the Connecticut Coalition to end FGMC, a coalition who has been advocating for a bill on FGMC for the past five years. And I am a survivor of FGMC who is here today to to express my strong support for s b two five nine, an act concerning female genital mutilation. S b two five nine is a strong first step towards Connecticut protecting all those impacted by this human rights violation. The f g m c is a form of gender based funds that involves the removal of part or all the external female genitalia for nonmedical reasons causing long term physical, emotional, and psychological harm. The bill is thoughtfully crafted and survivor centered. It includes key provisions to prevent FDMC, protects young girls, such as allowing testimony outside the courtroom, and provides victims with access to justice through civil act excuse me, civil action and extended statute of limitation. It also clearly establishes FGMC as a crime. A common misconception is that FGMC only affects communities in other countries. My own story and story collected from over 80 survivors in Seo's voices to end F GMC project dispels this myth. I was born in The US and underwent F GMC on a trip to India. In the years following, family and friends of mine underwent the procedure here on US soil. The 2017 federal Michigan case is another clear example of FGMC occurring domestically. It is important to recognize that FGMC is not a new occurrence in The US. Up until the nineteen sixties, FGMZ was even recommended as a form of chlidrodectomy in medical books to treat women for hysteria and mental illness. FGMZ does not discriminate. It affects girls of all backgrounds. The CDC has estimated that over half a million women and girls in The US have undergone our risk of undergoing FGMC and Connecticut ranks 26 nationally. Critically, this number is an undercount as it excludes American board survivors like myself and others who attended our workshop at SAO. The true number is most likely much higher. This underscores the urgent need for Connecticut for Connecticut to pass its own strong comprehensive law. A US district judge in 2018 in contesting the original federal law opinion that FGMC was local criminal activity to be regulated by the state. With 41 states in The US already having a law, Connecticut must ensure it protects all girls from this violence. I strongly urge you to pass s b two five nine to ensure all survivors are able to gain the support and justice they need. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Are there comments or questions from members of the committee? Are there comments or questions? There are none. I wanna thank you very much for joining us this morning.

[Christina Bennett]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: See Marcela, Kurt Kowalski.

[Marcela Kowalski]: Members of the committee, I'm Marcela Kowalski. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. I support HB fifty three zero nine because parents are responsible for their minor dependent children. That's why they're called dependents. For the legislature to allow procedures to be performed without parental consent is a violation of constitutional rights and religious beliefs. I pray that all will see abortion as unthinkable. I hope to see everyone at the Connecticut March for Life on March 18. Thank you for your time.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Representative Fishbone.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Christine, I I just want to say thank you for your advocacy is we had a very nice conversation yesterday and, always see you up here fighting for, what we believe to be right. And, once again, thank you.

[Marcela Kowalski]: Thank you, representative Fishbein.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Further comment or question from members of the committee, further comment or question? There are none. Thank you for joining us.

[Sheila Kimble]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Next, Thomas Burr. Thomas Burr. K. Jessica Power. Do you have are you streaming this in another place or is it on your television?

[Speaker 4]: I just I just

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. We'll come back to you because you are legitimately here. Kate Mogulescu?

[Jessica Power]: I think it's working now. Would I be able to go now?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Jessica Powell,

[Speaker 4]: you you can go on it.

[Jessica Power]: Great. Thank you. Sorry about that. Okay. So good morning, co chairs of the judiciary committee and colleagues. My name is Jessica Power, and I am a resident of Coventry, Connecticut. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of HB 5,309, an act concerning the provision of to of notice to a parent or guardian of a minor child who seeks to receive pregnancy related care services. In May 2025, in an article by the Connecticut Mirror, they shared that the number of investigations for human trafficking in the Greater Hartford region had risen by 200% during 2022 to 2024. '27 of the victims of human trafficking, that the Greater Hartford Task Force was helping were children, and nearly three quarters of the victims were, the victims were victims of sex trafficking. Child sex trafficking is a major problem in Connecticut. HB five three zero nine's provision to notify parents that their child is seeking an abortion could be a life saving measure to save a child from being trafficked. Additionally, the bill allows for a judicial bypass in situations in which the parents are abusive or for other serious circumstances. If the parents were the people who were being abusive, this would allow an opportunity for the state to get involved and help the child. Even blue states like Maryland and Delaware require a form of parental notification for minors receiving abortions. Even Massachusetts requires parental notification for children under the age of 16 to receive an abortion. This provision should be enacted for the safety of our minors here in Connecticut. Thank you for your time and for your support of h b five three zero nine.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee? There are none. Thank you very much for joining us this morning.

[Jessica Power]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Next is Kate Mogulescu.

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: Yes. Good morning, everyone.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Good morning.

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: I'm I'm Kate Mogulescu. I am a professor of clinical law at Brooklyn Law School, and I'm the legal and policy director of the Survivors Justice Project in New York. I am here testifying in strong support of house bill fifty three zero six, the Survivors Justice Act. I am do so I support the bill based on our experience, in New York implementing the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act, which was passed in 2019. The clinic that I run has been handling DVSJA, that's our acronym, cases all over New York State, and I study these laws for survivor sentencing and post conviction, for domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking survivors across the country. The lessons that we've learned in New York show that these laws are critical for survivors of domestic violence who have been arrested, prosecuted, and punished. Our law in New York has surfaced so many important issues that face survivors, who have been criminalized, and this law simply makes clear that domestic violence can contribute to a criminal offense and therefore should be taken into consideration in sentencing and in other important contexts. Like the Connecticut bill, New York's bill has a sentencing alternative structure and a resentencing provision. We have been closely tracking the law in New York, and we are the only entity. The Survivors Justice Project is the only entity that is actually collecting data on New York's DVSJA. And what we know so far in the seven years of New York's law is that all of the dire predictions that our District Attorney's Association offered as to why this bill should not pass have not come into fruition. There were a lot of projections and concerns about floodgates opening. That simply has not been the case. A lot of the worst case scenarios were conjured up about about particularly brutal or disturbing offenses and that people would use this law and take advantage, that also has not happened in New York. In fact, we've seen exactly the opposite where many survivors who deserve relief and fit squarely within what we intend are not able to access relief because of the law's strict requirements and guardrails about who, can get an alternate sentence. We have also heard from people who have been impacted by crime and by loss that they support this law. We have worked on cases where family members who have lost a loved one to homicide upon learning more about the person charged with committing that act and the domestic violence they endured have come to the position that an original sentence or a traditional sentence was not appropriate and have joined us in seeking alternative sentences. We often hear prosecutors say that domestic violence is already taken into account as cases are adjudicated in the criminal legal system, and sometimes that is true. But that is not always the case. And a bill like the Survivors Justice Act makes sure that it that there's consistent application of that concept across the board, not just when prosecutors already are conditioned to

[Speaker 4]: Your

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: time your time is a lapse. So if you could summarize, we would appreciate that.

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: Yes. I can provide some data about New York if people are interested in questions. Otherwise, I I stand ready and available for any questions that any members of the committee have.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Representative Fishbone.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Ma'am, I I understand you talked a lot about New York. Do you have any knowledge of the Connecticut process?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: The Connecticut process in terms of adjudication of criminal cases?

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Sentencing in particular.

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: I well, I certainly don't proclaim myself an expert on Connecticut law. I have learned through the process of working, with people connected to this bill, through a panel that I was on at Quinnipiac a couple of weeks ago. I I think I have a working knowledge of what happens in Connecticut, and some of the themes, I think, are are not that different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. And, when did New York pass its version of this bill?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: The Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act was passed in New York in 2019.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. And how not to, you know, I, I represent victims of domestic violence all the time. The concept here, at least in part, is that they were coerced or forced to engage in a wrongful criminal act as a part of their domestic violence and their therefore should be treated differently in sentencing. Is that a fair summarization of what's before us?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: I think that reflects one of the scenarios these laws are are meant to capture, which is forced, participation in a criminal offense, absolutely, via coercion. There are other instances where someone is not acting in self defense or what we call justification, but does harm the person that is abusing them. And this these survivors justice laws are meant to apply in that scenario as well, representative. Yes.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So I guess if we were to set up a second tier system, you, you would, we would look to prevent double dipping. What I mean by that is a court would be barred from considering domestic violence in sentencing, but employed this law instead. Is that procedurally what would happen here?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: If you're asking about so the way that it works now, right, is judges are allowed to take and require to take into consideration a variety of factors and do when imposing sentence. This law specifically mandates the consideration of someone's experience as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or human trafficking. I'm not sure where the double dipping that you're I you're asking about might occur. Certainly, what we understand, and this actually goes to your earlier question, representative, where you asked miss Hines about the programs that would have already, intervened in her daughter's situation. What we know is that far too often, the the circumstances of someone's experience with domestic violence is not surfaced at the times that we deem sort of appropriate. Right? Maybe to the police upon first arrest, during an initial prosecution.

[Melissa Mannion]: A lot

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: of this hinges, of course, on a survivor's ability to not only identify what they are experiencing as domestic violence, sexual assault, or human trafficking, but also to be able to disclose it to a lawyer, to their legal team, in a courtroom. Many survivors are prosecuted alongside the people who abuse them, rendering that scenario very unlikely. And in too many instances, defense teams, and as as a as a defense lawyer, I can talk about sort of the gaps in in our knowledge and the efficacy of our representation of domestic violence survivors. There are many defense attorneys that simply do not know to ask these questions. Having an explicit statutory mandate that directs everyone, prosecutors, defenders, judges to consider this is the way to ensure consistency. The double dipping, I'm less concerned about mostly because we have more of an issue making sure that we identify eligible survivors than we do preventing people from potentially exploiting or taking advantage of a sentencing reform.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: So, I have to you know, any defense attorney who doesn't ask their client why they did something, especially in the face of domestic violence. I questioned whether or not they should be a defense attorney, but anyway, the, how is the coercion that's dealt with in this bill different from that of, let's say a gang member, a young man who is, you know, coerced, threatened to crimp, commit a heinous criminal act, the same criminal act that is addressed here, but the sentencing would be different. How do you justify that?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: So so this bill is limited to people who have experienced domestic violence, sexual assault, or human trafficking. So you are correct that if a person was coerced in other relationships or in other instances of exploitation, they may not be eligible for relief. I think that your question is a really important one, and and we may want to consider sentencing alternatives in other scenarios where coercion is present. But this bill, the bill in front of the committee right now is limited to domestic violence, human trafficking, and stalking. Well,

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: I think you've got the fallacy with this, the situation, you know, may not be eligible for relief. They're expressly barred from this relief. You're S you're, you're creating a protected class and this legislation creates a sentencing structure just for that particular class, for whatever reason. And I, I'm very sympathetic to, you know, domestic violence and victims of domestic violence, but two similarly situated individuals, both coerced to commit a murder and to have a different sentencing structure, I think you got some significant issues here. So,

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: Yeah. We haven't had that. We haven't the the the concerns that you are articulating have not really hampered our efforts in New York. Certainly, the legislature in New York and and the campaign to get this law passed was joined by domestic violence advocates across the board, the National Association of Women Judges that got special dispensation to advocate for this sentencing reform in New York, and many, many other groups and constituents. I don't think anyone would downplay the severity of of coercion among gangs. It's just simply not what's before you right now. What is before you right now is a sensible sentencing reform that recognizes the link, the very clear link between domestic violence and, incarceration and participation in certain criminal offenses.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: But as a as a policymaker, as a lawmaker, if you start to open up the door to, okay, all persons that have been coerced to commit a murder, therefore, we can avail themselves of this different sentencing structure, then you're opening up to everybody. And just by attrition, it's just going away. But thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, representative representative Gilchrist.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you so much for being here and for your testimony. So one of the you know, stated concerns is that, there be someone, you know, who potentially was the victim of child abuse and then thirty years later commits a crime and tries to make the connection for that crime to the abuse. But, I believe it's your testimony that you haven't seen that be an issue in New York. So, some folks are suggesting that we narrow the time nexus between the victimization and the commission of the crime. Can you explain why that would make this policy or a policy like this unworkable?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: Yes. And thank you for that question. I think that the the safeguard or guardrail that I mentioned before that's built into the law that determines whether someone really is eligible for relief or if the abuse they experienced is too attenuated in this in the scenario that you described is the contributing factor requirement. A court must find that the abuse was a contributing factor. Right? It is not the case that every person that experienced abuse at any point in their life can come into a courtroom and identify that abuse and therefore get a different sentence. There must be a connection between the abuse and the offense. And so if you were to impose a time limit there, what we would find is many survivors again who are precisely the people that we see as the beneficiaries of this important law would be excluded. There are situations where, for example, a triggering event resurfaces a trauma of abuse within a different period of time, not instantaneously, and the law needs to reflect that nuance. Similarly, is someone considered to you know, expected to be sort of healed from abuse after one specific time, but, you know, that doesn't really align with how people experience trauma and domestic violence. Again, the consideration and the the analysis that the court must do is that the abuse was a contributing factor to the offense. That's the guardrail. That is the safety net. And in New York, we have not seen an overflow or floodgates of people coming in claiming early childhood abuse and then being either released from prison or given sentencing alternatives. It just hasn't happened.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, mister chair.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Representative Osborne.

[Representative Osborne (first name not stated)]: Thank you, mister chair, and thank you so much for being here. Whoops. Is there oh, there we are. Sorry. Okay. Thank you so much for being here today and for speaking on this important topic. And I I just this is a point of clarification for me. So the intent of the bill is to provide possible sentence reduction when somebody has committed a crime not against the person whom they alleged to have perpetrated the abuse, but they've committed a crime in general, and they are contributing their criminal behavior toward or and it has been documented that their criminal behavior that that childhood abuse that they received or prior abuse was a contributing factor toward committing that crime against somebody who was not the perpetrator of the abuse they experienced. Correct?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: The law applies to both situations where the victim of the offense is the perpetrator of the abuse, and it can also apply to a situation where the victim of the offense is not. It applies to both situations. Yes.

[Representative Osborne (first name not stated)]: Thank you for that clarification. No further questions. Thank you, mister chair.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Representative Johnson.

[Representative Johnson (first name not stated)]: Thank you very much, mister chair. Thank you for your testimony. Attorney, I do have a follow-up question regarding, the language of the bill, specifically if there were lessons learned from New York State that helped form potentially a bill here that you think has learned from perhaps some of the last five years of the data that you have collected?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: Oh, that was an open ended question.

[Representative Johnson (first name not stated)]: Yes. Yes. I just wanna kinda hear from you, what you think could be some things that are beneficial in this bill that, you know, if you had to do it again in New York, you would actually like to see in New York, given that this, I assume, is not the same language as New York state.

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: There are there are many things that are, parallel between the two bills. There are some things that are different. I think one of the things that I'm worried about actually in this bill, which we also have in New York's bill, is the requirement of two pieces of documentation, that a survivor must demonstrate must must provide in order to be eligible for relief. So, again, I know most of the concern and the conversation focuses on potential floodgates and too many applications and too many people seeking to utilize this law. What we've seen in New York is that actually many survivors don't have the documentation required to meet the law's standard. Police reports, medical records, as we all know, many victims of domestic violence simply do not engage with these systems. And so I'm I think actually a a place for Connecticut to go is to eliminate that requirement because, again, I think many deserving survivors would not be eligible for like, what won't be able to establish with documentation their abuse. You came off mute, so maybe you have a question about that.

[Representative Johnson (first name not stated)]: No. I just came off mute to to be prepared to if if you completed your your statement on that.

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: Well, and then I I also just as to the the concern about the floodgates, you know, we the data that we've kept in New York, we focused on the resentencing provision as one place to really understand the law's impact. And it the survivor's justice project is aware of 232 resentencing applications being filed since the law was passed in 2019. A 104 of those have been denied, and 79 survivors have been resentenced after filing those applications. There's about 50 still pending, that means. So what we're seeing here is one, courts are denying applications and and granting applications, that it isn't sort of, groundswell in one direction or another. Of the 79 cases where survivors have been resentenced in New York, 59 of them prosecutors content consented to. Prosecutors actually agreed that that the survivor should be resentenced. What's interesting is in 12 of those cases, the prosecutors initially opposed survivor's justice relief and then changed their position upon hearing and learning more about the survivor and their application. So in New York, this has saved, for those 79 survivors, two thirty four years from what would have been their earliest possible release. And if they had been sentenced under the DVSJ initially, it would have, avoided close to six hundred years of prison. And so thinking about that and thinking about the impact on communities and families, your bill, representative, allows for that kind of recognition for survivors, and that's really the most critical thing. What we understand from survivors who have been through the process is is the impact of having a court say, you're a survivor of domestic violence, and we see the connection between that and the offense that you're charged with committing. That is where the healing happens. And it's not about and I I am sure you know this already, escaping accountability. This does not mean charges are dismissed. It does not right? It's it does not go that far, but it's just a recognition that because of the the abuse someone experienced did contribute to the offense, the sentencing needs to reflect that. There are other I mean, I I can answer more specific questions about the language if you'd like.

[Representative Johnson (first name not stated)]: No. That was exactly kind of the data I was interested in in learning just because you said you are the only organization that's collected data. And given that we've had five years or so of data, just to kind of see what what, differences, there may be in in the sentencing structure now that you have that data. It it's an interesting example to me of discretion in the court system, but I also am grateful to kinda get a sense of what Connecticut's bill proposed bill has in it that's different. I appreciate your time this morning. Thank you, chair. Appreciate the opportunity to ask a question.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Representative Fishbein.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Ma'am, I just wanna deal with the back end of this, and that's the application of this law after sentencing, in particular, the commutation portion. Does New York's law have the similar language?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: New York's law doesn't deal with parole or or, executive clemency. Our our commutation system is different in New York representative.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Because I heard before that in some of these cases, the defense lawyer doesn't even ask, and therefore, it doesn't come to the attention of the court at sentencing. And I'm looking at the language before us, and it expressly permits a relook even if the evidence was presented to the court at sentencing. I'm looking at line six fifty six through six six sixty one, and it says, an applicant shall have the opportunity to apply for a commutation under this section subsection regardless of whether or not evidence regarding such person's survival as a domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or trafficking persons had been presented or disclosed at the person's trial, sentencing, hearing, or any other app or any application for parole. So that would be the double dipping that I had mentioned previously. The individual has already gotten the opportunity to argue those, to bring those matters to the attention of the tribunal. The tribunal either already employed them or chose to ignore them for whatever reason, didn't find them to be credible, and this legislation opens that up again. Do you disagree with my interpretation of that language?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: Yeah. I wouldn't characterize it that way. I think that, what you're looking at and, again, this is specific to the commutation powers of the board of pardon pardons and paroles. Correct? And in that scenario, post sentencing down the line when someone is seeking a commutation, I believe that the board of pardons and pearls is is equipped and it's well within their power to consider everything that happened initially in the prosecution, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, including the person's, you know, institutional record. There's there's a variety of factors that the board of pardons and paroles considers that may have been raised initially, but weren't necessarily. So I'm not sure that this creates any distinction, other than what they already do.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: But I note that it's totally new language. So thank you, mister chairman.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Coming to question from other members of the committee, senator Flexner.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, mister chair. Good morning. Thank you for your testimony today. I wondered if you could detail for us, maybe

[Speaker 4]: one

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: of the most compelling stories of what you've seen in New York since this law has come into play?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: Sure. I wasn't prepared to

[Speaker 4]: sort of, quantify in that way the most

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: compelling, but we've had numerous, numerous compelling experiences where, again and I mentioned this in response to an earlier question where survivors, just by virtue of being recognized by the court as a survivor, It has a profound impact on them, on their families, and the community at large. And this is also against the backdrop. And, of course, we see this day in and day out, how survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault are silenced, and this is particularly so in a criminal courtroom. This process and the creation of this alternative sentencing structure allows for just not just the intense look and scrutiny of the ten seconds of the criminal offense, the twenty seconds, the thirty seconds, it broadens the frame, and it allows the person's entire experience to be considered. And so one of our very first resentencing cases in New York was the case of a 16 year old who had been arrested for the homicide of an of an significantly older man, a reverend in her community. He was 77 at the time that she killed him, and he had been commercially sexually exploiting her for months leading up to the homicide. The evening of the homicide, he demanded sex from her. She did not wanna engage in sex with him. He came at her. He he she knew he had a gun in the house. And together with a friend of hers, they killed him. She went to trial when she was 17 years old, arrested at 16, went to trial at 17, was sentenced to twenty five years to life, an indeterminate life sentence in New York for that homicide. At the time, she did explain in her original trial what the the nature of her relationship with this elderly person was, what happened in the house that night, and she simply wasn't believed at that time. Fast forward to the DVSJA passes, she's able to file her resentencing application. It goes back in front of the same judge that imposed the maximum sentence on her at the close of her trial. And, of course, you can imagine the survivor now having been in prison for many years was concerned about being back in front of that judge. She did not feel that the courtroom was a safe, compassionate place for her initially. But what happened in the course of filing the application, and, again, just bringing to light her experience with the understanding that we have now about domestic violence, commercial sexual exploitation, trafficking, and abuse, the court granted her resentencing application and said it was one of our first published decisions in New York. A court should never be so rigid as to not being willing to revisit a prior decision, and looked at, again, same scenario from years earlier, but with this different lens, and resentenced her allowing for her immediate release from prison. She had served many, many years. She had effectively grown up in prison. And at the time of her resentencing, and this is the recognition that I was talking about before, the judge said to her, we owe you an apology for how you were treated initially. That's an example of a of a resentencing experience where I think, all can agree that a sentence of twenty five to life for that young person in that circumstance was not appropriate. The DVSJ allowed a second look at that.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you for sharing that story. You also talked about in New York that, there were prosecutors who were initially opposed to this legislation and now having seen it in practice, they've changed their minds. Can you talk a little bit more about that?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: Yeah. So, so what I actually just to clarify what I said in in case I was unclear, in the context of actual cases, there were 12 instances of those 79 where prosecutors initially opposed a survivor's application under the law and then reconsidered when they learned more about the person seeking relief. But like in Connecticut, the only opposition to New York's law in the campaign the legislative campaign several years ago was the District attorneys association of New York. And we have seen this play out across our state in very different ways. There are some counties and jurisdictions where prosecutors are fully, cognizant of the import of this law and seek to implement it and utilize it. There are others where there's been incredible resistance, and it we believe that it should not be the case that a survivor in one county with one kind of prosecutor gets one outcome where a survivor in another county where there's more resistance, is not, given the same consideration under the law. So we have seen a wide range of prosecutorial responses in New York. And, again, some offices, some counties have been incredibly collaborative, supportive of the legislation, and have been working to implement it, and others, have indicated more resistance.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: And so when you are dealing with a prosecutor who is being resistant, how does this act, change the circumstances? How does this act, require that there is more consistency across the board?

[Kate Mogulescu (Brooklyn Law School; Survivors Justice Project)]: Well, first, it puts it in the hands of the judge. It allows a judge to hear evidence of someone's abuse and victimization and factor that into sentencing. So that was a major change in New York. And as I said earlier, the fact that the statute explicitly mandates it, right, elevates this as an issue that everyone needs to consider has implications for practice. So, I know you're asking about prosecutors, but what it does is where a prosecutor is resistant or is unwilling to see someone as a as a victim of domestic violence, it means that a court can, and can the court can consider the information in front of it. It also means that defenders and defense teams have to take this into account. And I know representative Fishbein was asking me about this before, and I tend to agree with him that if a defender doesn't, they should probably shouldn't be a defense attorney. But the reality is that many defenders don't. And the quality of our defense representation across the board, whether you're in Connecticut, New York, or any other state, leaves a lot to be desired, and that's just the honesty. It's just the reality. So it allows a court to make that determination. And the other critical thing is that it allows an appellate court to review the determination under the survivors justice act.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your time.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, Senator. Comment or question from other members of the committee. Comment or question from other members of the committee. There are no further questions. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. Christina Vosilla.

[Christina Vosilla]: Can you hear me?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yes. I can hear you. You may testify.

[Christina Vosilla]: Good afternoon, members of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify here today. My name is Christina Vosila. I'm a lifelong gender nonconforming lesbian who believes that should I have been born five just five years later than I was, I would have been medicalized. I knew I was attracted to girls as early as the age of five.

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: I didn't know what I

[Christina Vosilla]: was at that age. I just knew that my attractions may be different. Because of this, I experienced an identity crisis. I went from doing and wanting to do all the boy things, thus meeting the current criteria for gender dysphoria in childhood to wanting to be a boy. And why wouldn't I when my childhood consisted of being bullied for looking and acting like a boy as I simultaneously watched every girl that I ever had a crush on only everyday boys? You can become a boy is the single cruelest lie that an adult can tell a young lesbian, and the reverse is equally true for gay boys. The trans movement gives the impression that it celebrates nonconformity, but make no mistake, this movement is a slippery slope to conformity. Over the last decade, I have seen countless lesbians go down the path of trans. They begin to identify as nonbinary only to later identify as men. These nonconforming women and girls end up taking on the appearance and identity of straight men and a surface level of celebration of nonconformity, mass the true intentions of the trans lobbies inter core. The vast majority of gender nonconforming children grow up to be gay. The trans lobby is pushing for gay conversion therapy by medicalizing gay kids before they have a chance to accept who they are and grow up with their bodies intact. Get them while they're young, as they say. And if you can change your sex, as the trans lobby claims, then being gay is a choice. And this logic goes against everything the gay community has historically fought for. Being gay is not a choice, and you cannot escape it. Attempting to escape your sexual orientation isn't without consequence. Children cannot consent to harmful and irreversible procedures, nor should they have access to them in any manner. And why should they be faced with this decision when those very procedures are not proven to cure anything? The laws being proposed today are needed. Inducing physical disease in the body isn't health care, and misled compassion and ideology were used as justification to start this. Stringent safeguarding and patching of all loopholes is needed to end it. I urge you to vote on the right side of history by keeping kids that are like me safe. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. What what bill were you testifying to?

[Christina Vosilla]: Against gender non sorry. Gender affirming care.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: What's the do you know the number you're testifying to?

[Christina Vosilla]: This is the one let me see. Correct.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: I just wanna make sure it's in the record.

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: Had it noted here.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Well, I'll find it. Can I can I ask you a question? Because as I listen to your testimony, I think you were making a suggestion that I just wanna be clear. Are you suggesting that trans folks are gay folks who wanna be

[Speaker 4]: Yes.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: The other the opposite sex? Because my experience is that trans folks come in all different types, including folks who become the the other from the way you put it, kinda become the other sex and still, like, the sex they would have naturally liked. So I'm I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to put forward for us to understand.

[Christina Vosilla]: So, I mean, there there are people who claim that they suffer from a, like, mental illness, but the reality is that and we've known this for probably decades at this point is that the vast majority of these kids that that come out and say, well, I have this thing called gender dysphoria. When they are not touched and they're just allowed to grow up with their bodies intact and just given, you know, therapy, non invasive interventions, they eventually grow out of this condition, and they just realize that they're gay. Now when they're young, right, they they think that they're just born in the wrong body. It's it's almost a form of sex permanence, not necessarily kicking in in childhood.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Well, I I appreciate your testimony. It doesn't comport with the experience I've had because it's not always about sexual attraction, but I appreciate that. And also there are various issues including chromosomes and a whole bunch of things that make this much more complicated than what to me seems to be simplifying as as people's attraction to other folks. But I appreciate your testimony, and it helps us to consider what's before us. Rep Dubinsky.

[Representative Doug Dubitsky]: Thank you, mister chairman. And and thank you, Christina, for coming in. I was going to ask the same questions that the the chair asked and essentially trying to get you to explain a little more the the the point of your testimony. And I and you you've answered it exactly as I thought you would. So I don't really have a question for you because you've just answered it. But I do appreciate you coming in. It must be very difficult to tell your story in public. And I I appreciate you you coming up and and speaking on behalf of people who may be in your situation. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate it. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: you, representative. Just further comment, rep Johnson.

[Representative Johnson (first name not stated)]: Thank you, chair. Thank you for coming to the community today. Just wanted to ask for the record which rep town in Connecticut or if you're a resident of Connecticut. Appreciate that.

[Christina Vosilla]: I'm not, but we do have, safe haven states that are allowing children to travel from other states to still gain access to these procedures. So it becomes a loophole where children who

[Speaker 4]: who are living in a

[Representative Johnson (first name not stated)]: I appreciate that. I just wanted to ask the yes or no question about your residency. I appreciate the answer. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Further comments, questions, further comments, questions, seeing none. Thank you very much for joining us this morning still.

[Christina Vosilla]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Next, we have Deborah Burrell.

[Deborah Barrell]: Peace be with you. I'm here today to support, chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm here to support HB five three zero nine. My name is Deborah Barrell. I'm here to support an act that parents or guardians should be notified and decide their children's health care services. It's so absurd and unbelievable of the things we have to testify against in this state. Just the list of the bills that you are reviewing here today is amazing. There is such a force of evil that wants to destroy children and family in Connecticut. Connecticut's founder, Thomas Hooker, and the founders of Connecticut are sighing and crying with God at what has happened to Connecticut. In the Connecticut in Connecticut's first constitution, the fundamental orders, it stated, we do, therefore, associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one public state or commonwealth, and do for ourselves and our successors, and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, and to enter combination and confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and the purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus, which we now profess. Today, Connecticut's government is anti God and promotes liberating liberty of evil. The question is, why is a 13 year old girl getting pregnant in the first place? Connecticut's public education system is sexualizing young children and normalizing sex outside of marriage. Abstinence and self control is what should be taught at the appropriate age. God made male and female to become godly parents to children. It is not the responsibility of government to regulate family life. I believe that parents should have the sole right over their children unless there is a domestic abuse which should not be defined as preventing a minor from getting an abortion or transitioning. It is such a tragedy that can Connecticut has allowed abortion in the first place. It is a curse that will only bring God's wrath and judgment on all that promote and agree with murdering children. Like Jesus said of hurting children, it were better for him with that a millstone be were hanged about his neck and he'd be cast into the sea than should offend one of these little ones. I I just, I'm so sorry about the condition of Connecticut, and I hope hopefully, I I pray to God that we can change it this next November. And I I I encourage everyone to vote, vote their conscience, but votes vote for God in in this assembly. Thank you very much for your time.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: So so we are not going to do that. We don't do that for or against. So

[Deborah Barrell]: I I know you don't believe in God. So but he but you know what? He still exist.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Ma'am, you don't know anything about me. So

[Speaker 29]: That's true.

[Representative Doug Dubitsky]: That's Please

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: don't go down that path. But for those in the room, we don't show those types of expressions for or against. We ask questions. We allow folks to testify whether we agree with them or we do not. Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you for joining us. Leila Henry. Lila Henry. K? Representative Leno, you are up.

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Thank you very much, mister chairman. Good morning. Senator Winfield, representative Stastrom, ranking member, Fishbein, distinguished members of the committee. For the record, I'm Brian Lanou, state representative from the 45th House District comprising of five towns from, Eastern Connecticut. And I'm here today to speak and, testify in very strong support of House Bill fifty three zero nine. Across our state, across our country, excuse me, from some of the most very conservative to very far left liberal states, share something in common, and that's recognizing the, how essential parental involvement is and parental rights are. 38 states from across our nation has shares legislative consensus that parental either parental notification or parental consent is essential, particularly on the issue of abortion. In Connecticut, administering a Tylenol, an ear piercing, most elective surgeries, include we heard testimony a little earlier from a dentist. Can't pull can't do dental work on the minor without proper parental consent. What we have before us here, I think, is common sense, straightforward to help protect minors, help protect minor girls when they're face facing the decision of their life. They could they're making a literally a life and death decision. Regardless what decision they make, they're gonna be they're that's a decision that cannot be undone. There's no better person to help guide and assist that that girl than a mom or a dad. That's why we need to ensure we're one of the few states that does not have parental notification. Our neighbors to the North, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island to the East have parental consent laws consent. We're asking for a lower standard. We're simply saying within forty eight hours, you need to let, a one of the parents know that their minor daughter is scheduled for an abortion. This allows them the opportunity to know what's going on, to guide and have a conversation with their child, but ultimately, it's gonna be the girl's decision. So, we we have been seeing we've seen a lot of, a lot a lot in the news, very disturbing cases of child sex trafficking and exploitation. The DOJ, Department of US Department of Justice, as well as the Polaris Project have given shown reports about reproductive control with sex traffickers, how they're trying to coerce underage girls into, having abortion, and to continue to shield them from, to to shield the, the the traffickers from what they're doing. And we understand, I recognize that there are times where there is abuse of homes, there's, whether it's physical, sexual abuse, with the with the families. We, that's why we need to have a a judicial bypass, just like the 38 other states across our country that have parental involvement has a judicial bypass where there can be a petition sent to the court for a waiver as it relates to notice for consent or notification. Thank you very, very much for the opportunity to testify, and I very much look forward to any questions you have.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Comment, question from members of the committee. Comment, question. Representative Dubitsky.

[Representative Doug Dubitsky]: Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, representative, for coming in. We one one of the things that a lot of opponents of this bill and similar bills have have espoused is the issue of what happens if the family is dysfunctional, there there's abuse in the family, and the child is not comfortable or is afraid that they're going to suffer some serious ramifications if their parents are notified. You you talked about judicial bypass. Can you expound on that a little?

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Sure. And, I'm gonna I'm I'm gonna I'm saying this as a layman, who is not a licensed, attorney. So I think I'm in the right place. We have plenty of them on this panel with all due respect. So, but, the the the the the concept of judicial bypass, I think, originated, with the Casey decision, the US Supreme Court decision, which was actually at the time a pro abortion, it was a decision by the US Supreme Court that actually supported abortion rights. However, they still recognized how how paramount parental rights are as as it relates to notification and, consent laws. However, they also said there are there are situations where there there can be abuse, sexual, physical abuse, somehow it's unsafe for the minor to, go to a parent, so there needs to be a judicial bypass in place in those situations. So this was even recognized as, early as Casey. So the '38 other states actually put a some sort of judicial bypass in place as a result of the, the Casey decision, and they're and they're they're still in place. I think even though Casey has been overturned, we certainly, in Connecticut, should adopt the the bypass, in addition to the, parental notification, standard. The, there there's several different states. They they do it a little differently as far as as far as what court has, what jurisdiction, and I will certainly, indulge the members of the committee to help make sure we have good j f language on this point. But the, the bypass would be would allow a, a minor to file a petition with the court just like they do in these other state within several other states. The there's a a judge would make a decision, and if if and then what we're calling for in this standard is the preponderance of the evidence, which I believe is just slightly more believable than not that a type that abuse or, the parent is somehow unfit to be notified, just notified of the, scheduled abortion within forty eight hours. So just more likely than not, and that would be the, the the standard that the judge in Connecticut would would use, to determine if a waiver is necessary. I certainly think that's appropriate in those cases. I wanna be very clear. The data and the statistics from across the country have shown in, in states that have parental notification or consent of those 38 states, the judicial bypass is used or is filed that petition is filed less than 10% of the time. So over 90% of the time, the, minors, are okay are absolutely fine with the notification, of the parents. And that actually that that statistic actually complements and falls right in line with, a number of child child welfare agencies from across the country at all different levels that show that over 90% of the homes that children live in today are good, safe homes. They don't they do not suffer abuse. They do not suffer neglect, and the parent is very, very reliable. But, again, in those particular situations, that's where we need to bypass.

[Representative Doug Dubitsky]: Well, thank thank you. Now I I'm I'm actually looking at the screen, and it it, it shows that this bill is about pregnancy related health care services. This bill is only about abortion. Right? If it it doesn't relate to a child going for some type of checkup or standard medical care. It's only abortion. Is that correct?

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Yeah. Representative, what what what's curious about this is there's very, very few, any type of medical procedures or anything else for that matter. As I say, a simple thing as a Tylenol can't be administered without parental consent. I believe we heard a dentist that testified a little earlier today. He can't do work on a minor's teeth. He can't do dental work, or I don't know if that is filling the cavity, extracting the tooth without getting proper consent from a parent. But yet, it's, it and as I was looking at at looking this up, as far as when are there bypasses in places, when do they we waive some sort of parental notification, it's very it's very, very lean. I couldn't find too many procedures or circumstances that involve a minor where you can't involve where you don't involve the, the parents.

[Representative Doug Dubitsky]: And now you had mentioned, sex trafficking and that this bill may help that in some way. Can you expound on that? How how would this bill, prevent sex trafficking of minors? Yeah.

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: I'm I'm certainly not gonna sit here and say this is gonna completely prevent child sex trafficking. That would be irresponsible. However, where there's a where a a sex trafficker can take a minor girl for an abortion and there's no establishment of who the parents are, who this guy if if the if the trafficker brings her into a clinic, who who this is? Who is this guy? Is this is this is this the mother or father and not not establishing any type of parental or, parent or guardianship of of this girl, creates this real risk. The Department of Justice, as I said, and the Polaris Project, both have issued and showed reports, showed statistics that there are often traffickers use reproductive control to take these girls for, for abortions and other other things to keep them, continue to be trafficked. Also, law enforcement agencies at all levels, federal, state, local, county, they don't comment on abortion

[Speaker 4]: specifically or

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: take positions on abortion on abortion or abortion issues. However, they have they indicate that when a a minor is separated or not communicating properly with their parents, they're isolated by the by the parents in some way, that allows for that that makes them much more susceptible to abuse.

[Representative Doug Dubitsky]: Well, I I thank you for coming in. I appreciate your testimony. Was there anything else about the bill that you wanted to say?

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Yes. Thank you, representative. I just really want to emphasize that this we we are talking about the issue of abortion clearly, but this really has little to do with abortion. Right? We wanna make sure that our girls are getting all the information that they're comfortable with every decision they end up making. Right? If I was a father, for example, I would wanna sit down with my daughter beforehand and have a conversation. Right? Talk about the pros and the cons of both possible outcomes of your decision. If I got a daughter that's, you know, 14, 15 years old, you know, I would mention if you decide to have the baby, carry the baby to term, you know, perhaps she's thinking about going to college in a few years. She may be want wanting to go away to a different state, live on campus. Those things may not be realistic. That may not be a realistic possibility anymore. She may have to live at home. She may have to go to a local school. This could impact, what her future has in store for her. But on the other hand, like, this weekend as I was preparing for today, the best I could, I saw a a picture of a a mother who miscarried, and there was a a baby, a nine excuse me, 11 old baby, and it was a picture in the doctor's hand, that was still in the amniotic, sac that was intact. And that baby had arms and legs and a head. It was small. It fit in the hand the the doctor's hand. We could clearly see this was a baby. Right? I think it's important if I that was my daughter that she sees that that she sees that photo before she makes a decision. So she understands whatever decision she makes, there's gonna be consequences. And that she's making the best possible decision for her, and I would absolutely wanna guide her in that. I don't have a daughter. I do not have children, but there are many, many people in our state that do. And these are very gonna be very, very realistic conversations. We wanna make sure those conversations are being had.

[Representative Doug Dubitsky]: Well, thank thank you for your testimony, and thank you, mister chairman.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. There are a lot of realistic conversations that parents have to have with their children. And I think whether the daughter is pregnant or not, many parents are having conversations about the the event of a pregnancy. I have two daughters, and I would love to be able to have a conversation with them, but I know there are multiple reasons why even though they live in a loving home, if one of these set set of circumstances happen, they may not. And what I would love to happen, when that would occur, should it occur, is that they have access to, the medical care that they need. And so you advocate for, the judicial bypass and you talk about the ten percent number to suggest that that means that there is happiness amongst those who, are not choosing to use the judicial bypass. So then I question, how much have you looked into judicial bypass and how it functions?

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Well, again again, senator, I am certainly not an attorney. So I'm gonna I'm gonna, again, hope we lie

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: And not and let me just say, I'm not looking for a legal. I'm I'm just trying to figure out your level of understanding of how judicial bypass functions.

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Well, I I it it depends on the state. For example, I think the state of Colorado, within four days of a petition being filed for a a bypass I'm

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: not trying to put you on the spot either to, like, lay out how it I just wanna know, like, do you have a general sense of how it how it

[Speaker 4]: I I

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: do I do have a general

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: sense. Yes. And your that the sense that you have, you feel comfortable asserting as a fact that the reason that young folks, women, children actually, are are not availing themselves of the judicial bypasses because they're happy with the way things work and fine with the parental notification they would need to. Did that that's what you're saying to this committee?

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Sorry. I'm not. I I think you're saying we're we're saying two different things.

[Speaker 4]: The judicial

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: That's what I'm asking.

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Yeah. The judicial bypass relates to if there's a matter of abuse, neglect, the sexual abuse, physical abuse, these horrible, horrific situations, there's a bypass. You're talking about happiness.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: If if there's an Hold on. Hold on. Because you did use the word they were happy. You said that there was only 10%, and that indicated that they were happy to follow this without the judicial bypass. My question to you is are you asserting that as a fact? Because then I would ask you how do you know that as a first question. Well, the

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: the the the not a certain the judicial bypass. Again, when perhaps your happiness was the wrong word, but I don't wanna sit here and split hairs. 90% of the time, the statistics have shown that minors do not invoke the petition for a judicial bypass. That means 90% of the time, they come from a supportive supportive home where there is not abuse, there is not neglect. And that that falls right in line with what several different welfare agencies show across the country that over 90% of the children in our country come from homes, come from supporting homes where there is not abuse and neglect. Now when we say happiness, obviously, if there is a unexpected pregnancy of a very young girl, if I was a father and I found out my 14 year old daughter, was pregnant, I would not be very happy about that. I'd be very, very concerned

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. It

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: is. I'd ask you. I'd ask you. Not enough for you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Representative, I would ask you to stick to the question I'm asking you. I I I I've heard you testify. I know what your perspective is on should you be a father. I'm asking you about the information you presented to this committee. You presented information saying and and I'm not suggesting you're an expert, you're not, but you did and you sit in a position of a representative. People take your word seriously. You presented that, only 10%, therefore. Right? You you are saying this is there is, you're making it as if there is a direct connection, and I'm trying to figure out is that what you're putting in front of this committee because I've looked into this. And what I have seen seems to suggest something different. It suggests that the number is low for various reasons, which I think many people would understand. First of all, you're dealing with young people just having to avail themselves of a process that many of them don't know about. You are suggesting, as many are, and correct me if I'm wrong, that because they are young, they can't make certain types of decisions. Right? Well, you're also saying at the same time, they should make this decision, to deal with a judicial bypass. The name of it should indicate to us that there's gonna be some level of issue for young people to access. And so I'm trying to figure out, given that, are you actually presenting to us that this is something that you have looked at the data and gone further than the number there, or you looked at the number and you thought that that number meant something?

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Well, again, we're we're talking in the aggregate. Again, over ninety percent of the minors in the states, whether there's some sort of parental, notice that's required either notice or consent, the bypass is not invoked. Right? It's not invoked. Now I I understand that they they have several states have this set up a little differently. I think, again, speaking as a layman, I think we should look at perhaps a point in a GAL for for the minor girls. There is organizations that actually help minors in these situations, in these cases where there's abuse and neglect, such as the, ACLU, the, Jones due process, some others that actually, will will will will help would help the, the girls in these situations. But but the, a number of states appoint a, GAL that will help gather the information, talk to the girl, present the findings to the judge. This is done in a confidential manner, and we should explore that. And again, I'm gonna rely on your expertise and expertise in this committee for good, joint favorable substitute language to make sure we get this right. We have to have a good strong bypass in place.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Comments, question from members of the committee. Sit. Representative. Go ahead.

[Christina Vosilla]: Thank you, for coming out, representative. I really appreciate your comments and your support of this bill, irregardless of how many people, children were able to save, with this legislation. I think it's very important that we move forward with this in a positive way, and I thank you for coming out.

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Thank you, representative. I appreciate your support.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. I just went blank. I I just saw you. I'm sorry. Fizino. Thank you, representative Fizino.

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: Thank you, senator Winfield. Representative Venue, good to see you. Just a just a couple of questions, and you may not know the answers off the top of your head. But, obviously, access to counsel is an important issue to consider when we're talking about this judicial bypass process. I'm an attorney. Due process considerations are always at the forefront of these discussions especially when you're dealing with, populations like minors who are not typically afforded the access to attorneys like other adults would be. So, I guess I was wondering if you had any numbers or anecdotal evidence on, you know, how many minors are actually afforded meaningful representation by counsel in these situations where they're seeking a judicial bypass.

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Alright. And and again, I think there's we're gonna hear some testimony, a little later from, somebody on the national level that really sees us under the microscope, and they can speak a little more about it. But, again, I think it depends on the state, but I know the I believe South Carolina, for example, uses a GAL, for in those situations, as does Michigan. They, the state of Michigan, I believe appoints a GAL, within, twenty four hours. So not necessarily an attorney, but it could be an attorney or a GAL.

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: Do do you happen to know if those services are typically offered pro bono? Or in these situations, is the minor or the family having to come up with some sort of payment arrangement to provide for these services when they, are afforded them through judicial bypass?

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: I do not know. I I believe I I've read that a lot of this is is, pro bono, but I have to check that. And, again, just to be clear and, again, I'm I'm far from a legal expert on this, sir. Know that level of it. But, the, I know, again, there's, there's, several organizations that do assist in filing the bypass, with the minor girl. So

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: Okay. Alright. Thank you for being with us. Thank you for, your testimony today. Appreciate it.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Representative Gilchrist.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for being here. You mentioned ninety percent of what was the stat that ninety percent of young people do connect with their families or could you share that?

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Right. Well, thank you for that question. So there's there's, there's actually two different stats, that I have, have seen, two independent stats that sort of, complement each other. One is, from several, the aggregate of several different, child welfare agencies from across the country indicate that over 90% of the of children in our country come from safe homes, good homes, with, with parents who are not abusive, are not neglectful, and come from a stable home in that respect. Additionally, the aggregate of research has been done with states, and there's 38 of them, that have that judicial bypass in place, that less than 10% of the time, a minor girl will petition for that judicial bypass, indicating that 90% of the time, they're, okay with the notification, parental notification. So you think about that. The the the those two, datasets are are pretty close with the with the numbers.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: Thank you. Just a statement. What's interesting is those of us who are opposed to parental consent also know to be true that most young people will engage their parents. But for those who are unable to do it, we wanna ensure they can get the care they need, which is why I'm opposed to this proposal. Thank you, mister chair.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: If if I if

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: I could if I could respond, representative

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: I I don't need a response. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yep. I think representative, you know, that we, allow for the question and answer, and they are allowed on both sides of any issue, to question and make a statement. So there wasn't a question asked, but, representative Fishbone.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, mister chairman. You know, the the GAL concept is not part of the legislation. So I I do, appreciate the conversation with regard to that. You know, our Supreme Court has opined US Supreme Court, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are fundamentals. We provide for individuals that are under threat of incarceration, with an attorney. We provide individuals that are a threat of being put to death with an attorney. You know, I think if we're to have that discussion, whether or not somebody is going to, represent the interests of the individual who is carrying the child, you know, perhaps the individual is being carried is entitled to legal representation as well. Representative Lanou, you, just briefly wanted to say something with in response to opposition. I just wanted to give you an op an opportunity to, briefly opine.

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Thank you, representative. You know, just to, respectfully correct the the representative. This is not consent. She mentioned the word consent. This is not a consent bill. This is a notification bill. So, ultimately, it's gonna still be in the girl's hands as far as the ultimate decision that she wants to make regarding her pregnancy. So I wanna be clear on that. Okay. Aside from that, I I agree with you, representative. Certainly, you know, I take very seriously my oath, as a legislator. When, when I swear an oath before, the before God in the state of Connecticut that I'm gonna I'm gonna protect the constitution of the state of Connecticut in The United States. That includes life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, life being number one. And I take and I to protect the life of my constituents, and that includes, as far as I'm concerned, the the constituents that are in the womb. And, absolutely, I think you make a very valid point there as far as those rights as well. I think that's a little outside the four corners of what we have before us, but I certainly, you're saying, and I I do agree with you.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Well, thank you for that. Because our our may not, have the ability to share with their, counsel, whether it be attorney for the minor child or, GAL, that there is a a a level of, representation baked into both. You know, I guess my concern is that we talk about parental rights. You know, your your your daughter is curled up in the fetal position in the corner of the room. I think you should know why. And, thank you. And I thank you for your advocacy in this area. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank thank you, representative. Just one I have one question. I don't wanna get into too deep in anything else, but I heard the the the exchange between you and representative Fishbein. Do you not see a nexus between notification and consent?

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Well, again, notification is letting parents know that there is an abortion that's gonna be scheduled or just like any other procedure within a certain period of time. Consent is the parent needs to actually sign off and say, yes. I authorize this. Without what without consent, without authorization, it doesn't happen. We're we're simply just saying we wanna let the parents know what's going on, what's happening with their children, what's happening with their girls.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: I've heard you say that, and I'm going to just ask again. The question wasn't, like, how do we define these things? I'm asking you, do you not see a nexus between them?

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: No. I mean, there there there is a separation. Some some states have a combination of the two, but I I I I certainly think they're they're different. There's a different standard.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Alright. Thanks. Comment or question from other members of the committee? Comment or question from other members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much for joining us.

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Brian Mezick.

[Brian Mezick (President, State Marshals Association of CT)]: We, there we go. Senator Winfield, representative Fishbein, Senator Flexer, representative Fizino, and members of the judiciary committee. Good morning to all of you. My name is Brian Mezick. It's good to be here. I'm a Connecticut state marshal. I am president of the state marshals association of Connecticut. I'm here this morning on behalf of my members speaking in support of Senate bill two ninety one. Some twenty six years ago, this committee created the state marshal commission to follow a constitutional change, which replaced the county sheriff's. The goal at the time was to protect the public's trust and confidence in the service of civil process across our state. The bill before you this morning makes changes to the state marshal commission to that same end. Ensuring that the Marshall system operates effectively. It's important obviously to our courts, to the bar attorneys and to all the public that interact with our civil courts. I want to highlight, an important provision of this bill that we support and it's ensuring, the timely, reliable access to a state marshal for the service of a restraining order or a civil protective order, TRO duty, and the assignment calendar is one of the most urgent responsibilities carried out by our state marshals. And just by way of background, this is the program that has a state marshal in, 15 court houses every court day around the state to meet with applicants and those who need protection. So strengthening this program by requiring amongst other things, proportional courthouse assignments that take into account actual volume of the courts, setting a defined six month calendar for the marshals that have this obligation, establishing a fee for cross county TRO transfers between marshals that's respondents who may live on the other side of the state, from where the, from where the court where this was applied for. This all promotes predictability and fairness in this most critical era. Another important area that this bill addresses is the need to ensure a suitable and qualified people are prepared to serve as new marshals in the years ahead. And to that end, this bill makes improvements to the appointment process for new marshals. And beginning in 2027, the bill would have new appointments for members of the state marshal commission to have direct professional experience related to service of process and state marshal functions. And the commission would include experienced state marshals. We urge your support for this bill. Having a reliable and competent state marshal system depends on strengthening and updating the system that oversees it. And we do appreciate the work of the judiciary committee over the years to make our system better and improve service of process in the state. Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions I'm here and I'm happy to answer them.

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: Thank you, representative. Thank you, Mr. Chair Marshall Mezick. Thanks for joining us as always. Good morning. Just a couple of quick questions. Section one, concerning the State Marshall Commission. I see that we're, contemplating increasing membership from eight to 11. Any reason for us doing that?

[Brian Mezick (President, State Marshals Association of CT)]: Well, most Connecticut boards, and commissions to my understanding have the people that they regulate on the board. I mean, amongst other things, boards that regulate physicians, dentists, nurses, and electricians, accountants have members of that population on it. I think probably most germane to this committee and please correct me if I'm wrong. I think the Judicial Review Council has three judges of the Superior Court on it. The Statewide Grievance Committee has, I think a majority attorneys on that, committee. And then, the police officer training and standard counsel, I think was expanded a couple of years ago to include a couple more police officers and has other police chiefs on it. So, this would bring the commission in line with other, Connecticut boards and commissions that regulate to discipline it amongst other things.

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: And I guess from an experience standpoint too, right? Like we look to, some of those other provisions, like, sixty three sixty six about the makeup of the commission. So, I guess the goal behind that is to have a commission that's reflective of those who know how the operations of state marshals actually work. Right. In practice,

[Brian Mezick (President, State Marshals Association of CT)]: as you know, the role of state Marshall, it's a specific, specific job. That's hyper technical and involved in a lot of different areas beyond restraining orders, civil process, evictions. The commission needs to have that direct experience on the board. It'll make it stronger. It'll allow better, you know, the issues to be dealt with in a better and more timely manner.

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: Just one last observation. I guess that's a good use of the word. I'm looking at, I think it's lines one zero one to one zero four concerning sort of the shadowing of active state marshals who are, currently appointed marshals and dispensing of their duties. Is that sort of experiential observation, current practice now, or is that, sort of a new development that would exist under this new statute?

[Brian Mezick (President, State Marshals Association of CT)]: I think as I've been doing this about eleven years, I haven't really seen it happen too much. My colleagues tell me sort of back in the day that a lot of the commissioners would go out with them, go on an eviction, see restraining order duty. So just want to put a mandate on the commission, but it would allow a framework for that to hopefully continue in the future. So that, you know,

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: one of the best ways to learn how the job works. So, Marshall Mezak, as always, thanks for joining us.

[Brian Mezick (President, State Marshals Association of CT)]: Thank you. I appreciate it. If you would like to come on an eviction or restraining order duty with me, any members of the committee are certainly welcome, or we can find a marshal in your area.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from other members of the committee. Comment or question? Seeing none, thank you for joining us again. Thank you. Grace Williams.

[Grace Williams]: Dear co chairs, Senator Winfield and representative Straffstrom. Pull

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: the mic a little bit closer to yourself. There you go. So we can hear

[Speaker 29]: you.

[Grace Williams]: Thanks. Dear co chairs, Senator Winfield and representative Straffstrom and the distinguished members of the judiciary committee. Thank you for allowing the opportunity to provide testimony in opposition of HB fifty three zero nine. My name is Grace Williams and I'm a master of public health student at Yale school public health in New Haven, Connecticut, but I'm originally from Huntsville, Alabama. At first glance, this bill may sound like a simple notification requirement, but in practice, it creates barriers that delay time sensitive medical care by requiring parental notification forty eight hours in advance. It forces young people who cannot safely involve a parent to either disclose personal information to another adult or navigate the court system. From a public health perspective, these steps do not brew improve safety or health outcomes. They function as structural barriers and limit access to care. I have seen what these policies look like in practice. Like I mentioned, I grew up in Alabama where abortion access was already limited, between long waiting periods, few clinics, and parental consent laws, and it is now completely banned. I have seen how far patients are forced to travel. And during my time working in various health care facilities, the complications that can occur when access is delayed. Most young people already involve a parent or a trusted adult when facing an unintended pregnancy, but this bill does not affect them. It affects those who cannot safely and comfortably notify a parent,

[Dr. Jody Madeira]: young people who do not have access to their

[Speaker 4]: parents, who live in unsafe or unstable homes, or

[Grace Williams]: who fear violence. One in five pregnant minors has experienced physical illness. Violence. One in five pregnant minors has experienced physical abuse by a parent or caregiver, and nearly a third of teens who do not tell their parents about a pregnancy fear being harmed or forced out of their homes. This bill does not create safe families. It creates additional risk for young people who are already vulnerable. While the bill offers a judicial bypass as an alternative, research research shows that this process is itself a barrier. It requires minors to find transportation, potentially miss school, appear in court, improve their maturity to a judge in order to access medical care. In Massachusetts, minors who involved a parent obtained care in care in about 8.6, while those who had to go through the judicial bypass process, it was more than fourteen days. Healthcare decisions should not depend on whether a young person can successfully navigate the legal system and prove their maturity. I chose to come to Connecticut because it's recognized as a leader and this would be a step back in the process. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to vote no on house bill fifty three zero nine. Thank you for the time and opportunity to testify. I welcome any questions.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Senator Fox.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. Thank you for your testimony. Could you speak a little bit more about your experience growing up in Alabama and how that informs your decision to be here today and also perhaps your decision to what you're pursuing with your life? Yeah.

[Grace Williams]: Alabama. I mean, I'm sure many people know it's a very conservative state. I fortunately am privileged enough to say that I was not I did not have to go to my parents, in a case like this or have to, you know, necessarily have an opinion growing up on this type of decision. My parents are people that, like, I could go to, and my mom would wanna know so she could hold my hand while I do this instead of try to talk me out of it. Which that is where there is a nexus, like you mentioned earlier, between notification and consent because parents could then prevent their children from getting an abortion. But specifically where I saw it impacted, I before I wanted to pursue public health, I thought I wanted to be a doctor. So I had to do the, you know, clinical rounds that you have to do before applying to medical school. And so I worked in hospitals, eds, and urgent cares. And through that, I saw I we we saw a couple of patients, that would come in from one of them, she traveled to North Carolina to get an abortion, but it was it faulted. She actually ended up still being pregnant and she was having, immense amounts of bleeding. So she ended up having to go to the ER because we did not have the capability to treat her. I've seen patients where they cannot tell us where they get their abortion, from or trying to get treatment, and they just they still end up getting having the complications that end up, occurring. So a lot of people, they it it creates an entire stigma around it, for people that don't have families like mine or others. Like I said, most people do go to their parent to get, you know, to go through this process.

[Speaker 4]: But it's

[Grace Williams]: those that don't necessarily have a voice and don't have the privilege to do that, that this bill will impact.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you for that. And thank you, mister chair.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Representative Fishbaugh.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Good afternoon. Yeah. It is afternoon. Thank you for coming here today. You you read I, your presentation was very quick, and I was trying to process. Right? I'm passing on purpose. That's fine. That's fine. You had a statistic in there one in five. Can you just tell us what the statistic was?

[Grace Williams]: Yeah. Let me find it in one of five pregnant minors has experienced physical abuse by a parent caregiver. That's not Connecticut specific. This data is from it's observing nationally, which I'd be happy to send you if you're interested.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: So one in five

[Grace Williams]: Pregnant minors.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Pregnant minors has experienced physical abuse from a parent

[Grace Williams]: or caregiver

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: or caregiver. So, and then you said now that's not Connecticut specific. So we are Connecticut.

[Zara Pawa (We Speak Out/SAHYO, survivor)]: Yes.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Where is that statistic from?

[Grace Williams]: It's from an advocacy, organization that I

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: can send to. Is it Africa or is

[Speaker 4]: it It's

[Grace Williams]: United States. It's nationally in The United States, getting data from The United States. And it this specific website, this, this source, it has statistics regarding, physical abuse. It has sexual violence, and then it also goes into do a deep analysis of what this bill has shown data has shown after it's been implemented, what it regarding abortions and their access to minors access to abortions.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: I understand that. So I'm just trying to unpack the data. Right? The the stat. So it's your understanding that in The United States Of America, on average, one out of five pregnant minors is a victim of abuse or abuse from a parent or caregiver.

[Zara Pawa (We Speak Out/SAHYO, survivor)]: Yes.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Right? So the the foundation or the group that has put forth that statistic What is the basis of of that? Because, like, in Connecticut, you really can't get to those records. So I'm just trying to figure out how one can make that representation.

[Grace Williams]: So I don't know exactly where the data was pulled. I'm looking at the source right now that I'd be happy to send to you, and I don't know exactly where that data is pulled. I could not tell you that. I did not do this study myself. But I'm more than happy to compile it into a report and send it to you. The it's called advocates for youth, and it's, this specific brief where I got this data from and these sources, it's about abortion and parental involvement laws. So it goes specifically through that. It goes through multiple states. It does not directly, I can't find the exact point where I found this, but it does not specifically say where all the state of his form from, and the people that whether it's from the state level data or, pull it surveying, it does not say, but I can do a deeper look and send that to you.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: That would be helpful.

[Speaker 4]: I mean,

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: I just you know, I know in Connecticut. So if, let's say, a 16 year old, is pregnant, they appear at the hospital. To my knowledge, hospital personnel is not a mandated reporter with regard to that. So I'm just trying to unpack and I think New York and California have very similar laws as well. So, yeah, I I would be interested to see where that came from. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee, Senator Fluxer.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Just briefly, if this is helpful, I think Connecticut statistics show that one in five, children can be victims of sexual abuse here in Connecticut. Statistically, it's somewhere between fifteen and twenty percent.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from other members of the committee comment or question from other members of the committee. Sinan, thank you very much for joining us. Have a great afternoon. Julianne Faulkingham. Julianne Faulkingham. Zara Patois.

[Zara Pawa (We Speak Out/SAHYO, survivor)]: Hello. Hi. Good afternoon, senator Winfield, representative Stufstrom, and esteemed members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of senate bill two fifty nine prohibiting female genital mutilation. My name is Zara Powwa. I am a proud Hamline, Connecticut resident for over thirty years and a member of a community in Connecticut which practices female genital mutilation or cutting. I am also a survivor of FGMC, cofounder of We Speak Out and the president of Seals Board. As a survivor and as someone who is part of a community that practices at GMC, I would like to see an end to this harmful custom that is a form of gender based violence and child abuse, so I fully support laws to criminalize it. Criminalization of FGMC is just one aspect of a multi pronged strategy to end this harmful cultural practice. The first federal FGMC case in The US was in Detroit, Michigan in 2017 against two practicing physicians in my community. They were charged with cutting two girls from Minnesota, but were suspected of cutting closer to a 100 girls from the community. The real numbers will never be known. When the story broke, education about FGMC and the law surrounding it was profoundly impactful as the conversation around the secret practice began to open up, both in The US and also across the diaspora community around the world. For many survivors, their health care providers did not know about fGMC and therefore missed clear signs that someone needed help. As a starting point, by passing this bill, banning fGMC would help act as a strong deterrent to parents who may be under pressure to cut their daughters by elders in the community. The bill also provides trauma informed protection for survivors to minimize further trauma. I'm a proud nut maker, especially because we as a state recognize when something is wrong regardless of how many residents are impacted. We have progressive policies on reproductive rights and equality issues, and yet we are one of only nine states in the union that does not have a law banning FGMC, which is clearly gender based violence and child abuse. A strong law against FGMC in Connecticut is the first step in ensuring that no more little girls have to go through what too many of us have gone through and that survivors are offered a pathway to make things right. Please pass bill two fifty nine to protect girls from F GMC in our state Because one girl cut is one too many. Thank you very much.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment, question from members of the committee. Comment question. We really thank you for, coming out. We can tell it was difficult. There are no comments. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon, please.

[Zara Pawa (We Speak Out/SAHYO, survivor)]: Thank you very much.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Aliyah Holt?

[Aliyah Holt (Choose Life at Yale)]: Hello. Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is Aliyah Holt, and I am the president of Choose Life at Yale, the undergraduate pro life group at Yale University. And I'm speaking today in support of House Bill fifty three zero nine because it is critical to protect those who cannot protect themselves. And this case requiring parental notification before minors receive an abortion, a serious medical procedure is a necessary move towards protecting young children in tumultuous situations. Minors are not in a position to make life altering medical decisions on their own. More importantly, allowing minors access to abortion without parental knowledge leaves them more open to abuse and pressure from other influences. From peers, employers, and boyfriends. I believe there's been a case in Illinois where we've already seen cases of boyfriends giving their girlfriends chemical abortion pills without their consent. In the wake of a serious medical procedure like abortion, daughters need their parents fully informed in their corner and ready to support them, whatever their decision may be. I myself am only 20, and my younger sister is only 13. I remember a time when I didn't really know properly how to ask for help and would try and do things on my own. And I I believe that parental notification is important to help inform young women's decisions, even minors. Thank you for your time.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee. There are none. I wanna thank you very much for joining us. Enjoy the rest of your afternoon.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Anna Van Cleave.

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: Good afternoon, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for this opportunity to appear and to voice my support for house bill fifty three zero six, the Survivors Justice Act. My name is Anna Van Cleave, and I'm an associate professor and director of the Criminal Defense Clinic at the University of Connecticut School of Law. I've been a criminal defense attorney for over twenty years and have represented clients in juvenile, misdemeanor, and felony cases, including death penalty cases and cases carrying life sentences without the possibility of parole. In my clinic at the at UConn, my students learn about the complex work of mitigation. I teach them about the challenges that we as lawyers face in learning critical information about our clients that could help sentencing judges better understand the factors that led to their actions. I draw on this experience to make two points in support of the Survivors Justice Act. First, that an individual's experience with domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and trafficking is compelling mitigation evidence that should factor into a judge's decision even where it does not amount to a full defense of a crime. Second, that this information is uniquely difficult to surface. The very nature of these experiences make victim survivors far less likely to identify, understand, and share their experiences with anyone other than a trusted confidant. No matter how well trained a probation officer, defense attorney, service provider, or even mental health specialist is, a person may not share their experiences in one, two, three, or even 20 visits. The work of mitigation investigation can take substantial resources, the development of a trusting relationship, courage on the part of the survivor, and time. There are several reasons that information about domestic violence stays hidden for years. One, clients may not recognize their experience as abuse close in time to when it happens. Two, domestic violence regularly happens without any official record documenting that it is taking place. Three, victim survivors are afraid of publicly accusing their abusers. Four, victim survivors may be conditioned to believe that no one will find their stories credible. Five, victim survivors may have difficulty trusting their legal teams. Six, many trial attorneys are not trained to recognize or investigate their clients' experiences with domestic violence. Seven, many attorneys do not have the low caseloads and the resources to do complex mitigation investigation to uncover histories of abuse before sentencing. Simply asking a client whether they have been a victim of a domestic of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, and trafficking will often not elicit true facts about the abuse. This bill addresses these challenges in two ways. First, at the outset of a case during an individual sentencing proceedings. By making it an express part of sentencing and the possibility of a sentence reduction, the bill increases the likelihood that such information will be discovered and presented at the outset. Defense attorneys will be more likely to conduct a diligent investigation that can be presented and there will be clear decision making processes that allow such information to be considered. Second, by offering modified procedures for a sentence modification, parole, or commutation years after the crime. These procedures allow for the discovery of evidence over time when the victim survivor is safe from their abuser, when some mental health recovery has taken place, when documents and records previously undiscovered can be located. So for all of these reasons, I would urge, the committee to pass house bill fifty three zero six. I also understand that concerns about the double dipping of the procedures have arisen before. I'd be happy to address that as well.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee. There are oh, senator Flockser.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, mister chair. Good afternoon. Thank you for your testimony. What were you about to say?

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: With respect to the double dipping, so I I'll point to sort of the structure of the bill, in a couple of ways. First, if you look at the

[Speaker 4]: sentence modification provisions, and I

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: think this is in provisions, and I think this is in lines one eighty through one eighty three, that section of the proposed bill does actually include, a bar to relitigating or reraising, some of the issues if relief has been granted under the provision as part of the original sentencing. I could imagine a lot of reasons not to have such a bar, but at least in the sentence modification context, I think it makes a certain amount of sense. They are structurally similar to the original sentencing. It is often or is preferred to be the original sentencing judge, and it directs the judge down the same decision making structured decision making process. I think when you get to the Board of Pardons and Parole, it's really a different function. So if you look at the Board of Pardons and Parole sections of the proposed bill, those sections direct a different type of analysis, and the Board of Pardons and Parole also plays a different role than the original sentencing judge. I will also point out, all of this is with a caveat. I do understand that there has been some work in addressing some of the concerns about commutation and the BOPP procedures, beyond this filed bill. So if there are procedures under consideration that are different, I can follow-up and and supplement my comments. But if you look at this provision, it doesn't actually send the judges down the or it doesn't send the decision maker down the same structured decision making that would require that they impose a certain sentence reduction of a certain amount, but instead preserves the flexibility of the board of pardons and parole in giving substantial weight to the information that had, may have been previously raised in some context. This is consistent with the sort of holistic approach that the Board of Pardons and Paroles takes with respect to both parole suitability and with respect to commutation, and it makes sense in this context. And actually putting in an eligibility bar would be contrary to the way in which the BOP procedures have interacted with legislation that preserves this balance between both structured decision making within commutation as well as, legislative guidance. And I can say more about that if there are more questions.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Can you actually say a little bit more about that? I think that would be helpful.

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: Yeah. So, I mean, if you look at what the BOPP does, the BOPP really is in the business of assessing risk. And they do that in a in a holistic way looking at a whole package, of information that come can come before them. This is a different set of considerations than the either the original sentencing judge or the sentence modification judge, would have. And if there was a bar to eligibility, that would actually be sort of a unique feature of the way the BOPP operates. So right now, there's broad flexibility in who can apply for a commutation, but the BOPP issues its policies as to who is eligible for the commutation and structures its decision making accordingly. So putting in an actual bar to eligibility would be an infringement on the BOPP's flexibility and discretion that hasn't previously existed in another context. So

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: would it be fair to say that you think those existing systems would prevent, this law if enacted? It would prevent it being misused by individuals that aren't intended to be helped by this legislation?

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: I think so. Because all that is is required of the BOPP is that they grant substantial weight to the evidence before them, which is not insubstantial. Obviously, that's a huge consideration, but it doesn't constrain their decision making in any other way. I don't know if that answers your question in part.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: It does. It does. And then at the other end of the process, can you talk about, you know, what kind of protections exist in our laws here in Connecticut? Because I think you're the only the first person we've had here today to speak, about this bill who, is an expert on Connecticut law. Can you speak to how this is structured in a way to ensure it's not misused?

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: Yeah. So the there are several requirements that would allow somebody to get to get to the point where the judge is required to impose the alternative sentencing structure. So, first of all, they would have to show that the abuse at issue was a contributing factor to the commission of the offense. That's a a guardrail that makes sense when you're looking at this as a mitigating factor. Under the proposed bill, I believe that it it suggests that the evidentiary bar would be clear and convincing evidence, which is its own constraint. And so, I think that in sentencing, probably a lot of considerations are either given a much more flexible burden of proof or an unstated burden of proof, and it's simply the judge is simply to, you know, make a certain finding of one kind or another. And so here, to impose a clear and convincing evidence burden on the defense is actually quite high. And it would be only at that point that the judge would be making a finding that the abuse at issue was contributing had contributed to the commission of the offense, and only at that point that the alternative sentencing structure would kick in. And there is the requirement of documentary proof as well.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: And do you think that I think the bill says it needs to be two pieces of documentation. Do you think that's appropriate?

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: I I think that that is sufficient to create the guardrails that would be, of concern to some members of the committee. I do think that even two pieces of evidence can be, prohibitive for some individuals who are who might seek relief under this. A lot of times, documentary proof simply doesn't exist other than the individual's own narrative, which could be believed or not believed. But at least in this case and under the proposed bill, I think two pieces of documentary evidence would address any concerns about a floodgates problem.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, mister chair.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Representative Fishman.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Good afternoon. Thank you for coming here to to testify on this. I heard in your introductory remarks that one of the reasons why this information may not get to the sentencing judge is that the the lawyer or the probation officer or whoever does the pre sentencing investigation is too busy to to investigate that. Is that a fair summarization of a portion of your testimony?

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: No. I would not disparage the work of anybody who has tried and failed to uncover an individual's experience of abuse. Maybe I can sort of explain what I mean by pointing to my own background and my own history. I started off as a public defender in Washington, DC in an office that was well resourced in terms of expert support and had low caseloads. I I had plenty of supervision. I had access to senior attorneys, with whom I would co counsel. And for the most part, I thought I did a good job. We were trained to investigate, and work with mitigation specialists, and we were trained to uncover histories of abuse in trauma informed ways. I can't tell you how many cases that I missed it because that data is simply impossible to track, but I can tell you that when I shifted over and moved out of that office and started working in a death penalty defense office, my caseload was even lower. My staff and my resources were much higher, and I, as an attorney, was able to spend much, much more time with my client to develop a trusting relationship and to do the kind of mitigation investigation that is sometimes needed to uncover histories of abuse. I can tell you that my experience was that it took that level of work in some cases to get somebody to disclose their history of abuse or to even understand it, in their own minds and and understand exactly how the mechanisms of control had been operating and working in their own lives and contributed to the commission of the offense. So I would not at all suggest that anybody is not doing their job. I think that the defense attorneys in the state and I think that the probation officers in the state do an excellent job. I've sat in on PSI interviews, and I have seen how thorough they are. So I wouldn't want to suggest that the work is simply not being done or being done sloppily. It's just the unique nature of this set of experiences that makes it incredibly hard to discover in many cases.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I think the scenario that you gave us was that at one point in when you were in DC that you had your caseload make made it difficult for you to investigate those things. And once your case load became, less or or you were on the outside, you were able to look into these things closer. And my concern is that let's just say that somebody is convicted of murder, and they are sentenced to sixty years. This law passes, and it's twenty years later. The two pieces of documented proof, it says they can come from a member of the clergy, which I would think that the member of the clergy, if they were around twenty years ago when the person was convicted, they would have been part of that process, perhaps. An attorney, which doesn't have any qualifier, Doesn't have to be the attorney that was working the case back then. It could be the person who's representing the person now. It could be just an attorney who, you know, sits down and interviews them. So there's no there's no connection or a social worker. So it's now twenty years later, and the person is looking to avail themselves of a portion of this process, why should we find that that's good public policy?

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: Let me see if I can sort of point to exactly the concern. Is the concern that something that could have been raised earlier had not been raised and is now being raised twenty years down the road when it could have come in the form of a social worker affidavit or a clergy affidavit?

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Yes. There's an incentive, you know, twenty years later to now make these claims, and those individuals were not contemporaneous to in any way, shape, or form to events that may have occurred two decades prior there too.

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: Yeah. I mean, I think that's an interesting question because I think, there are lots of good policy reasons why you can imagine second look sentencing in general should be available in a variety of ways. And, of course, it does exist in a variety of ways and under certain circumstances in Connecticut already through the sentence modification procedure, through commutation, through parole suitability in 1584 and twenty three one sixty nine. This process, though, I think is tailor made for the unique considerations that arise, when the mitigating evidence, is an experience with domestic abuse, sexual assault, or violence of that kind, and I think it responds to sort of the unique circuit set of circumstances that do make it very difficult to surface that kind of abuse. There could be all kinds of things that are operating at the time of sentencing, that would be changed twenty years later. For example, an individual's fear of their abuser, that could be in a very different place twenty years later. It could be an individual's confidence in whether or not any individual outside of themselves would be willing to come forward and do anything on behalf of that individual. They suffer from feelings of low self worth, of hopelessness, and it could be that that could be a changed effect after twenty years. But, you know, those factors that I listed about all of the various reasons why this might come to might not come to light immediately in the year, two years after the crime has been committed, I think all make this proposed bill tailor made for these set of circumstances.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: So well, thank you for that. The commutations portion of this proposed legislation deals with a second look even if the court let's just say that the maximum sentence on the murder was sixty years. The court looked at the domestic violence issue and sentenced to to lower based upon that. Now we have this commutation, which basically sets them free, gets gets rid of any sentence by presenting that same evidence? Why is that good public policy?

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: Because I think when the board of policy the board of pardons and paroles is looking at a commutation application. I don't wanna speak for the BOPP in any event. But at least from my experience as a defense attorney, when they are looking at the application that an individual files, they're looking at a whole host of considerations that relate to the individual's potential risk to the community, the likelihood that they will pose no public safety risk, their amenability to treatment, and all kinds of other things. And the BOPP, I think, as I said before, is in the business of assessing risk. It would be odd to carve out a set of considerations, I think, from their overall assessment, particularly when, unlike the sentence modification judge or the sentencing judge, a finding that abuse was a contributing factor to the offense would not mandate any particular sentencing result other than that they give that information substantial weight. So I think at least in that context, it would be unusual and anomalous to actually pull it out and say that it could not be a factor in that regard.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Well, thank you. Did you were you here before when you're talking about the gang member situation?

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: I believe I was. And I think was the question raised about whether it creates sort of an anomalous sentencing structure to have this particular set of procedures for survivors of abuse, but not have something similar for gang members? Am I remembering the question?

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. No.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: That's that's very I mean, yes. You know, we have a very broad definition in Connecticut of what domestic violence is, you know, merely living with somebody or and there's a event, you know, whether it be threatening or actual physical, you know, that's domestic violence in Connecticut. They don't have to be related by blood or marriage or or that kind of stuff. And I can sort of draw a line to to the gang member who's, you know, with the group of people, is coerced into committing a heinous crime, whether it's the acceptance by the gang community or something like that, it is, directly resultant of that relationship. Why would we treat that coerced crime differently by employing this statute?

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: I think that's I I also appreciate that question very much because I think it highlights what is at least what is unique or at least uniquely known about experience of domestic violence, abuse, trafficking, and stalking. And I think what is uniquely known is sort of the emerging body of evidence, much of which has been submitted in the form of testimony that speaks to the false tropes and misunderstandings of the workings and mechanism of domestic violence that have made it so difficult to uncover, histories of abuse in in the pre sentencing period. And I think that's why this set of procedures, while it doesn't mandate any particular result with, you know, simply raising a claim that an individual has been subjected to domestic violence, it has a sort of structured decision making process. I think it responds to the particular evidence that has developed within domestic violence literature about what is required in order to make it known that I think has specific meanings in in the context of domestic violence in terms of an individual's fear of their abuser, the conditioning that happens over time, and their hopelessness, and their belief that nobody will believe them, and nobody will come to their aid, and and related to sort of the unique, stigma and difficulties in raising it. It's not to say that there might not be substantial mitigation for somebody who was coerced into gang membership activities, and those can be presented in conventional, mitigation presentation. But I think at least in the context of domestic violence, there's a lot of work that has to be done to, undo a lot of the assumptions about how domestic violence works, and how difficult it is to uncover histories of it.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Well, thank you, mister chairman. Representative Callahan.

[Representative Patrick Callahan]: Thank thank you, mister chair. Professor, I was listening to your testimony and and as you talked about information uncovered during a present investigation interview. As a former probation officer and chief probation officer, I conducted conducted, reviewed, signed, hundreds of PSIs. During the course of a pre sentence investigation interview, the offender, often with their attorney, sometimes with support staff like victim's advocates, sex offender victim's advocates, can be in the room. The probation officer is trained in motivational interviewing. The pre sentence investigation officers has additional training, and they they're asked numerous times during the course of the interview if there's other mitigating factors. And in my experience, you're talking about an offender who is sitting in front of a probation officer making a case for the best possible outcome in the sentence. And it seems to me that you're saying that even so, after all those factors are are included in the process, that the person still isn't disclosing it. And having done all these investigations, seeing cases through start to finish, through the beginning of their sentences, end of their sentence, I've never seen someone come back and say that they've this was missed. I didn't say it. And, also, at the last stage of the game at sentencing, the judge asks again, is there any additions or corrections that were in the pre sentence investigation? So you're saying through all that, this is this is still being missed, and we still need another factor. And following up with what my good ranking member talked about, I'm trying to figure out how this is good public policy when there is procedures in place to catch this to catch these mitigating factors all along. Can you address my statement to you?

[Professor Anna VanCleave (UConn School of Law)]: Yeah. I mean, I on, you know, I guess in the on one hand, I I defer to, the social scientists and, mental health experts, who I think have spoken across the country when similar bills have been raised, to the unique nature of domestic violence and abuse and to the fact that, there are, right now, lots of people who have been identified, who have been incarcerated, who have not raised, histories of abuse as part of their mitigation before for a variety of reasons. And I wanna be clear. I am not suggesting that the process with the PSI interview is is not thorough. That's been the opposite of my experience. And I can only speak to my experiences. You can only speak to your experience, and and say that in the clients that I have represented in the twenty years that I have been a defense attorney, there have been clients who disclosed to me in their first interview their histories of severe abuse of all kinds, and I will also say that there are clients who for whom it took years to disclose anything of that nature to me. I also probably not to the extent that you have, I also have had training in mitigation interviewing and how to do it in a trauma informed way. And I can tell you that details of abuse often surface much later and sometimes not even from my clients themselves because they haven't recognized it. It comes from other family members, former teachers, friends who witnessed the abuse and saw the coercion, and saw the, experience of this individual from possibly a more neutral perspective. So I I have had clients for whom they could not even see it as it was happening or identify the degree to which they were coerced until, we went through a much lengthier process with, mitigation specialists and social workers to uncover a more detailed social history from that person. So you're right. In some cases, absolutely, there will be disclosure during the PSI interview and lots of opportunities. I also don't want to understate the degree to which fear this close in time to a crime can play a role, particularly where the abuser might, themselves be implicated in the crime as well. So there are lots of reasons why an individual, in spite of knowing that it could give them some relief from their sentence, might not disclose at that time.

[Representative Patrick Callahan]: Oh, okay. And just just one other comment. When when you're getting when from the arrest to the to the negotiation process to the pre sentence investigation, sometimes years elapse in time where the the defense attorney and and social worker in the courthouse is digging into those mitigating factors even further. Things that you talked about, family members, teachers, things like that. So it's just I just in my experience over almost thirty years of doing this, I've never seen someone come forward and say you missed this in the investigation because the investigation is so thorough with background and and confirming different things that they said. So I'm just interested in listening to this and as my good ranking member said, trying to figure out why it's good public policy. So I I do I do appreciate you coming in to testify, and I don't wanna take any more of the committee's time. So I thank you for, for your, response.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Further questions or comments from the committee? Further questions or comments? If not, thanks for being with us. David Reynolds. Turn the microphone on for me.

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to thank, first of all, thank the committee for having a hearing on this issue. My name is Deacon David Reynolds. I'm associate director of public policy for the Connecticut Catholic public affairs conference. And I'm here to speak in support of 5,309 as I have a submitted written testimony, but I'm going to vary from that testimony. First of all, I'd like to say that 5,309 is not an attack on women's reproductive rights. Now it's a bill designed to protect young women. Current law in the state of Connecticut is open ended. The current law has been adopted decades ago in the state. And what it does is it allows a young girl, a minor 15, 16 years of age. So when we're discussing fifty three zero nine, we're discussing 12, 13, 14, 15 year olds to go into a provider's office and receive a medical procedure or medical drugs to terminate a pregnancy, or do you even find out if she's pregnant? This is not really looking at, this is kind of putting the Fox to guard the hen house, or these providers work for particular abortion clinics. They have an interest in the clinic, usually the ideology, ideologically they're aligned with, the abortion talking points. So these girls are really entering a very limited environment, very young girls, again, 12 to 15 years old. And we talk about, I think what we have to be talking about is does the current law adequately protect these girls? There's a current law that's decades old, recognize even the science that sometimes this committee has reviewed concerning the mental development of the brain that always, as we look at criminal acts, who can be held accountable, you know, cause the brain isn't fully developed from 25 till the age of 25. But now we're saying, Oh, but a 14 year old girl could go in, meet a provider who she doesn't know a complete stranger who may be aligned. I'm not criticizing all of them, but may be aligned with certain ideologies. And she has that abortion. That girl walks into that office with nobody, nobody supporting her except maybe the older man that got her pregnant. That older man, you know, again, we heard, testimony about trafficking and abuse. This is a perfect law to hide that under is trafficking and abuse. And again, I can't stress that we heard talk of 38 States currently have notification or consent laws. Most have consent laws. And in those 30 of those 38 States, the age is 18. So our, our law says you have to follow this law. If you're 16 or under 30 of those other 38 States says you have to be 18 or under. So we're really exposing young women to potential abuse. And I'm not saying abuse by the provider, so to speak, but opening up to sexual abuse, to trafficking abuse. And we know that's a, that's a rising problem in our state. What I'd also like to address is sometimes as we look at this, we say that it's already over. Okay.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: All right.

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: Well, I think

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Questions from the committee? Are there questions? Senator Flexner?

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.

[Speaker 4]: Good afternoon.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you for your testimony. You represent the Connecticut Catholic public affairs conference. Is that correct?

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: Yes.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Can you tell me more about that organization and how it's structured and what other Catholic organizations in Connecticut work in public policy?

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: I'm sorry. What was the end of the question?

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: What other organizations in Connecticut, Catholic organizations in Connecticut work in public policy?

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: Connecticut Catholic public affairs of conference is, the spokesperson office, so to speak, for the Catholic bishops of Connecticut.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Okay. And are there other, organizations that advocate in the public policy arena on behalf of the Catholic church or is it just the conference?

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: Officially it's just the conference. The board of the bishops are our, board of directors.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So there's no other structures other than the, this one that's governed by the bishops.

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: There may be other organizations, but when we turn to who speaks for the Catholic church, ours is the organization that does that.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Okay. And are there entities that engage in lobbying on your behalf?

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: Oh, we have contractor lobbyists.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: And who are they?

[Speaker 4]: No. No.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: No. Is that not? I think it's public information.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Senator, I think we try to stay away from getting into in the past in this committee. We've asked for us to stay out of getting into the background of who funds particular organizations, etcetera, or try to stay on the text of the bills.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Oh, sure.

[Speaker 4]: With

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: respect to the text of the bills. So we could just tie it back to that.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Are there other, pieces of legislation that the conference is advocating before or against this year in this committee or in others?

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: We're reviewing this, this bill. There's also a bill, that expands, safe Harbor or safe, safe Harbor provisions. And there are several other bills that we're, we're considering.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Okay. And I guess my last question in deference to the chairman is, does the conference file the appropriate paperwork with the office of state ethics?

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: Yes, we do.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Concerning lobby all lobbying efforts.

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: Yes, we do.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Further questions or comments, representative Fishbein?

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Before we, started to, well, I'll stay away from that. Sir, you, your comments, your testimony before us was a little truncated based upon the bell. I just wanted to give you a short opportunity to fully tell us what you wanted us to know about the proposed legislation.

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: I appreciate it. The existing, the proposed legislation, again, it hasn't been mentioned as a, as I view it as a correction of existing legislation, which is flawed because it leaves open the door for abuse of young women. And this helps close that door. There are provisions in here where it has been raised, that, you know, some of those, the judicial review process would be very difficult, but we hear testimony that not many girls go through that. This bill is very well crafted and that it allows provides the provider that the, young woman has to tell the parents. And if she can't tell the parents because of the parents or the guardians are the sexual abusers, she can tell an older brother, sister, or any adult that she trusts. And so as we get to the judicial review process, that's the last line of defense, you know, where she can go to, to get permission to do that. And you would think if she can't find, if she's being sexually abused and can't find a trusted adult, it may actually be a good point that she's going to go into a judge's chambers and sit down and let them know what's going on in her life. But the bill isn't just about abortion. We always hope it will bring about lesser abortions, but it's really about, I would say four things to ensure parental rights relating to the welfare of their children, to ensure teenage girls benefit from the best possible care, to ensure the girl's best interests are represented during the decision making process and to protect the girls from sexual abuse and sexual exploitation.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: I appreciate that. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Further questions or comments, Senator Lesser?

[Senator Matthew Lesser]: Yes. Thank you. And just, just for clarification, how many States did you say have laws along this line?

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: There's 38 states. And in my submitted recommend, statement, there is a list. 38 states total, 21 have consent laws, which we're not looking for in Connecticut, 11 have notification laws, and seven have both types of laws, a mixture of the two.

[Senator Matthew Lesser]: Okay. I I'm gonna question that accounting because it I I wonder if there is you know, I note that as of today, abortion is banned completely in 13 states And then an additional six states have effective abortion bans that, under twelve weeks or six to twelve weeks. And then another four states have, bans just above that. So I'm concerned that the math doesn't math on that on that assertion, unless you're saying that, you know, parental consent is required in a state where abortion is already criminalized.

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: Well, what I'm actually saying is that prior to those bans, and this information I have comes from the Guttmacher Institute, which is, fairly supportive of abortion rights. And it says as of January 2026, and yes, some of these States now have bans, on that, but it's that the legislators prior to that had dis discussed parental notification or consent laws and in their wisdom has this had decided to adopt them. So these are 38 States that have those laws on the books, even though some of a few of them may have bans, a couple of them.

[Senator Matthew Lesser]: So those States have both a notification requirement where they pass the notification requirement first, and then they, and then after passing the notification requirement, they then criminalized abortion altogether. So this was like a first step for them. You're suggesting.

[Deacon David Reynolds (CT Catholic Public Affairs Conference)]: Yes. I haven't looked if they addressed, particularly how they interacted the existing law with the, with the new band on abortions. So we'd have to look at that.

[Representative Doug Dubitsky]: Thank you very much.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Further questions or comments, further questions or comments, if not, Mr. Reynolds, thank you for being with us again. I know you were with us last year on some of the immigration stuff, I believe, as well. So, hopefully, we

[Speaker 39]: will, we'll see you

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: back here Monday on those bills, I'm sure. So Thank you. Looking forward to seeing you Monday. Alright. I am gonna exercise a slight bit of chair prerogative because I think we have a bunch of people who are gonna testify remotely next. And I know miss Eliza Harris has been waiting patiently with her young child. So before I get to a whole bunch of people remote, I'm gonna move her up a couple small spots and allow you to come up and testify so you can take that kid for a nap if you if you so choose. Just hit the button in front of you there and turn on the there you go.

[Eliza Harris]: Okay. Great. So good morning, Senator, representatives, and members of the Judiciary Committee. My name name is Eliza Harris, and I'm a resident of Newington. I am a senior, at Central Connecticut State University studying human biology with the intention of becoming a nurse one day. I have experience working in the emergency department at Hartford Hospital and labor and delivery at St. Francis, and I am a full time mom, and first time mom of this beautiful baby girl, Abigail. I'm here today in strong support of the bill requiring parental notification before a minor obtains an abortion in Connecticut, also HB5309. I'm speaking to you today as a mother. When imagining my daughter facing an unexpected pregnancy, I cannot fathom walking her walking through that alone, making a life altering medical decision without the knowledge or support of her parents. Pregnancy is overwhelming for an adult. For a minor, it can be terrifying. In Connecticut, a minor can undergo an abortion without her parents being notified. In nearly every area, other area of her life, we recognize that minors lack full legal capacity. They cannot vote. They cannot drink alcohol. They cannot consent to most medical procedures without medical parental consent. I am 22 and still cannot rent a car. And we allow them to undergo an abortion, a serious medical procedure without even notifying the people legally responsible for them. Abortion is not risk free. According to the CDC reported complication data, thousands of women each year experience complications ranging from hemorrhage to an infection, to incomplete abortion, requiring additional surgery. While serious complications are statistically uncommon, they are real. And when they occur in minors, parents may be completely unaware of what their daughter has gone through physically and emotionally. This bill is about protection. National studies on human trafficking have shown that traffickers often exploit vulnerable minors and seek to conceal evidence of abuse. There have been documented cases across the country where trafficked minors are brought for abortions to hide ongoing sexual exploitation. The Connecticut Department of Children and Families receives over 300 reports each year of young people who have become victims of sex trafficking. In 2022, the same pattern continued. About nine percent of abortions were were girls 20, including three percent of girls 18, which comes from the Loissier, Institute. So that means three out of one hundred abortions. And this chemical abort, and chemical abortion specifically intended to end the life of the human fetus, also known as a baby. This is not, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, or any other pregnancy complications. When a parent is excluded entirely, it removes critical safeguard. Parental notification creates an additional layer of accountability and protection for girls who may already be victims of coercion. We also know that many teenage pregnancies

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Thank you for sticking with us. Questions from the committee? If not, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Alright. We will return to our regular call. Darlene Pollock.

[Darlene Pollock]: Can you hear me?

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yes. Go ahead, ma'am. We we can hear you. We can't see you.

[Darlene Pollock]: Okay. I don't know how to change that.

[Dr. Andrea Contreras (OB-GYN, family planning fellow)]: I'm not sure I wanna

[Darlene Pollock]: oh, did that work?

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yep. There you go.

[Darlene Pollock]: Okay. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. Thank you so much for hearing me today. For For the record, my name is Darlene Pollock, and I'm here in support of House Bill 5,309. And thank you, the honorable representative Ledeaux for bringing this important legislation forward. I am a survivor of juvenile sex trafficking. I was first sold on my fourteenth birthday after having been groomed for most of my thirteenth year. My trafficker told me that I had the capability and autonomy to make my own decisions and to decide my future, and I could do whatever I wanted. Of course, that wasn't true, and I was convinced eventually to submit to his trafficking. He sold me first to a a small businessman from Southern New Hampshire, and then he sold me hundreds and hundreds more times. I had various pimps over the years, and it was very brutal, and I suffered many deprivations. I had one early buyer bought me when I was 14, 15, 16. And when I was 17, he put me in an apartment in the name of a candidate for sheriff. So this man knew many people from the underworld, and he also knew police and what I called the real people, other businessmen and and government officials and so forth. So when I was pregnant and he told me he would kill me, I thoroughly believed him. I had no place to go, and I was not gonna be able to escape. But I did remember a social worker, and I called her, and I was able to escape my trafficking situation. I was hidden in a home front with mothers, and I am forever grateful. Because I can tell you, if I had gone through with an abortion, I would not be before you today. I would definitely have committed suicide. That was all I could think about when he told me he was gonna kill me was, and I'm gonna die. I would ask you to please support house bill fifty three zero nine to protect girls like me because if parent parents are notified, then it could save the life of their child and grandchildren. And I thank you for hearing me today. I also just would like to say real quick that this is not an uncommon thing. If you look at the Annals of Health Law, volume twenty three two thousand fourteen, Laura Lederer has a study in there talking about how trafficked women are coerced or forced into abortion. If I remember correctly, I think it's about thirty four percent of the time. Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Questions from the committee? Seeing none, thanks for being with us. Cara Delaney followed by Leticia Velasquez. It's Cara Delaney.

[Megan Scanlon (CEO, CCADV)]: Yes. Hello.

[Speaker 4]: Can you

[Speaker 42]: hear me?

[Speaker 4]: Yep. Go ahead, ma'am.

[Dr. Cara Delaney (OB-GYN)]: Senator Winfield, representative of Staffstrom, and distinguished members of the judiciary committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is doctor Cara Delaney, and I'm a board certified obstetrician and gynecologist working in Farmington, Connecticut. And I would like to speak on two bills up for today. The first is in strong support of SB295. As an OB GYN, I have conversations with my patients within the bounds of the trusted relationship between a doctor and a patient. A few of these conversations recently have been for example, my daughter is going to a state where abortion is banned for college and saving funds to bring her home in case she gets pregnant or or sexually assaulted. Another example is my brother moved from Connecticut for work, but is trying to come back due to fears that he will lose access to testosterone treatment. Another is I'm sixteen weeks pregnant, and my work takes me to a state where a woman has died while having a miscarriage. How do I protect myself, and should I go? I also have other conversations from friends and colleagues asking how they can get abortion care for someone in a restricted state. Patients living in restricted states are continuing to access abortion care from protective states like Connecticut, generally through telehealth. There are ongoing civil and criminal litigation. These providers have from states with much more robust shield laws than we have in Connecticut. And because of these robust shield laws, these indictments have not been successful. Medication abortion is safe and effective, and it is life saving. It accounts for over sixty percent of all abortions in The United States and close to a hundred percent of abortions in states with abortion bans. The reality is that access to medication abortion, which was FDA approved in 2000, has prevented the return to full hospital wards of sick and dying women after septic abortions, which was commonplace before 1972 when Roe versus Wade was passed. So I strongly urge the judiciary committee and the Connecticut General Assembly to support s b two nine five as as it is an essential component to bolstering our current shield law. In my time left, I strongly urge the judiciary committee to oppose HB fifty three zero nine. The state of Connecticut has recognized and protected the ability of minors to consent for abortion care for decades. After last year's passage of public act twenty five twenty eight, I am shocked that we are backsliding in the reproductive health protections for minors in the state. The data shows again and again that parental notification and judicial bypass does not protect minors. I have I have practiced in states with requirements of parental involvement and, have examples of the devastating consequences of these. HB fifty three zero nine is an anti abortion bill that specifically targets one of the most vulnerable populations and is deep deeply harmful to the young people of Connecticut. Thank you for your time.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Questions from the committee. Representative Gail Crespo, representative

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: Fishbein. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, doctor, for being here today. Would you be able to speak to as a doctor, if a minor were to present seeking abortion care from you, what steps you would take?

[Dr. Cara Delaney (OB-GYN)]: Of course. So I do take care of patients that are seeking abortion care and and seeking pregnancy care, and minors do, for for both of those. As with all of our patients, but especially, our young people, I make sure that they are safe, that they are that they have the support that they need to make, important life decisions. I have, you know, seen most minors are coming with a parent and coming with a guardian who is supportive of them. There are some that are coming and their parent or guardian wants them to get an abortion, but the minor does not want to. And in the end, I am supporting what the minor wants because it is their body, and and I am and I am respecting what their what their what their needs are. In terms of, like, if a minor is coming in and they do not have the support of their parent or do not come in with the parent, they one of the things that we do, and what we do as, as, part of our counseling is that we try to figure out why that why that is the case. Oh, in some cases, we are figuring out that they are in that they had some sort of assault, that they, you know, could have been trafficked because they're actually showing up to the medical system, and they're actually showing up to counselors that are that are trained and able to I to identify these I identify these patients. And so by not having, you know, parental notification, It is something that we are still, like that is it's still an important part of the conversation that we that we that we have with minors, that we want to support them as as much as possible. But also understand that not all minors have that ability to, to have that support from parents or guardians.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, mister chair.

[Susan Zabozzabonski]: Thank you.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Thank you, mister chairman. Ma'am, I just wanted to ask you about, bill two nine five, presently. So a major part of that has to do with providing reproductive guidance, to someone who is not located in Connecticut. Is that a fair summarization of that bill?

[Dr. Cara Delaney (OB-GYN)]: So with with currently, with the shield laws in Connecticut, it protects people who are coming to Connecticut to get abortion care. So this would be, extending it so that it includes telehealth abortion outside of the state lines.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Okay. I think it's exactly what I said. So somebody is located in Tennessee, and they're interested in learning about, or perhaps, obtaining some sort of medical advice, regarding an abortion presently, can you render that service to that individual?

[Dr. Cara Delaney (OB-GYN)]: If I was part of a telehealth service, I could, render that service to that individual, but I would not have, protections in the state of Connecticut, if there was, like, if there was, litigation. For instance, Tennessee or I think you used Tennessee as an example, but, the real litigation has really been from, like, Louisiana and Texas that have both, like, civilly and criminally indicted people, in California, in New York as well, for providing telehealth abortion care to people in in in in their states. And so Connecticut would not and those indictments have currently not not not worked because of those shield protections. Connecticut does does not have that type of shield law, and so, I would not be, protected as, as those, as those examples that I gave.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So just to get granular, you can't presently you can't render medical services to someone who is located in Tennessee through the telehealth procedure. Correct?

[Dr. Cara Delaney (OB-GYN)]: So are you talking about, like, me personally, or are you talking about me as in, like, I am a doctor that, like, another doctor could?

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. We're talking about you, you and your ability to render services, whether it be a, chemical abortion, somebody in Tennessee would like to have performed. I, I think you'd be able to render those services through a telehealth procedure, if they're located in Connecticut. Right?

[Dr. Cara Delaney (OB-GYN)]: So I currently do not provide telehealth abortion. So, I cannot you said specifically myself. But, a, doctor or an advanced practitioner, has within their scope of practice to practice telehealth, medication abortion. They can practice that outside of the state of Connecticut because that is how telehealth that's how telehealth works. But they do not have the protections within the state as eight other states do to be protected against civil and criminal lawsuits from states that ban abortions.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So I I thought based upon your presentation that you were practicing in that area. So I just wanna to your knowledge, my concern is the licensure. Right? To my knowledge, Tennessee does not allow medical practitioners that are not licensed in their state to render these services. Am I incorrect there?

[Dr. Cara Delaney (OB-GYN)]: So I am not a lawyer. I am a doctor. I do not know the answer to your question.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Okay. Well, I I just I think there's significant concerns here. If somebody wants to receive these services and they're located in, we keep on pounding Tennessee, but I'm just using that as the example. You know, and Connecticut is a friendly state to that procedure. Then they come to Connecticut, but this telehealth expansion, I think we've got some significant. I have some significant concerns about state's rights and state's ability to permit certain activity within its state. So,

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: but thank you, mister chairman. Further questions or comments? If not, thanks for being with us. Leticia Velasquez. Leticia Velasquez with us. K. How about Kathy Hearn? Kathy Hearn? Sheer Sheila Kimball?

[Sheila Kimble]: Yes. Can you hear and see me?

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: We can see you. I think your audio is a little quiet, but give it a shot.

[Sheila Kimble]: Okay. I'll try to be a little louder if

[Charmise Walcott (State’s Attorney, Hartford JD)]: I can.

[Representative Osborne (first name not stated)]: Is that better?

[Speaker 4]: Yep.

[Sheila Kimble]: Okay. Very good. My name is Sheila Kimble, and I am with I'm a citizen, and I am here from Killingworth, Connecticut, and I'm in support of h b fifty three zero nine, in regard to parental notification. And I know of a dear friend who, at a very young age, became pregnant, and she went before her. She talked to her family, her parents, and her grandparents about the situation. She was very nervous. She was very uptight. She came from

[Leticia Velasquez]: Hello?

[Sheila Kimble]: Can you hear me now?

[Speaker 4]: Yes.

[Sheila Kimble]: Oh, Leticia oh, okay. Okay. Should I keep talking? I thought someone interrupted. I'm sorry. Can you hear me?

[Speaker 29]: Hello?

[Sheila Kimble]: Can you hear me?

[Leticia Velasquez]: I guess I'll I can hear you.

[Sheila Kimble]: Leticia, you're you're before me, but you didn't come on. So I'm speaking now, but I hear anybody from the legislative group. Okay. I'm gonna just finish my two minutes then. Anyway, she was very surprised but very blessed to see the support of her family. And she said I just talked to her today before I testified that she said she can't even imagine what it would have been like to go through that kind of experience without having the support of her parents and her grandparents regarding notifying them and letting them know. They were very supportive of her. And, anyway, I just wanted to convey that that I am in support of HB5309, and I hope that came through because I cannot hear anybody else.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Questions? Seeing none, we will return to miss Velasquez quickly who I believe had some audio issues. Miss Velasquez, go ahead. Can

[Leticia Velasquez]: you hear me now?

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yes. Go ahead, ma'am.

[Leticia Velasquez]: I I apologize for the issues. My name is Leticia Velasquez and I have been a bilingual middle and high school teacher since 1990. I've also been the director of two pregnancy resource centers in Hartford in Norwich since 2016. I am testifying in support of 5,309 parental notification. In my experience, minor girls who find themselves pregnant need their parents. They do not need other adults, teachers, school counselors, or abortion clinic counselors. They need the advice of the parents who raise them and know them better. My 15 year old student, Maria, not her real name, was frightened when she discovered she was pregnant. Without discussing the pregnancy with her father, she took the advice of a high school counselor who hardly knew her and took her for an abortion. She hadn't even taken the time to tell her boyfriend. He knew she was pregnant, but was preparing to marry her and care for Maria and her baby in his family's home, but it was too late. Maria was so full of regret for her abortion. She deliberately conceived another child. Only this time, her baby's father was an alcoholic gang member who abused her. Her father was willing to help her, but she never told him she was pregnant. I have another case from my pregnancy center. Iran was a teenage immigrant from Haiti who came to my pregnancy center, afraid to tell her strict Christian mother of her pregnancy because she didn't know about her boyfriend. She was terrified to take the abortion pill at home alone. She couldn't stop bleeding and was transported to the hospital by ambulance where she nearly bled out. Anna, another client, was under undocumented immigrant from Guatemala who took the abortion pill from planned parenthood but had an incomplete abortion, resulting in a near fatal sepsis. She could have died, and her family would not would have been heartbroken that they did not have the opportunity to help her. These girls needed parental notification to force them to get their parents involved. Yes. It's uncomfortable initially, but normally, it works out very well. In our pregnancy center, we offer to facilitate this conversation with the girls and their parents to make things easier. But, ultimately, the girl's best support is their family. A teenager in crisis should never make the decision to have an abortion alone or worse, pressured by the a counselor across state lines that doesn't know her, her boyfriend, who may be forcing her for his best interests, a trafficker, or an abortion counselor with an agenda to sell

[Speaker 46]: abortions. Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Questions or comments? If not, thanks for being with us. Quinn Meehan.

[Quinn Meehan (Universal Health Care Foundation of CT, intern)]: Hello, co chairs, ranking members, and members of the judiciary committee. Thank you for the opportunity to to testify today in support of s b two ninety five, the act concerning state law protections for health care providers related to legally protected health care activity. I'm Quinn Meehan, a community community organizing and policy MSW intern at Universal Healthcare Foundation of Connecticut. Universal envisions a world where justice prevails, health is is respected as a human right, and equity is realized. In our work, we prioritize black and brown folks, immigrants, LGBTQIA people, individuals with disabilities and chronic illness, and residents with low incomes because they are most impacted by health injustice. We support senate bill two nine five in solidarity with reproductive equity now. Across the country, trans people and cisgender women are facing severe barriers to accessing needed and in some cases, life saving health care. In states where reproductive and gender affirming care are restricted or banned, many patients rely on telehealth and mailed medications to access care from providers in states like Connecticut where this care remains legal. But as other states attempted to extend their laws beyond their borders, provide providers here face growing legal, financial, and professional risks for delivering care that is fully lawful under Connecticut law. These risks are not theoretical. This past December, the Texas attorney general filed a lawsuit against a New York physician, alleging that she violated Texas state abortion laws by sending Texas patients abortion pills via telehealth. Month later, she was indicted on charges of criminal abortion by a Louisiana grand jury. Because New York has strong shield laws that explicitly protect telehealth reproductive care like this bill would, she was able to maintain her medical license and was shielded from enforcement of a 100,000 civil penalty. SB two ninety five responds to this reality by strengthening Connecticut's existing shield framework across multiple areas of law. It reinforces that Connecticut will not cooperate with out of state investigations or enforcement actions related to legally protected health care activity. It limits extradition when the provider was not physically present in the demanding state, protects professional licenses, and prevents Connecticut from disciplining providers solely based on another state's objection to care that is lawful here. The bill also enhances personal safety protections, allowing provider, prescriptions for legal legally protected care to list the health care practice rather than the individual clinician, which reduces, the risk of harassment without weakening oversight. When providers are exposed to out of state lawsuits, criminal investigations, or threats to their licensure, somebody may reduce services, decline to accept certain patients, or leave practice altogether. That does not only affect people traveling or otherwise receiving care from restrictive states. It also directly affects Connecticut residents. If we allow other states' laws to destabilize our provider workforce, our own Connecticut communities will face fewer clinicians, longer wait times, and diminished access to trusted care. Both gender affirming and reproductive care rely on continuity and stable provider relationships. When clinicians are forced to scale back or stop offering services because of legal risk, patients experience delays or interruptions that can have serious physical and mental health consequences. Protecting providers is essential to protect protecting patients. Connecticut has long been a leader in protecting access to care, including being the first state to enact ShieldBuds. This bill builds on that leadership.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, Katie. Questions from the committee? Seeing none. Appreciate being with

[Quinn Meehan (Universal Health Care Foundation of CT, intern)]: Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Christina Bennett.

[Christina Bennett]: Good afternoon. Can you hear me?

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yes. Go ahead, ma'am.

[Christina Bennett]: My name is Christina Bennett. I am a community member. I'm a licensed minister at Shiloh Christian Church. I'm a pro life advocate, and I'm here in support of HB five three zero nine. For the past twenty years, I've worked with women considering abortion. My own mother walked out of her abortion appointment in Hartford many years ago because a janitor talked to her, and that led me to get involved with talking to women, counseling women considering abortion, adoption, and parenting. One of my first memories when I was at Middletown High School in my youth of abortion was when a young woman got an abortion and hid it from her parents, but they found out because they were cleaning her room. And I remember that being just kind of, unfortunately, something that people were talking about. And I also remember just the confusion that was surrounding that, and that was when I was first aware that we didn't have to notify our parents if we were seeking an abortion. But since then, again, I've talked to hundreds of women who are making those pregnancy decisions. I support parental notification for a number of the reasons that have already been stated, of course, protecting women from situations where there is coercion. My own mother was coerced, and many women, I have found, through conversation, have been coerced by partners, particularly their male partners, into having an abortion, and parents can help with this. Another reason is even after an abortion has taken place, if a parent knows about it, they can help to recognize if there's been a botched abortion. I wanna mention two particular cases. One is an African American woman, Cree Erwin, who died from a botched abortion. Another is an African American woman from the state of Connecticut, Shanice Thomas, who almost died from a botched abortion after taking the abortion pill going to Planned Parenthood in Bridgeport. She was put in a medically induced coma for a month because there were fetal remains left inside of her after taking the abortion pill. But in both Cree's situation and in Chanisa's, it was their mother who recognized when they were showing signs of sickness after the abortion. In Chanisa's situation, her mother recognized it, and even though she went back to Planned Parenthood and said something's wrong, they said, No, we we got everything out, and they were wrong, and she almost died because of that abortion procedure. And so mothers, you know, have this ability, not in every situation, of course, but in in many cases, to to notice things about their children. They have that connection with their children, and they can be a support to them. And so I think it's very important for parents to be involved in this process. Of course, there are situations in which a doctor that's performing an abortion, if they know the parents are healthy, perhaps they are going to try to involve them even without, you know, a mandate from the state. But there are other situations where a doctor may not want the parents to be involved, and there could also be

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you.

[Christina Bennett]: Thank you. Medical malpractice, which parents could also help to recognize. Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Are there questions from the committee? Seeing none. Appreciate you being with us. Thank you. Pauline Pepalardo?

[Ellen Papalardo, RN]: Good afternoon. Thank you members of the committee for holding this important hearing. My name is Ellen Papalardo and I am a registered nurse with more than forty years experience in maternal child health. I'm here to speak in support of parental notification for minors seeking abortion. Most abortions are not actually between a woman and her doctor. They are between a desperate woman and an essential stranger. Few reputable doctors aspire to being full time abortionists. And the laws are set up such that those who become full time abortionists are shielded from many repercussions of poor technique and even catastrophic, catastrophic consequences. The patient usually can't follow-up with the abortionist because it's not their doctor. It's a person who comes in for a few hours on Saturday to pick up money to buy their new Mercedes. So afterwards the woman is sent to a recovery room, but she never fully recovers. Many suffer from lifelong depression and a state similar to PTSD that renders a future pregnancy of a much wanted child to be a time of sadness and even horror as they realize the full reality of killing their previous child. In addition, following an abortion, a woman may become functionally unable to bear children due to permanent damage

[Dr. Savannah Kazubinski (OB-GYN)]: to her

[Ellen Papalardo, RN]: body. Minors who secretly have an abortion often conceal the negative consequences such as bleeding and infection from their parents, just compounding the first loss of, of communication, but the results may now be lethal. Wisely, minors can't legally make most decisions that will have lifelong consequences without parental input. Our laws should overall seek to strengthen families and encourage parental involvement as the child will need ongoing support from their families for the emotional consequences, consequences which afflict all women who have abortions. And I have been present with many women, as I said, years later at the labor and delivery of a much wanted child having functional issues, their body's not working properly, having a cesarean section because of scarring of the cervix, or weeping when their child is born, not with joy, but the recognition that there was another child that they will never hold in their arms. And I don't want to see any woman harmed and I don't want to see any life damaged unnecessarily. And someone was speaking earlier about how this was like the slippery slope will limit abortion in this tiny area and then, will, you know, completely obliterate it. We're talking about parental notification and that's it. It's up to you to draw your line wherever you feel is most important. But I can't, my minor child can't get a tattoo. That has lifelong consequences, but Mickey Mouse on your shoulder is not the same as an abortion.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, ma'am. Questions from the committee? Seeing none, thanks for being with us. Claire Abernathy followed by Norman Patterson. Claire Abernathy with us? Okay. Norman Patterson.

[Speaker 50]: Chairperson and members of the committee. My name is Norman Harold Patterson Jr. The founder of abolish abortion CT. I'm here as an abolitionist abortion is the intentional killing of a pre born human being. This is not a religious slogan. It is a biological reality and a moral fact. The child in the womb is a distinct living member of the human species. If that is the case, and it is, then the central issue before Connecticut is not parental notification. It is justice. Notification addresses who must be informed before the act occurs. It does not address whether the act itself should be legally permitted. Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: You can continue.

[Speaker 50]: The unborn child remains without equal protection under the law. If abortion is the unjust taking of a human life, then the question before this legislature is not who must be notified. The question is why is this permitted at all? A law that supervises the condition of a child's death is not a law that establishes justice for that child. Those to those who defend abortion as a right, I urge you to consider the gravity of what is being defended. Every civil magistrate bears responsibility for the protection of innocent life. To those who identify as pro life, I offer this concern. Incremental regulation may appear to be progress, but it leaves the underlying injustice intact. When we debate procedure while the child remains legally unprotected, we risk normalizing, which should be abolished. If killing a two year old child were illegal, we would not focus on notification requirements. We would demand prohibition. The moral standard cannot change based on location or stage of development. Equal protection requires consistency. Abolition means full and equal protection for pre born children under the law. No partiality, no carve outs, no regulatory frameworks that presuppose continued legality. Connecticut must decide whether it will regulate abortion or abolish it. Justice does not manage injustice. It ends it. Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Questions from the committee? If not, thanks for being with us. Megan Ferguson. Megan Ferguson with us? K. Walter Nagel?

[Father Walter Nagle]: Dear members of the committee, thank you. Thank you for this hearing and thank you for what you do. My name is Reverend Walter Nagle and I'm testifying in support of HB 5,309, an act concerning the provision of notice to a parent or guardian of a minor child who seeks to receive pregnancy related health care services. I'm a parish priest, serving at Christ the King Church in Old Lyme, Connecticut. And I'm also the director of pro life activities in the Diocese of Norwich. Again, thank you for your time. Life is a precious gift from God. That is something we can all agree upon. It must be nurtured, reverenced, and supported at every stage of development. In my pro life work, I try to give voice to those with no voice, from the unborn child, to the frightened and vulnerable mother, to the poor, the sick, and the elderly. They may feel source. This bill sheds light into desperation. No minor pregnant woman should have to walk alone. By inviting parents or guardians into the process of decision making, we are creating opportunities to make fully informed choices. Decisions are best made when they are involved when more are involved and there is consultation. As I was preparing these remarks, I

[Speaker 4]: I I became familiar with the story of Reverend

[Father Walter Nagle]: Jesse Jackson. I became familiar with the story of Reverend Jesse Jackson. He shared how his mother became pregnant with him as a 16 year old high school student. The father was a 33 year old married neighbor. Grow up to be a civil rights leader and a candidate for president Of The United States. Imagine if she had lived in a state like Connecticut and could not have and could have been pressured into an abortion without her parents knowing about it. This bill is common sense. It gives a voice to the voiceless, the unborn child, and the frightened pregnant mother. It takes a village. Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, Father. Questions or comments from the committee? If not, thanks for being with us today.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Beth Cronin. Beth Cronin with us? K. How about John

[Speaker 4]: Del Barbera?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative Staffstrom, and, all distinguished members of the judiciary. My name is John Del Barva. I am assistant legal counsel for the Office of the Chief of the Defender, and I'm here in support of raise bill fifty three one zero, an act concerning an affirmative defense for a criminal violation or protective order or a stranding criminal restraining order. I will hit the highlights. I know you have my testimony. I think a couple important a couple important points. One is we're simply proposing a defense in these statutes. These individuals would still be subject to an arrest, and this defense would only be able to be asserted at a trial. I've read testimony from the state attorney's office in this matter, as well as the victim advocates. And I I believe that the protected party is well protected still by statute to ensure that even if they conspire to violate the protective order, they still won't be charged. I I don't believe this lessens or weakens the protected party's strong statutory rights. This bill simply provides a specific factor that can be presented by the defendant, again, at trial when raising an affirmative defense. You know, I noted in my testimony that there were over 11,000 of these last last year. And I guess, it would end up again by saying that this person wouldn't just escape scot free. This isn't like an immunity type of situation. This is this person would still be arrested, but they would at least be given a defense simply where the protected party initiates contact that says and they did lay out some examples, but I'm happy to take any questions.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Questions from the committee? Questions from the committee? If not, Oh, Oh, Oh, sorry. May it's okay. Senator Flexer.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, mister chair. Good afternoon. Could I just ask you to clarify your testimony? I know you submitted testimony in writing, but the, could you just more clearly state your reason for supporting the bill before us?

[Father Walter Nagle]: Sure.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: In a thorough fashion, because the way that you spoke really wasn't clear about what the bill does, and this is a bill that your office asked for, correct?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Yes. So what the bill does is simply provide a defense that can be used at trial, couldn't be used beforehand. So there'd still be an arrest. There'd still be a process, but at trial it would simply provide the ability for the defendant to put on a defense saying, listen, I didn't initiate conduct. I didn't initiate the contact here. I didn't create any more crimes. If there was contact is simply, it's simply a defense where we could put forth in front of a jury that but for this the protected party initiating contact, I would not have committed this crime.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: So you use the word simply multiple times. Can you, why, why do you describe this as such a simple change?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: It's simply a defense, right? So it's, we are requesting the defense for these statutes and it was simply, maybe a poor choice of words and reminds me of a prior law professor, who used to comment on simply, but, we're simp we we are asking for the affirmative defense. There hasn't been an affirmative defense in these, cases. I've represented thousands of peoples in these cases. I've seen a variety of circumstances that, appeared very unfair and it would at least provide a defendant the ability to get out in front of a jury that they did nothing wrong other than have contact with a protected party who initiated the contacts.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So just to be clear here, we're talking about domestic violence victims. Can you give me an example of where, tell me a story. You said you've represented multiple people in these situations. So tell me a story about, where one of these cases is being heard and you saw the proceedings appear to be very unfair as you described.

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Sure. I mean, somebody reaching out by tax, the protected party, perhaps reaching out by tax saying, Hey, let's get together and talk about what happened. Happens all the time. Tax phone call, come over, come over to my house, talk. And somehow the police get involved either through, maybe they go out to dinner or they go out to a casino, they go out and do whatever they want to do driving home. They get pulled over by the police because there was some kind of infraction. They get pulled over, they run everybody's ID. The respondent will automatically get arrested for violating a protective order just simply based on contact.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: So before when you were describing, the way these, the way these things are adjudicated is very unfair. I thought you were talking about a very unfair procedure in the court.

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: No, I, I, I And

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: because you're, what this bill is proposing is some, a tool that can be used in a courtroom. Room. And so that's what I'm looking for an example of, an example of something that appeared to be very unfair

[Father Walter Nagle]: Sure.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: In the court proceedings.

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Sure. I can I can tell you many times, running, in an office that I would see a domestic violence case come in, where the complainant would come in and beg the court on the record and the prosecutor that I was the one that asked him, let's say, to come over my house? He did nothing wrong. I asked him to come over and, you know, the kid the person is still prosecuted, usually held on bond because it's a violation of protective order. I mean, that is something I would see with frequency.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: In that example though, an offender makes a decision. Correct?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Does make it Does make a decision to, to get together with the protected party who is requesting to get together. Yes.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: So this, our statutes concerning these situations have been updated many times, this particular one fifteen years ago.

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Yeah.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Was updated. It was one of the main reforms that, that allowed Connecticut to begin describing itself as a leader. Once again, in, in domestic violence policy and standing up for victims and creating a system where victims feel like they can come to a court system, that is going to believe them, and not engage, in victim blaming. And this proposal would bring us backwards and create a system in our court proceedings where victims are once again, going to be blamed.

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: I think it's, I think it deals with the reality is of what are going on in court rooms across the state, which there are many situations where the reality is people are getting together after the rest. Alright. I would they're they're just some people are getting caught, some people are not. But remember, when the when the let me just back up one second and sort of address what you said before about the process. I mean, the process is sort of like an assembly line process when it comes to arraignments. The person is brought out of lockup. They're in cuffs. It lasts less less than five minutes. A protective order is issued. The person doesn't even get to read the protective order. It's curled up, bunched up, provided to them in cuffs, then they're sent off the lockup. Whether or not they read it or not, but it's a very stressful, anxious, crazy time in big court houses. So, of course, the court is issuing orders. Some people may be listening, some people may not. But, it is sort of an assembly line process. It that'll last less than five minutes. I've just seen in my twenty five career twenty five years of doing this, many, many times the protected party calling and or showing up saying nothing happened.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: So are there other examples in our courts where an offender may experience a stressful, anxious, crazy time, or they don't have to follow the orders of the court?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: I think every time somebody is arrested and dragged out in cuffs in prop before a judge, is a stressful time.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: And so because of that stress, an offender shouldn't follow the orders of the court?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: I'm, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying here, the issue is, the issue is protection of the victim. That's why these orders are issued. But in the in there are some cases where that where I believe that is necessary. There are other cases that the protected party wants to get right back together with the respondent. In those cases, this type of defense, I believe is necessary, in fair.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: So are you saying it's the position of the public defender's office that these orders should not be treated as valid if a victim then decides they don't want them in place, regardless of whether or not the court has ordered them to be in place?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: I'm just saying the position of the public defender's office is one, we understand there's a court order in place. But it should be a consideration by putting in place as defense that where a victim initiates or an alleged victim initiates contact. For example, let's say there's a protective order between you and I.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Please don't use that example. Find a better one, please.

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: A protective order between myself and another party. The other party is the protected party. That protected party can call me, say I'm coming over to your house, I wanna talk about what happened, I wanna resolve it. I wanna get together for the kids. Come over to my house, and a neighbor or somebody can call the police. The protected party is at my house. I did not ask for them to come over. I will be arrested. I have handled those cases. And that to me is unfair, which is why we're requesting the defense.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: So are you saying that scenario that plays out, you're not allowed to talk about that in a courtroom right now, you would need this change in the statute because I look, I worked on this change in the statute fifteen years ago. I worked on it closely with the predecessors in your office. And frankly, it's very hard for me to understand how over the course of the last fifteen years, your office has gone from being an agency that could work collaboratively, collaboratively on these issues that understood the victim blaming dynamics that were in so many of our structures, that they were such a reason that victims did not come forward. We worked collaboratively to change the statute fifteen years ago to so to now have your agency, not just with the proposal of this bill, but in so many different areas be so antagonistic to domestic violence victims is really hard for me to wrap my head around.

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Well, I respectfully disagree with, you saying that we don't work collaboratively because I know since I've taken over this position over a year ago, we've worked collaboratively with everyone.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: But do you see how the proposal that you've put forward here today is an opportunity for victims to be revictimized, for them to be accused that the situation is their fault? There's the, the, the root of what we tried to do when we changed the law fifteen years ago was to make it so that it is not the victim who has to say, put this order in place. It is the court that says, this is an unsafe dynamic and we, the court of the state of Connecticut, are going to protect the people involved and ensure safety for domestic violence victims. This proposal would change that dynamic back to making it so that victims would have to be in the position to say whether or not an order should be in place. And that would endanger the lives of countless domestic violence victims in our state, putting them again in that vulnerable position where it feels like they're the ones who did this to the offender. It's the offender who put themselves in the situation where they have to be held accountable for the domestic violence. And it's the court that puts the order in place in order to keep all parties safe and not put that onus on the victims. And this is where I'm being candid with you in a very public dialogue. This is where I just don't understand how things have changed so much for your agency over this period of time.

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Well, I can't speak to my predecessors, but what I can say is I've been in the field for twenty four, years in numerous capacities. I've run an office. I've tried murder cases. I've been in, several other offices as well. I can tell you that, I can't count how many times I've had a protected party to say they wanna come in. They wanna modify the order. Right? Because you understand the court issues, the order, the way the current processes, the court should modify the order. Not easy is not easy just to do. You've got to, motions have to be filed Family relations wants, weeks to review the case. And then we got to get into court. It's not like I can get into the court the next day. I've had situations where, girlfriends are having babies. My clients wanna go to the hospital to be present with a baby. And, you know, I have to say, listen, if you go, you're gonna be subject to violation of protective order because there's no way we can get

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: into court. But just to back up for a minute

[Speaker 4]: Sure.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: To get a protective order put in place in the first place, there have to be a very serious set of circumstances.

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: No. I disagree. And as I as I outlined in my testimony, it could be as simple as a disorderly conduct. Doesn't even have to be touching. It could be tumultuous behavior, yelling, neighbors calling the police. So you you can have a senior demeanor that brings you into court where a protective order is issued.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: And disorderly conduct is a charge that many domestic violence situations ultimately, that's the only charge that's ever made, even when there is more serious behavior present at a particular incident.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: No. There's

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: There's a variety. I would say a variety of domestic violence charges that is the least serious, but it could be a lot more serious.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: And there are a lot more serious offenses that regularly, in the process of a case going through our court system, get led down to only disorderly conduct or other misdemeanor charges. Again, I, I appreciate the conversation this afternoon and I, hope the committee finds this conversation edifying that Connecticut shouldn't go backwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Further questions or comments? Representative Kirk Crest.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here for your testimony. To build off what my colleague was just saying and to be clear because I think it can sometimes be confusing for folks, there's a distinction between a protective order in our state and a restraining order. Protective orders have to do with criminal cases. Is that correct?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Correct.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: And so the judge can already consider the severity of the incident, the defendant's criminal history, and an ongoing threat to the victim when putting in place a protective order. Is that correct?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Correct.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: So my concern with the proposal that your office is supporting is that we know from decades of research that domestic violence escalates. And so, if a criminal action has taken place, these two individuals, we would hope the protective order is saying what should happen which is they should stay apart. And so I'm concerned with a proposal that would kind of negate the severity of the crime that's taken place and where it can go. And we also know the dynamics that take place within domestic violence relationships that on average someone will go back to a relationship multiple times before they realize, that this is not safe for them. So I don't want to be part of any policy that kind of rubber stamps that behavior, I'd rather us as a State kind of remain firm in that this is very dangerous and a crime has been committed and the State of Connecticut based on what a judge is determining is saying the protective order needs to be in place.

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: No, I absolutely hear what you're saying. Representing Gilchrist, I guess. And again, I do not think this is anti victim, but the the practical reality is in the courts is that there are some domestic violence cases where the protective party wants to get back with the respondents. Okay. No coercion, nothing like that. And can't get any relief. Can't get shows up at the starting at arraignment screaming. I don't want a protective order. There's still a protective order issued that that could happen multiple times. So the victims themselves can't get the release they want, which is at least give me contact, at least give me contact. You don't have to come back to the home. I mean, there, there are, there are ways to do this, but the victims themselves want this. I'm not saying in every case, I understand there are cases where people should be far apart from each other, but there, there are circumstances where victims themselves want the order dropped and can't get it done or can't get it done in time before there's a violation of protective order. So so that's how it's working out in the real world that, you know, we can't snap our fingers and change these things so there can be contact. They may just want contact. They just maybe want may be able to want to text with each other, talk about the kids. We you know, then what happens is we slowly start lessening the conditions, but victims themselves want this and are screaming for it and are not being heard. This would give us the ability at a trial to just have them say this to a jury. That's

[Speaker 4]: all

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: I'm saying. I'm not getting into the underlying conduct. All I'm saying is the victim should be heard here and they're not being heard either.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: I find that a little troubling only because we've never had this proposal brought to us by advocacy groups who, you know, work on behalf of victims.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: And if this was such a dire need on the part of victims in the state of Connecticut, I think they would have come to us and said that this is causing problems. I actually used to work at the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence and we were trained to meet the victim where they're at. And so that would be something that they would bring forward. So I'm struggling with that lens.

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: So I, I wish, I've had conversations with, people, in family, that I wish I could bring here to tell you guys stories of this happening. I don't know if they would. I don't know if they would politically. I'm just telling you from my viewpoint that there are there are these situations out there just based on my experience. And based on my experience running an office for nine years, I seen it through representation of other attorneys in my office as well. So this is going on.

[Father Walter Nagle]: Again,

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: there are plenty of other cases where I think, yes, keep people as far apart as possible right now, especially after arrest. But there are these other cases where I've I've gotten the calls. I've been in court. They, you know, the victims are helpless in trying to get modifications to the court and their family.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: Is it true that someone could get what's called a partial order?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Yes.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: And in the case of a partial order, they would be able to?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Correct.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: And so, I guess, again, my concern is is that if a judge determined that the partial order was not best, then these individuals shouldn't be coming in contact with each other. Do you, in your experience, think judges are not using the partial orders?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Well, I like to think that judges are judges are sometimes using the partial order. Okay? I do think, they're, in the courts that I've been in that the judges are getting recommendations from family relations. So that recommendation, whatever that is, based on whatever family relation does early that morning, judges tend to follow that recommendation because judges have, they have no idea other than reading, let's say the probable cause report. So they depend a lot on family relations. There are some family relations offices that are more conservative than others. And I do think there's a tendency to issue more full protective orders than something less, especially at arraignment. Now these things can be modified in the future, but I do think there's a tendency to go right to a full protective order, irrespective of sometimes of what a victim is saying.

[Deborah Barrell]: Thank you.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: I'll just conclude with a statement. I think when incidents like these happen, I have incidents in life in general, but domestic violence, the farther away from it, the more you can lessen what it was or felt like or looked like. And I would trust family relations and the judge and the protective order they put in right after the incident has occurred. I also think that the respondent has responsibility. And so even if the victim's reaching out, they've been charged with the crime and a protective order has been put in place and they need to own that and say, no, we cannot be in contact. So I thank you for your testimony. Thank you, mister chair.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Alright. I got a few of the people on the board here, representative Howard followed by senator Ciccarella. I'll just remind this is just general or remind members of the committee. We still have 80 some odd people signed up to testify after this. So let's let's try to keep our questions snappy. Representative Howard, snap.

[Representative Greg Howard]: Thank you, mister chairman. I recognize that.

[Speaker 4]: I'll I'll

[Representative Greg Howard]: I'll try to do that. Hi, John.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: How are you doing?

[Representative Greg Howard]: One of so I have two major concerns here. One is this the the wording of the bill talks about that it would be an affirmative defense if if the protected person encouraged the conduct. So if we take contact in a separate bucket. Yep. My concern is encourage so you could presumably have a respondent who says, well, she pushed me to this limit. Right? Wouldn't wouldn't that wouldn't that language allow them to make that argument?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Yes.

[Representative Greg Howard]: Alright. So I have a major concern there. That's one. Two, taking contact, and I think my colleague sort of touched upon this. I've looked at hundreds, if not thousands, of protective and restraining orders in my life. Many of them are just what we call CT zero one, which basically you can't commit any crime against them. It's a bit more in the weeds in that. But essentially, do not harass, stalk, etcetera. But the issue of contact, I think, is really the one at at point here because I have seen, and I and I I appreciate, I think, your statements that I have seen many instances where the protected person initiates the contact, then the protected person is unsatisfied with the conversation and then reports the contact. Right? And and I and I I understand that.

[Speaker 4]: Okay. Yep.

[Representative Greg Howard]: But but having understood that though, my colleagues I believe are correct in that the respondent holds their responsibility. My question to you is this. I'm not gonna ask you your opinion because I don't think it's fair, but my opinion is that our entire domestic violence laws are based on a philosophy that domestic violence victims are inherently coerced and under pressure, whether it be financial or otherwise, to stay in abusive relationships. And that's the general philosophy of our the the that those studies and that that data that we know is true is the philosophy of it. And my question my concern on the contact part, I've already expressed a deep concern on the, you know, the the conduct, but the contact part is it undermines our entire philosophy on domestic violence. What's your response to that?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: I think, like you, I've I mean, I've represented thousands of people. You've you've seen hundreds of these protective orders that, you know, in the real world that after there's an arrest, depending on the facts and circumstances of this arrest, that people are getting back together for a variety of reasons. Sometimes a mistake happens. Sometimes they wanna get back together for the kids. Sometimes there may be coercion. I I don't know. But I I do think that there are a lot of people after there's an arrest and a violation protective order that are getting right back together. And and I'm assuming you've seen examples of that.

[Representative Greg Howard]: Yeah. Certainly. And and I think that there's a point you made. And and let me just ask you this. Do you would you agree with me that generally and and, of course, you know, we work in criminal law. All these different cases are different. But, generally, to have a a contact a a protective or restraining order to include no contact, generally, the underlying offense was significant it's not a disorderly conduct. It's not a, you know, got loud, got drunk, slammed a few things, and and the police came and nobody got hurt type deal. When you have full no contacts, generally, there's some level of violence. Would you agree with that?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: So, I think it's very judge and family relation specific would be my answer to that.

[Representative Greg Howard]: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Senator Chagall.

[Senator Paul Cicarella]: Thank you. And just just a couple of quick questions. So this is just allowing this is just allowing the person that is under this protective order to use this as a defense. It doesn't just completely get rid of the the order itself. That is correct. Got it. And if in fact there's a situation that you described, you know, some type of a of a a heated exchange, no violence, first time this this type of a thing has happened, and both parties do not want this in place for whatever reason. And they go out to dinner. They're coming home. They get pulled over. They realize they're not supposed to be together, but both parties want to be together. This would allow for both parties to come to court and say, we want to be together. I I encourage this, and I I do not want them to get any additional trouble. Correct?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: That's correct.

[Senator Paul Cicarella]: And if this was not a a defense that could be brought forward, what in fact would happen to the person that would be under the protective order?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: They would arguably either have to go to trial with no defense, or they'd have to work out some kind of plea bargain.

[Senator Paul Cicarella]: But they would be violated, and it's it's a it's a additional charge. Yeah. It's a felony. Right?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: Yeah. Five year felony. It could be a ten year felony.

[Quinn Meehan (Universal Health Care Foundation of CT, intern)]: Got it. But in

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: general, it's a five year felony.

[Senator Paul Cicarella]: Got it. Because, you know, I I could see both sides of this where we're trying to protect the victims, but I've seen firsthand too where individuals or both parties don't want this, and it just really wrecks, you know, their life moving forward for a period of time. They still want to be together. They're essentially rolling the dice. If they get caught together, it could it could be really bad. So I see that this is good for a defense, but we just wanna be careful implementing this that it doesn't create more problems and and the work that has been done, to get to this point. But I do think there needs to be a defense because there isn't. If you violate this order, there's nothing that matters. Your birth of your child, you know, the the actual protected party wants to be with this person. There is no excuse, and that person will be violated and basically be charged with another crime of violating the protective order. Is that is that true?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: That's true. And it becomes even more interesting when both parties have a protective order and they both violate it because they're together.

[Senator Paul Cicarella]: Got it. Oh, well, thank you for that clarification. I guess, one last question. If someone was gonna use this for a defense, would that protected party have to come and testify or at least give a statement that they wanted to be with the individual?

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: I guess that strategy I mean, I think the defendant can testify into that. It would be helpful if, the protected party came in and said the same thing.

[Senator Paul Cicarella]: Got it. Okay. Alright. Well, thank you for answering the questions.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: You're welcome. Further questions or comments? If not, turn it to Barbara. Sounds like you got some work to do on this

[John DelBarbera (Office of the Chief Public Defender)]: one. Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Paul Knagg. Paul Knagg. Okay. How about Claire ty Tylorney?

[Claire Teylouni (Reproductive Equity Now)]: Honorable chairs, members of the committee. Good afternoon. My name is Claire Taylouni. I'm here on behalf of Reproductive Equity Now. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opposition to HB five three zero nine. Reproductive equity now works in Connecticut and across New England to make equitable access to the full spectrum of reproductive health care a reality for all people, including young people without barriers. Connecticut has long been committed to reproductive health rights and justice, having codified the rights secured under Roe v Wade in our state statutes over thirty years ago. In that time, Connecticut has always stood for the principle that every person deserves the freedom to make deeply personal health care decisions with dignity, privacy, and autonomy. And in ensuring that young people must access comprehensive counseling from a licensed professional about their pregnancy options, the state has also long recognized that young people may not have a parent or trusted adult with whom to have those safe conversations. Because our organization works across New England, I wanted to to spend my comments this afternoon illustrating the harms of the judicial bypass system for minors to access abortion care that we see in practice in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts where parental consent is required for young people aged 15 and younger, a judicial bypass, which is the option, of course, if parental consent cannot be obtained,

[Speaker 4]: has not been denied in almost forty years. And to

[Claire Teylouni (Reproductive Equity Now)]: be clear, this is not years. And to be clear, this is not not to suggest that the process itself is easy. To the contrary, it shows that judges, by and large, find young people capable of making informed decisions about their pregnancies. But the process itself, as I mentioned, is arduous and unnecessarily burdensome. Research shows that of people who navigated the judicial by process system in in Massachusetts from 2010 to 2016, an average experienced a delay of accessing an abortion by nearly fifteen days and one in five experienced a delay of twenty one days or more. Young people who use the system during this time were disproportionately young people of color and young people with low incomes. These delays force young people to access abortion care later in their pregnancies, increasing the cost of care and limiting their options, especially if their access to care is delayed so as to make them ineligible for medication abortion. At its core, this legislation is asking the General Assembly to confront whether it trusts young people. Connecticut law already recognizes that minors can consent to a wide range of health care services. And just last year, this body reaffirmed that minors can consent to their own contraceptive care and other pregnancy related care. HB five three zero nine represents a sharp and troubling departure from this recognition and from Connecticut's strong legacy. The majority of young people seeking abortion care do involve their parents regardless of whether or not the law requires it. But legislation can't manufacture healthy family relationships. It can however create harm when it assumes that every family is safe. The judicial bypass process proposed in this bill suggests the opposite of trusting young people, requiring them to appear before a judge to justify their healthcare decisions, sends a clear message. And we urge you to reject this

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Questions from the committee. If not, well done on timing on that. I don't know. Thank you. Joseph Tito.

[Speaker 55]: Thank you for holding this hearing. And, I'm, father Joseph Tito, a pastor in Baltic, Tafill, and Ockham in Eastern Connecticut. And, I know everything's pretty much been, been said, but just some general principles. Like Pope John Paul the second said that the sin of Adam destroyed four harmonies. Our harmony with God, our harmony within ourselves, our harmony with others, and our harmony with nature. And that that's kind of the principle of, of sin. It brings about a kind of a chaos within and without, in the family, in society. This is a very orderly hearing because there are rules to guide it. And, like, society is a little chaotic because, some of God's laws are not followed. Like, they say civil law should reflect the natural law. Thomas Aquinas says, a law that contradicts God's law is no law. And what he means by that is that it brings about chaos. It brings about, chaos to society. And so, I mean, that's the importance of this, you know, this, hearing is to bring order to society. So, I'm sorry, I didn't say I support hearing, this, HB 50,309 print notification bill. Because I do believe that the State of Connecticut claims jurisdiction over parental rights, And I, I think those parental rights need to be restored for the sake of family society, as well as the individual person. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, Father.

[Representative Craig Fishbein (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Questions or comments? Seeing none, appreciate you being with

[Speaker 55]: us. Okay.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Colleen Berry. Colleen Barry? Okay. Anne Manuski? Oh, miss Berry's there. Okay. You you have a seat, miss Minuski. We're gonna let miss Berry testify remotely. I see her there. Miss Berry prepared? Alright. While she's trying to get that worked out, Ms. Munozki, go ahead.

[Speaker 56]: I'm, here to testify on, the support for HB five zero three nine, an act concerning the provision of notice to parent or guardian of a minor child who seeks to receive pregnancy related healthcare services for abortions, dear chairman and members of the judiciary committee, the Connecticut Republican assembly is an organization which has members and friends totaling over over 500 Republicans and conservatives across the eight counties of Connecticut. We stand firm in our principles and our unalienable rights in The U S constitution, as well as the rights and responsibilities of our representatives to uphold the Connecticut constitution. I am Aminoski twenty seven year resident of Connecticut, former licensed professional counselor, and, national director of the Republican assembly. People in Connecticut have been working to have legislation on notification for this, for parent parental notification, for a child who seeks pregnancy related health services for many years, other States have legislation to protect children in cases where they have, have been abused and are looking for abortion without parent knowledge or input. This bill needs to be enacted to protect the child and the family. We've had many instances in Connecticut and I'll quote from family Institute of Connecticut. For example, in West Hartford, a 15 year old girl who was being abused and hidden in the closet for nearly a year by Adam Gault underwent an abortion at planned parenthood and was released back

[Speaker 4]: into the control of her abuser.

[Speaker 56]: Gault is now serving a twenty five year time of the abortion. If parental notification or judicial review had been required, that additional layer of oversight might have created an opportunity to identify the exploitation and intervene sooner. This is one case of how many that have been missed. One piece I don't have in my testimony is the concern for human trafficking, which we are learning much more about due to the, notify parents and guardians as to reproductive healthcare services or abortions for their minor children and create policies on the court processes for those who are against notification. Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Questions or comments from the committee? If not, thanks for being with us. We'll return to Colleen Barry. Yep. Okay. Go ahead, ma'am. We got you now. Alright. I think you're

[Speaker 29]: Can I am I supposed to start speaking now? I can't hear well.

[Speaker 4]: Yep. Go ahead.

[Speaker 29]: Okay. Sorry about that. Yeah. And the actually, I'm in a school right now. I'm a pediatric nurse. But I knew this is so important, and I wanted to make sure to speak. So I'm a nurse. I'm a supportive strongly in support of HP five three zero nine parental notification. Excuse my I'm in an awkward spot trying to talk. Go home right here. I'm at school now with a client. I work with p d and pediatricians, but I knew the importance of HB fifty three zero nine, so I made sure to to get on this call. As a nurse, I have been involved with protecting the welfare of my clients, only after clients, simply ensuring that parents or guardians are at least notified if their child is gonna undergo a procedure that for many people has profound and life changing implications. Sorry about this. If parents have to sign off on an aspirin, shouldn't they at least have been like, based on the that could be performed on their 15, 14, or 13 year old? Calling has shown that across the board, independence isn't too loud? Pick a move. Sorry.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah. Ma'am, you know what? You're

[Speaker 29]: Independents, Democrats, and Republicans, Republicans, for to many people, it's just common sense. Sorry about this. I had there we yeah. Please provide the vitals.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Do you have your testimony in writing? You know, we're gonna

[Speaker 29]: Parents can provide that'll support that a child needs during this time that, you know, use for them difficult. And we know now right now, a 20 year old compared to a 14 year old then, and the parents wouldn't even know. And I apologize. I couldn't hear you all. I hope you were able to hear. Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. I think we I think we got the gist of it. And I'll just, I'll again remind folks, particularly as we're, you know, we're getting into the afternoon here and we still have a ways to go. If folks have written testimony, that's actually the best way to present testimony to us. You can feel free to submit the written testimony. It's published on the website. It'll remain on the website for the entire committee to be able to, review. So don't feel obligated to, stick with us if you have other commitments today. We, you know, we, we'd prefer the written testimony anyways, so thank you for, thank you for that. And hopefully you get your written testimony in, Thomas barrel will be next.

[Speaker 57]: Can you hear me?

[Speaker 4]: Yep. Go ahead, sir.

[Speaker 57]: Okay. My name is Tom Beryl. I'm president and founder of the Institute of Connecticut History, and I'm here to support HB fifty three zero nine, an act to require that parents be notified and decide their child's healthcare services. For generations in Connecticut, it was generally understood that it was the duty of our state government to protect the integrity of the family. Both right reason and the scriptures made this innately self evident. Throughout the history of Western civilization, people understood that God provided three basic institutions that would help people live happy and useful lives. The scriptures which provide the basis of all reality make this abundantly clear. These three institutions are the first are first the family, second the church, and third the government. Looking at the political philosophy of the founders of Connecticut and the founders of our national government, one can easily see that they wholeheartedly agreed with this. The misinterpretation of the establishment cause clause by progressive justices in the last half century, making government the enemy of religion, turns the original intent of the first amendment on its head. Up until that time, the church and the state had a symbiotic and friendly relationship. The state counted on the church to provide a virtuous population that could be governed, and this church counted on the state to protect its liberties to preach the gospel. The benefactor of this arrangement was the nuclear family. With the blossoming of the Democrats into socialism and atheistic communism, we are witnessing the demise of the nuclear family. This bill is a tiny incremental step against the slow, steady creep of Marxism into our net Connecticut state government. For that reason, I support it. Karl Marx famously said the task of history is that once religion has vanished, to establish the truth of communism, religion is the opium of the people. As the bourgeois concept of the nuclear family disappears, child rearing becomes solely the responsibility of the collective. With the diminishment of the nuclear family and the church, we see the diminishment of virtue. We see the murder of the unborn. We see the oppression of the state in ascendency. What was so apparent to Connecticut citizens for its almost four hundred years has become veiled and hidden by godless progressive agenda perpetrated by the Democrat party. Paul warns us that if we don't receive a love for the truth, we will receive a spirit of strong delusion. Jesus said, if you continue in my word, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Whoever commits sin is the servant of sin, but if the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. It's high time for Connecticut to wake up from its sinful slumber and restore the state to God's righteousness and God's freedom. Thank you for your time.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Seeing no questions, next up will be Megan Baker followed by Caitlin Mitchell.

[Caitlin Mitchell (U.S. End FGMC Network)]: Hello. Can you hear me and see me?

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: We have Megan Baker first and then Oh, shit. So hang tight.

[Megan Baker (CWCSEO)]: Hello. Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative Staffsham, Senator Flexer, Senator Edgar Wilcox, Representative Fazzino, Senator Kissel, and Representative Fishbein, and other esteemed members of the judiciary committee. My name is Megan Baker. I am joined here with my colleague Rosemary Lopez, who will introduce herself shortly, and we are here on the behalf of the commission on women, children, seniors, equity, and opportunity. We thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We have submit we have submitted written testimony that goes in more detail, but today, we'll be we will be verbally expressing support for s b two five nine and not concerning female genital mutilation.

[Rosemary Lopez (CWCSEO)]: Yes. And for the record, Rosemary Lopez. Senate bill two five And

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: I'll just note, ma'am, for the record, you are signed up to testify as number one zero three. So I appreciate you guys buddying up.

[Speaker 4]: Yes.

[Rosemary Lopez (CWCSEO)]: Thank you. Trying to make it easy for you guys. So senate bill two five nine is a critical and long overdue, step to protecting girls and young women in Connecticut from the severe physical, emotional, and psychological harm caused by female genital mutilation or FGM. While 41 states have enacted explicit criminal bans against this practice, Connecticut remains still number one of nine states that don't have a statue. So this bill two five nine will close that gap. In Connecticut alone, more than 1,600 girls and women are at risk or experience FGMC. And in 2001, I can say that one student had to seek sanctuary in New York from Connecticut to his to escape family pressure to undergo FGM. This shows this is happening here in our community. SB two five nine, it's thoughtfully crafted and survivor centered. The provisions listed in this bill would send a clear message that FGM would be illegal in this state. It would reduce trauma for victims in the legal process and provide avenues for justice. Together, these measures prevent harm, protect vulnerable children, and support survivors. We respects respectfully recommend the committee to advance Senate Bill two five nine. The commission stands ready to work jointly to ensure measures moving forward in ways that prioritize survivors and in hand practices across our state. Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Questions or comments from the committee? If not, appreciate you guys being with us today.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Megan Baker. That was and now Caitlin Mitchell.

[Caitlin Mitchell (U.S. End FGMC Network)]: Hello again. Can you see me and hear me?

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yes. Go ahead.

[Caitlin Mitchell (U.S. End FGMC Network)]: Okay. Perfect. Honorable members of the joint committee on judiciary. I'm here to testify in support of Senate Bill two five nine. My name is Caitlin Mitchell, and I'm the policy and advocacy coordinator at The US and FGMC Network, a collaborative group of over 200 members, including FGMC survivors, civil society organizations, foundations, activists, policymakers, researchers, and health care providers committed to addressing fGMC in The United States and globally. I would like to thank the chairs and the committee for raising a bill to prohibit female genital mutilation and cutting in Connecticut and scheduling this hearing today. On behalf of the network and as a member of the Connecticut Coalition to End FGMC, I'm here to strongly encourage you to support SB two fifty nine, an act concerning female genital mutilation, and to report the bill favor favorably out of committee. I also urge House and Senate leadership to bring this bill to their respective chambers for a vote. The CDC currently estimates that over half a million women and girls have already experienced fGMC or are at risk for experiencing fGMC in The United States. And a 2023 study estimates that two hun two thousand seven hundred and forty two of those women and girls live in Connecticut. However, advocates understand that these numbers tend to be severely underreported because of the secretive nature of f g m c. Although there is a federal law against f g m c in The United States, state laws play an essential and unique role in addressing f g m c. By enacting a state law, Connecticut can act independently of federal changes, strengthen enforcement, and ensure that survivors have access to both justice and support services. A state law can provide a holistic, comprehensive approach that not only bans FGMC but also empathize emphasizes community led prevention and response. Additionally, this bill would allow for civil actions, enabling survivors to seek damages and protective remedies to support their healing and recovery. Currently, there are 41 states that have specific laws prohibiting fGMC, leaving Connecticut as one of only nine states that has yet to adequately address this issue. Additionally, all of Connecticut's neighboring states have laws in place to prohibit fGMC, including New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. These states include some of the highest concentrations of at risk communities in the country, leaving Connecticut vulnerable for an increase in f g m c and ultimately becoming a safe haven for this harmful practice. The US and f g m c network fully supports the bill language and urges the joint committee on judiciary to immediately take the necessary steps to pass SB two fifty nine and act concerning female genital mutilation. Girls in Connecticut and The United States need and deserve to be protected from FGMC and deserve urgent attention. Thank you very much for your time.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Are there comments or questions from members of the committee? Comment or question from members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much for joining us this afternoon, to provide us with your testimony. Catherine Sarris.

[Speaker 29]: Good afternoon.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Good afternoon.

[Catherine Sarris]: And, hello to you, senator Winfield, and the other members of the committee. Thank you for hearing my testimony in support of h b five three zero nine. I am very grateful that this bill was introduced by the honorable representatives because frankly it is embarrassing how inconsistent our current laws and statutes are regarding minors in the state of Connecticut. We restrict minors in Connecticut from voting or from using even medical marijuana because we recognize that a child's brain is still going through major developmental changes during these pivotal years. Moreover, in Connecticut, minors are not allowed to engage in certain activities such as getting married, getting tobacco without parental consent, purchasing alcohol or tobacco products, or being handcuffed by the police. Additionally, they cannot be tried in an adult court for most offenses. However, we currently allow a minor to receive pregnancy related care with no input from her parents or guardian. Minors under the age of 18 are also subject to strict limitations on when they can work. It is my understanding that an unemancipated minor here in Connecticut is restricted from getting a body piercing without parental consent and the presence of a parent or legal guardian with them during the piercing. And yet, they can have an abortion without any parental consent or even parental notification. I think this bill is insufficient in addressing the gross inconsistency we see in our current laws regarding minors and the life altering procedure of an abortion. I am a strong advocate for parental input and consent. However, I think that notification is a step in the right direction. As a woman, I know that discovering an unplanned pregnancy can be a very scary thing. A pregnant minor may be afraid to tell her parents or legal guardian for a variety of reasons. However, facing this monumental decision alone is far worse. If her family is a healthy one, the parental notification will ensure she has an opportunity to reason things through with those who love her the most. If her living situation is a challenging one, it may enable her to get word to a sibling, an aunt, or other trusted adult to help her navigate through conflict. And if she has been impregnated by an abuser, she has the opportunity to receive aid and possible relief through the process outlined in this bill. The current no load no notification law doesn't protect young women. It violates the trust between a developing young woman and those who can help her through a challenging situation. And the current law is inconsistent with our other state laws and statutes regarding minors. Please vote yes on h b five three zero nine, and thank you for listening to my testimony.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee? Comment or question from members of the committee? There are none. Thank you very much for joining us this afternoon and providing us with your testimony.

[Speaker 29]: Thank you, senator.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Next, we will hear from Michelle May. Michelle May. Okay. James Sullivan. Sullivan. Good afternoon.

[Father Jim Sullivan]: Thank you. And an honor to be here. My name is father Jim Sullivan. I'm a pastor of four churches in Waterbury, Connecticut, and the administrator of a grade school. Prior to my becoming a priest, I owned a contracting business for twenty five years and then a priest for the last eleven years. So I've kind of experienced in, in both worlds, you might say. Prior to becoming a priest, I had never met even one person who had had an abortion. I had met one man who cooperated, but prior to that, I had just never met a person in my working career who had had an abortion. Now that I'm a priest for the last eleven years, I've met countless people who have had abortions and and men who have cooperated with abortions. And I think among the five most difficult words I've ever heard is when a woman says or a man, father, I had an abortion, and then all the fallout and the pain that that comes after that. So I've seen in my years of priesthood, everything, grandparents, parents, children, young and old alike who have expressed the pain of that decision. And once they are able to speak it, of course, there's tears of repentance, but there's always a comes also after that tears of of healing and hope and and and possibility. My experience with the young has been that parents love their children, that they want what's best for them. And very often children act out of fear. Perhaps an anachronism is false evidence appearing real. But once a child speaks to parents, in my opinion, whatever it is, drugs, bad behavior, certainly abortion, parents generally want to walk with them. That has been my experience. Not punitive, but rather what's best for the child. If I may just give one final little example, I have pretty much seen it all in my eleven years of priesthood, but I remember one in particular where the parents forced the girl out of the house if she chose to have an abortion, and she decided to move out of the house at the age of 16, had the child, and those parents and grandparents love that child more than anything right now and just have the deepest regret for even trying to push her in that direction. As a priest, and I know you're looking at the white collar, you're probably thinking it's all about God. It's all about the spiritual. And, yes, of course, as a priest, I stand in that world, of course, but also from the secular where I live the vast majority of my life. In this, I'm speaking more from the human, not from the spiritual, although it includes both, of course. So I would encourage the proper vote in this for parental notification. Parents love their child. They want what's best, and I thank you so much for your time today. God bless to all.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee, comment or question. Yaronan, thank you very much for joining

[Father Jim Sullivan]: us. Thank you so much.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Have a great afternoon. K. We have Andrea Contreras. Andrea Contreras.

[Dr. Andrea Contreras (OB-GYN, family planning fellow)]: Hi. Good afternoon. Senator Winfield, representative, staff from, and distinguished members of the judiciary committee. I am doctor Contreras. I am an OB GYN and current family planning fellow. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of senate bill two ninety five, and that's concerning state law protections for health care providers and patients related to the provision of illegally protected health care activity. This bill ensures that Connecticut continues to do everything in its power to protect healthcare providers and safeguard access to essential reproductive health services, including abortion. I am a proud Texan. I grew up in South Texas, and all of my formal medical training until now was completed in Texas. I'm a product of the Latin community in which I grew up, surrounded by friends and family, all of whom I do miss very dearly. I love Texas with the intention of returning home equipped with a new skill set to provide comprehensive reproductive health care and to advocate for my patients. However, as the legislation has changed, so have my options. While practicing in Texas, I witnessed firsthand the impact of senate bill eight on the care that I could provide. I was legally prohibited from providing evidence based treatment for early pregnancy complications. I was there when the Dobbs decision was handed down and the trigger loss immediately took effect. I have lived the consequences of those restrictions for both patients and providers. Distressing is an understatement. Beyond my personal experience, there is extensive evidence documenting the long term harm abortion restrictions inflict on individuals. And this is why this bill matters so deeply to me. I am committed to maximizing the impact I can have in my career by providing this care to my community and fellow Texans. Previously, that meant returning home. Now, I don't think that's the answer. Understand that the shield law protections would safeguard me only while I practice and remain within the state. I may not be able to return to Texas, but I would still be able to care for my community while being protected here. I am prepared to make that decision because abortion care is vital to the health and well-being of people who can become pregnant. I am prepared to make that decision because abortion, whether it's provided in person via telemedicine or if it's self managed, it's safe, it's evidence based. And I'm prepared to make that decision because this is the most meaningful way in which I can serve my community and give back. So I strongly urge the judiciary committee and the CT General Assembly to support senate bill two nine five further bolstering Connecticut's Reproductive Freedom Defense Act and our state shield protections with these added provisions for telemedicine providers. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important bill for me.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee. There are none. Thank you very much for joining us. Emma Gerber. Good afternoon. When you are ready, you may testify.

[Manju (Munju) Gerber]: To the esteemed members of the judiciary committee, ranking member state senate, Senator Kissel, state representative Frishbein, chair and co chair state senator Winfield, state's representative Staffstrom, and vice chair senators Flexner, Gadcar Wilcox, and state representative Fazino. My name is Munju Gerber, and I am here to give strong support of house bill fifty three zero nine. I am not here as an advocate or an opponent on the issue of abortion, But I am here, however, as a parent and a concerned citizen on one of the major issues of our time, parental rights, which also includes parental notification. I believe that both are a fundamental right, and it is a matter of pure common sense. Parents are entrusted with the care, guidance, and well-being of their children. When it comes to significant health care decisions, such as undergoing invasive procedures, administering a pharmaceutical agent, even curriculum in the classroom and harassment in schools, parents deserve the right to be informed and to be involved. This legislation goes to the heart of parental rights by asking one key question. Who knows best for their children? Parents, the government, or school administrators? The answer, I believe, is crystal clear. Parents are uniquely positioned to support their children through difficult decisions. Notification like this ensures minors are not left to navigate these challenges by themselves. In fact, in for informed consent with signatures is legally required from a parent or a guardian for a minor for any sort of medical or dental treatment for field trips from a classroom for a school nurse to give over the counter medication, and to even get a public library card for minors. And to also be able to give consent to or permission to a primary care physician or pediatrician for medical emergencies outside the home. Public opinion shows strong, consistent bipartisan support for parental notification. The majority of states in our country over 30 of them support parental rights at a fundamental level. The late Supreme court justice Sandra Day O'Connor inciting Meyer versus Nebraska Pierce versus society of sisters, Troxell versus Granville, and Moore versus East Cleveland reaffirmed the longstanding constitutional principle that parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing, education, and care for their children, which has been rooted in substantive due process and the historical protection of family autonomy. After all, even when matters are taken out of their hands, a parent is still obligated for financial and legal duty for their child. I urge the committee to pass HB fifty three zero nine, and thank you very much for your time and consideration.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment, question from members of the committee, comment or question? There are none. Thank you very much for being here today to provide your testimony. We will next hear from, Kylan Smith. Kylan Smith. Okay. Megan Scanlon.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Sorry, I'm short.

[Megan Scanlon (CEO, CCADV)]: Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative Staff Strum, Senator Flexer, Representative Gilchrist, and Senator Kissel, and the rest of the members of the committee. My name is Megan Scanlon. I'm the CEO at the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And I we've submitted testimony on a number of bills today. I'm going to talk about two and I'm going to try to keep it short and sweet. The first being House Bill 5,306, the Survivor Justice Act. We urge your support of this because we do feel like it is time that Connecticut adopt a trauma informed sentencing framework that, acknowledges the abuse that gender, gender based violence causes within the commission of crimes and within Connecticut's judicial criminal justice system. The one, two things I want to highlight on this is just nobody's mentioned this and I won't repeat the other reasons that people gave earlier, but we have over 70 crimes that carry a mandatory minimum sentence in Connecticut that apply regardless of the circumstances of the crime. So this requires that the court essentially negate any role that abuse may play in a survivor's offense and it restricts judicial discretion and also, minimizes the survivor experience. The second thing I'll note is that we did in our written testimony, submit substitute language, which you can read and I'm happy to answer any questions on. And then the second, bill that I'd like to just make a few comments on today is House Bill fifty three ten, which is, the act that seeks to create an affirmative defense, regarding orders of protection. I'll just simply state that, this circumvent's longstanding policy in the state of Connecticut. It would have a chilling effect on survivors, and it's not something that any victims have come to us and and said that they would like, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Senator Castle.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: Thank you very much, Chairman Winfield. Ms. Scanlon, bank, it's great to see you, as always. When you're offering this testimony, is this on behalf of CCADV or the council that you co chair that I am a member on and you co chair with Senator Flexner?

[Megan Scanlon (CEO, CCADV)]: My testimony today is on behalf of CCADV and the partners that we partnered with on, the survivor justice act, which would be the Alliance to end sexual violence, the children's Alliance, love one forty six and, and others.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: Thank you very much. And I, again it's great to see you here this afternoon. Thank you. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comments question from members of the committee representative Gilchrist.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: Thank you Mr. Chair. So good to see you. Would you be able to share a little bit about the substitute language that you submitted and what it does?

[Megan Scanlon (CEO, CCADV)]: Sure. So the first main, language change is around, the contributing factor. So we actually, submitted language that would narrow that and provide a little bit more guidance around contributing factor. And then the, the other change is actually, I know there was a big discussion about this earlier around the boards of pardons and paroles, but we're actually taking out a lot of that. And it would simplify the process for the board of pardons and paroles when considering gender based violence victimization. We talked with the, chief of the board and pardons of paroles, and they found it very reasonable and thought it would be easily, easily implemented on their end.

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: Wonderful. Thank you. Take a look at that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Comment a question from other members of the committee. Comment a question from other members of the committee. I'll just say I haven't had a chance to read your language, but I appreciate the effort. It's always helpful when people try to help us get these things done.

[Megan Scanlon (CEO, CCADV)]: And the contributing factor I'll add is is trying to compromise with the chief state's attorney's office. So trying to Yep. Tighten that up a

[Representative Jillian Gilchrest]: little bit.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Well Thanks. Thank you for joining us. Have a great afternoon.

[Megan Scanlon (CEO, CCADV)]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Next is Catherine Krashel.

[Zara Pawa (We Speak Out/SAHYO, survivor)]: Hello.

[Catherine (Katie) Kraschel (law professor)]: Chair Winfield, chairs, Staffstrom, and members of the joint committee judiciary, my name is Catherine Craschel. I'm a professor of law at Northeastern University. My research focuses on fertility care and assisted reproduction. I live in a sick with my wife and our two children. Today, I'm here to testify in opposition of Ray's bill two nine three. Others have and will testify to the threats posed to reproductive health care, including fertility care, that demand extreme caution to be taken in any legislation regarding reproductive health care. Those concerns are urgent and extremely important. I emphatically share those concerns. The moment we're in demands a more cautious approach that ought to include engaging state medical societies and other existing accountability mechanisms to achieve the purported goals of the of senate bill two nine three. My testimony today will focus on the problematic language of the bill that poses particular legal issues. The bill is vague, overbroad, and presupposes a cause of action that our state has not recognized. The bill does not define fraud in the provision of fertility care, a term used in the language, nor does it define the universe of individuals who could be defendants in such a suit. Unlike some similar laws that target the outlier cases of physicians who knowingly engage in deceiving their patient, This bill could impact people who provide sperm and eggs for fertility treatments as well as the various professionals involved in the provision of fertility care. The language is so broad that one could reasonably argue that two individuals who conceived a child together through fertility care could sue one another for asserting traits about themselves that are not true. Moreover, the bill is focused on a cause of action for a child for for care.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: One one moment. Your your

[Catherine (Katie) Kraschel (law professor)]: However, at the time, the and it'll be alleged fraud is committed. And

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Your audio is not coming through. If you turn off your camera, you might increase your bandwidth.

[Catherine (Katie) Kraschel (law professor)]: Thank you. Can you hear me now, chair Winfield?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yes.

[Catherine (Katie) Kraschel (law professor)]: Okay. My apologies. What I think I believe I was saying before, perhaps my audio cut out, and I'm happy to submit written testimony for the benefit of the committee as well, is that the bill does not define fraud and provision of fertility care, nor does it define the universe of individuals who could be defendants in a suit. It's, if the legislature wishes to statutorily define a civil claim of action specifically for fertility fraud, focus ought to be on the people involved in the alleged act of fraud, the fertility care patient and the fertility care health care provider. This brings me to a larger issue, though, with this bill. It implicitly presupposes that a claim for personal injury caused by fraud in the provision of fertility care exists under Connecticut law. It does not. This committee ought not move forward a bill that facially seems to only address a statute of limitations issue when in fact, it could signal to the Connecticut courts that the legislature recognizes a claim for personal injury that does not exist under Connecticut law.

[Speaker 4]: Okay.

[Catherine (Katie) Kraschel (law professor)]: Since the bill is proposed

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Your time

[Catherine (Katie) Kraschel (law professor)]: does not explicitly I'm sorry, chair Winfield?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Your time has elapsed. So if you could summarize shortly.

[Catherine (Katie) Kraschel (law professor)]: I my pleasure.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. You are going to submit written testimony. You've told us that, so we'll leave that there. Are there comments or questions? And just so you know, because on your end, you may not

[Catherine (Katie) Kraschel (law professor)]: Oh, be having a wholly different debate. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. I'm

[Catherine (Katie) Kraschel (law professor)]: happy to take any questions.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Problem with technology sometimes. Doesn't wanna cooperate with us. Okay. So are there comments or questions from members of the committee? Comments or questions? I wanna thank you. I wanna thank you for trooping it out despite the difficulties. Have a good afternoon.

[Catherine (Katie) Kraschel (law professor)]: Thank you, Sherwin Jones.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Terry Forlenzo.

[Terry Forlenzo]: I'm here. Can you hear me see me?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: I can hear you. We could see you. Yeah.

[Terry Forlenzo]: Oh, perfect. Thank you. Good afternoon, senator Winfield, representative Staffstrom, and distinguished committee members. My name is Terry Forlenzo. I'm from Newtown, Connecticut, and I'm a master's candidate at the University of Connecticut School of Social Work. Thank you for the opportunity to to testify in in strong support of SB two ninety five, an act concerning state law protections for health care providers and patients related to the provision of a legally protected health care activity. I speak to you today as someone who has relied on access to gender affirming and reproductive health care to thrive in the state. This legislation is deeply personal to my experience as a transgender person and a lifetime Connecticut resident. The passing of SB two ninety five would affect whether I can make decisions about my health, my future, and my family without fear of political interference or legal retaliation from hostile states. In the past year, the national landscape has become increasingly more hostile towards essential reproductive and gender affirming health care. As a future social worker with a policy focus, I am being trained not only to support individuals and families, but to shape and strengthen the laws that protect them. It is devastating to think that the work we have done in Connecticut to build protections for patients and providers could be undermined by out of state advocacy and build protections for patients and providers could be undermined by out of state actors seeking to impose their ideology across borders. Decisions like this bill directly influence where I'm able to settle and build community. They influence whether young professionals like me choose to remain in Connecticut, invest in our neighborhoods, and raise our families here. They also invest in our neighborhoods, and raise our families here. They also impact whether providers feel secure practicing here and whether patients can seek care in our state with confidence that Connecticut will stand behind them. While other states strengthen their protections, we must continue to be a leader among them. SB two ninety five strengthens Connecticut's promise that our state will protect protect those who provide and legally and receive legally protected health care and affirms that no out of state lawmaker can intimidate professionals providing medically necessary treatment. It sends a clear message that Connecticut stands by its residents and by the health care workforce that serves us. Your support for this bill is a meaningful investment in the well-being of my community as well as the sustainability of our residents in the state. I strongly urge the judiciary committee and the general assembly to support SB two ninety five and continue Connecticut's leadership in protecting patients, families, and providers from out of state overreach. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important bill.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee. Okay. There are none. I wanna thank you very much for joining us and providing us with your testimony.

[Deborah Barrell]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Dennis Crow.

[Dennis Crow]: Good afternoon. Co chairs, Winfield, Straffsham, and esteemed members of the judiciary committee. I'm Dennis Crow from Madison and speaking in support of HB 5,309. This bill creates a requirement for physician or counselor to provide notification to at least one parent or guardian before performing an abortion on a minor. This bill does include important provisions to protect the minor from potential harm when there is risk of abuse. So that's not the issue. I commend the committee for adding this requirement to state statues. Now let me explain why. Late at night, when a young girl is crying, torn by her motions over a wrong choice when she had been confirmed, you know, satisfied that the people who guided her had her best interest at heart. But there is no, physician or counselor or teacher there to hug her or support her. There will be no agency employees there. There will be no legislators to tell her that they wanted her to have freedom of choice. There will only be her parents who might never have been told of the procedure, might not know why she's feeling distraught. Five years down the road those counselors physicians teachers employees and legislators will not remember her name nor her face. There will be no love from them to help her through any remorse. There will only be her parents wondering why their daughter is distraught. Now considering the case in which that young girl had chosen with her parents' consent or participation, chosen to terminate the life of the baby in her womb. While I would not want that end, they will at least have an understanding that they did arrive at the decision together. They would have the ability to understand and support each other. Well, that may still be traumatic. It would be far more healthy than the case in which the girl never did reveal an abortion to her parents. And thus, those parents might never understand the cause of the anguish the girl is experiencing, whether hours, days, or years after the event. But hopefully, instead, the girl will, with the counsel of her parents and with God's guidance, decide not to get the abortion, and her parents will continue offering love and support for the girl to begin her new life with a beautiful baby. In either of those cases where the parent, was involved, the decision will at least provide an opportunity for family involvement in the life changing situations. Girls should not be left to face that decision nor its aftermath in isolation. Thank you for your consideration.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee. There are none. Thank you very much for joining us today. Dennis oh, you were. Sorry. Jody Madeira.

[Dr. Jody Madeira]: Hello. Good afternoon, co chairs and committee members. My name is doctor Jody Madeira. Thank you for this opportunity to testify in strong support of SB two ninety three, an act concerning the statute of limitation for injury caused by fraud in the provision of fertility care and treatment. SB two ninety three addresses the simple, painful reality of fertility fraud, an offense in which fertility doctors substituted their own sperm sample for that of a husband or anonymous donor without their parents' knowledge or consent. This is a uniquely hidden offense that inflicts medical harm, psychological harm, relational harm, and dignitary harms on the patient, her partner, and the child conceived that often can't be discovered until years or decades after misconduct occurs. We know of at least 80 such cases across the country and internationally. Some occurred in the nineteen seventies or eighties, but the most recent occurred in 2009. I've been a leading legal expert on this subject since 2018 beginning with the case of doctor Donald Cline, who fathered over a 100 child in this manner in Indiana. Several Connecticut practitioners have also allegedly engaged in these practices, including doctor Ben Ramele, doctor Burton Caldwell, and doctor Norinda Tohan. These cases against Caldwell and Tohan are actually pending currently in Connecticut courts. A legal problem arises, however, because Connecticut's general tort limitation statute, Connecticut general statute 52 dot five seven seven, is an occurrence based statute that provides that no action shall be brought within three years after an unlawful act or omission. Because Connecticut's baseline limitations rule bars claims before discovery it's ill suited for fertility fraud where this wrong is actively concealed, and may not be knowable through ordinary diligence for decades. When the law treats fertility fraud like an ordinary injury with an ordinary clock, the result is predictable. The courthouse doors close before victims even learn they were harmed. SB two ninety three provides a tailored discovery sensitive window that would allow suit no later than three years from either the date a minor child reaches majority or three years after discovery of the fraud, whichever is later. This approach is legally sound. It does not allow for an unlimited open ended claims regime, but sets a firm through your window once the triggering event occurs. It aligns doctrine with technology and the pragmatic reality of how these offenses occur. Also, SB two ninety three doesn't create a sweeping new cause of action or open ended liability. It only extends when a specific kind of claim can be filed and only in a narrow context. Again, courts are already hearing these claims with questions of law recently coming before the Connecticut Supreme Court. Meanwhile, SB two ninety three is a narrow bill that advances core civil justice principles. Physicians fraud should never be rewarded by concealment because, a limitations regime that predictably expires before discovery immunizes the very misconduct the law condemns. Courts should decide claims on evidence, not on an arbitrary mismatch between wrongdoing and discoverability. And finally, trust and deterrence matter in fertility medicine. In conclusion, Connecticut has seen allegations from multiple victims across three cases, publicly litigated and reported, revealing multiple half siblings and lifelong identity and medical history consequences. The pattern among all fertility fraud cases is consistent. The discovery event is delayed often by decades, not because victims slept on their rights, but because the truth was inaccessible until technology and adult autonomy made it discoverable.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Your time has lapsed. Thank you. Summarize for us.

[Dr. Jody Madeira]: S b two ninety three doesn't presume liability or guarantee recovery. It simply ensures that the injured person has a fair defined window to be heard. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to report s b two ninety three favorably. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yep. Thank you very much. Comment, question from members of the committee. Comment, question from members of the committee. There are none. Thank you for joining us today and providing us with your testimony. Bill O'Brien.

[Bill O’Brien (CT Right to Life Education Alliance)]: Mister Chairman, members of the Judiciary Committee, I am Bill O'Brien from Wilkut, and I'm chairman of the Connecticut Right to Life Education Alliance. I'm here to support HB 5,309. A minor girl in Connecticut does not become emancipated, granted legal adult status, or become free of parental control simply because of pregnancy. Unless a minor girl has become legally emancipated, in all other ways, her parents, her guardian, maintain legal responsibility for their daughter's upbringing. Becoming pregnant should not be a reason to grant emancipation. If she is emancipated, why isn't she or the state or planned parenthood paying for her room and board? If the parents are responsible for a room and board, they should be responsible for health as well. The school's nurse can't give an aspirin to a minor, pregnant or not, nor can a doctor perform an operation, procedure, or provide any medicine to a minor, except in an emergency, without the parents permission. So why is Planned Parenthood, which performs most abortions in the state, been appointed to act in the place of a minor girl's parents? Where in the constitution does it say Planned Parenthood can overrule the rights of minors parents? Planned Parenthood is known to have covered up for sex trafficking, for sexual abuse, for incest and forced abortions, including one well publicized incident in 2007 in West Hartford, where Planned Parenthood performed an abortion on a 15 year old girl who had been missing for a year. Connecticut denying parents of their most basic right to what is being done to their child? A major recent study shows that the abortion pill is a lot more dangerous than previously thought, causing major complications in about ten per more than ten percent of abortions because of the pill. Parents should not first learn of their minor daughter's abortion when they are called to the hospital emergency room. The state should not be interfering with the parents right to know about any operation, procedure, or medication being given to their pregnant daughter that may affect her health or well-being. If that happened to my daughter, I would be suing Planned Parenthood for every million dollars Planned Parenthood has in the bank or for every million more the state of Connecticut recently shoveled to it. The state of Connecticut and planned parenthood are set themselves up as the usurpers of parental rights. Vote for HB 5,309 to return to parents the rightful power to raise our minor children without the state trampling on their rights and without giving our children over to the clutches of planned parenthood, which is killing over ten thousand Connecticut babies in the womb each year. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment, question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee. Seeing none, thank you very much.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Cheryl Crevier.

[Sherry (Cheryl) Crevier]: Good afternoon. Thank you for letting me come before you and, and to speak, my opinion, on House Bill five three zero nine. My name is Sherry Crevier and I come before you as a mom and as a grandmother and as a retired school teacher. And I just wanted to make it known that I strongly support House Bill five three zero nine. I believe it's extremely important for this bill to be passed. Everyday, we see our family unit, units being compromised in our state. We see children be giving way more authority to make their own decisions than they're able to handle. A young person does not fully understand the consequences of all their actions, but a loving, trusting parent or family member or guardian does. As a parent and as a school teacher, I've learned over the years that young people actually thrive in supportive and structured environments. I can't imagine not being made aware of a serious metal condition, medical condition that Mona and my children or my grandchildren were going were facing just because they were afraid of disappointing us or maybe because they're embarrassed. I think it's important for us to work together with the medical community, with our schools to ensure that our youth are guided as they go through life and face big life altering decisions. As a woman to faith and I I look to scripture for my guidance and my directions. I realize many kids may be afraid for their parents or gardens to find out something, but I know I would have been when I was growing up as well. But this is healthy fear that that helps young people stop and maybe think before they do things. Proverbs twenty nine fifteen says, a child left to himself gives brings shame to himself and to his mother. Luke twelve twenty two teaches us that there's nothing uncovered that will not be revealed nor hidden that will not be known. Letting our you think that this secret will be hidden forever is really not true. It will come out and and hiding that secret for years could have a real detrimental effect on them. So I thank you for letting me speak and I ask that you pass fifty three zero nine. Thank you so much.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much. Okay. Next, we have, Leslie Wolfgang.

[Leslie Wolfgang (Family Institute of Connecticut)]: Thank you. My name is Leslie Wolfgang, and I am the director of Public Policy for the Family Institute of Connecticut. I am testifying in opposition to SB two ninety five, expanding Connecticut shield law. I have also submitted written testimony with detailed analysis and citations. But basically, this bill raises serious constitutional and interstate comedy concerns, messes with another state's public policy decisions and interjects itself into deeply personal and individualized Family Court matters. For more than two hundred years, our country has relied on cooperation among the States. Shield laws like this erode the cooperation and goodwill between States that federalism depends on. We are not simply protecting Connecticut policy within our borders. We are asserting our policy preferences against other States with this bill through telehealth. To understand how offensive this may feel elsewhere, consider how we would react if another State allowed its businesses to mail assault rifles into Connecticut And then shielded manufacturers from lawsuits, while creating procedural obstacles and counter suit remedies against Connecticut plaintiffs. States that have thoughtfully rejected abortion or gender related interventions may view this bill the same way. We should not protect gender affirming care or impose our standards on other states. When there is no settled medical consensus, These interventions, puberty blockers, cross sex hormones and complex surgeries are life altering and often irreversible and highly controversial. They carry implications for fertility, bone density, cardiovascular risk, and long term psychological outcomes for children and adults. Especially when minors are involved, oversight and accountability are essential. We should be extra cautious with regard to shielding anything related to gender affirming care. Just last month, the American Association of Plastic Surgeons formally rejected surgical interventions for minors with gender dysphoria. Shortly thereafter, the American Medical Association affirmed that position. On February 20, The United Kingdom's Department of Health and Social Care announced it was pausing a planned clinical trial of puberty blockers in children due to concerns about safety and well, well-being of patients. Section 19 of the bill also directly conflicts with existing State law mandating that Connecticut recognize and enforce child custody determinations from other States. I've included more detailed analysis in my written testimony. And for re these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to reject s b two nine five.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee? There are none. Thank you for joining us again. Thank you. Susie Smith. Susie Smith. Hannah Hussey.

[Hannah Hussey (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders)]: Good afternoon, senator Winfield, representative Seth Strong, and distinguished members of the judiciary committee. My name is Hannah Hussey, and I'm a staff attorney at GLAD Law, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders. GLAD Law is New England's leading legal rights organization dedicated to ensuring equality for LGBTQ people and people living with HIV. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony in support of SB two ninety five, an act concerning state law protections for health care providers and patients related to the provision of illegally protected health care activity. GLAD Law appreciates Connecticut's leadership on reproductive and transgender health care, including through passing the very first shield law in the country to protect patients and providers. SB two ninety five would strengthen this law through important updates, adding new layers of protection for providers whose work is critical to maintaining access to essential and medically necessary health care. The legal landscape for abortion providers and transgender health care providers is shifting rapidly in ways that have consequences for Connecticut. Recent years have seen a coordinated political effort increasingly backed by federal action to restrict, criminalize and ultimately to eliminate access to health care services that people need to thrive. That effort does not respect state lines. Ongoing litigation underscores the urgency of strengthening Connecticut shield law to the fullest extent. In 2025, a New York based abortion provider was indicted by another state's authorities and faced an extradition request after allegedly prescribing medication abortion to a patient identified by her name on a prescription label. A similar situation with a California provider faced similar legal action. And in both cases, the physicians were providing legal care under their own state's laws. When the governors of both states refused extradition, they did so relying on their state shield laws. SB two ninety five would further enshrine Connecticut's commitment to a core principle that the state will not allow political interference wherever it originates to come between patients, families and doctors. As other states increasingly impose barriers to medically necessary care or ban it altogether, it's vital that Connecticut do all it can to ensure that providers are able to offer the essential care on which their patients depend. Glad Law respectfully urges this committee to support SB two ninety five to safeguard our health care providers and the patients who depend on them. And separately, I would just draw your attention to testimony that's forthcoming by Polly Grozier, director of family advocacy for Gladlaw on SB two ninety three. She'll be submitting that in writing and is happy to provide any additional information to the committee that would be useful.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee. There are none. Thank you for joining us today. Next, we have Claire Chang.

[Claire Chang (medical student, UConn)]: Senator Winfield, representative staff from and distinguished members of the judiciary committee. My name is Claire Chang. I am a resident of Coventry and I'm a third year medical student at the Yukon School of Medicine. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm here to speak in opposition to HB 5,309 and in support of SB two ninety five. First, I strongly oppose h b five three zero nine. For decades, Connecticut law has recognized and protected minors' ability to consent to abortion care. The system already reflects an important balance, supporting young people's access to confidential health care while encouraging clinicians to involve a trusted adult whenever it is safe and appropriate. In medical training, we are taught that confidential confidentiality is essential to building trust with adolescent patients as they grow into independent adults. I've personal personally seen adolescents only disclose critical health information after a parent steps out of the room. Sometimes, young people do do have supportive relationships with their parents and choose to involve them with guidance from their provider, but other times there are legitimate safety concerns that make parental involvement unsafe. A mandatory parental notification requirement risks delaying or preventing time sensitive care for both groups. For a minor already experiencing fear and uncertainty, adding legal barriers may discourage them from seeking care altogether. Delays can limit medical options and some young people may instead turn to unsafe alternatives or be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Judicial bypass processes, while intended as safeguards, can be overwhelming for minors facing abuse, instability, or limited resources. Connecticut has long been a leader in protecting young people's access to reproductive health care, and I urge you to reject h b 5309 and preserve that commitment. I also urge you to support s b two nine five. This bill strengthens protections for health care providers and patients engaged in legally protected health care activities, including abortion care and gender affirming care. Through my volunteer work providing emotional support to patients undergoing procedural abortions, I have met increasing numbers of patients traveling to Connecticut from restrictive states post Dobbs. One patient I supported had a baby at home under a year old and was unable to access abortion care in her home state after six weeks of pregnancy. She described herself as, quote, lucky simply because she had a relative in Connecticut who could help her travel here. Many patients are not so fortunate. Travel requires time off work, childcare, and financial resources, and these delays can limit care options. Telehealth medication abortion expands access and allows patients to receive safe care earlier in pregnancy. Evidence shows telehealth models are as safe as in person care with extremely low rates of serious adverse events. By strengthening Connecticut's shield protections, including for telehealth providers, s p two nine five allows our state to continue protecting patients and the health care workforce. I respectfully urge the committee to oppose h p five three zero nine and support s p two nine five. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee. There are none. Thank you very much for joining us today. Emma Roth.

[Emma Roth (Reproductive Futures)]: Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative Stavstrom, and distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee. My name is Emma Roth, and I am senior counsel at Reproductive Futures, a nonprofit legal organization that advances telemedicine, emergency room, and post abortion care law and policies nationwide. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in strong support of SB295. Connecticut has long been a national leader in protecting reproductive freedom. In anticipation of the U. S. Supreme Court overturning Roe in 2022, Connecticut was the first state to adopt a shield law. That law currently provides protections for abortion care for those who live within state borders or who are able to travel to the state for care. Today, SB295 is the vital next step in protecting Connecticut's providers of telemedicine who offer reproductive healthcare. This bill creates the option for thousands of women facing barriers to travel to use telemedicine to access safe and affordable reproductive healthcare from Connecticut licensed professionals. SB295 protects those providers from civil or criminal prosecution from anti abortion actors. After Connecticut led the way by passing the original SHIELD law, eight states enacted expanded SHIELD laws that recognized telemedicine abortion as a key way to access essential reproductive healthcare. The time is ripe for Connecticut to join them. As you are well aware, since the fall of Roe, many clinics have closed and more people now live in communities that have very limited or no access to abortion care. Many women are unable to travel to get medication or surgical abortion care in a timely fashion, putting their health at risk and denying them their human rights. These eight states' laws were developed in close consultation with constitutional law scholars, state legislative counsel, and reproductive rights attorneys to be consistent with U. S. Constitutional law. Similarly, Connecticut's existing SHIELD law and SB295 are consistent with The U. S. Constitution. For more than two years, telemedicine SHIELD laws have repeatedly worked as intended to protect telemedicine abortion providers against civil and criminal legal challenges. Telemedicine now accounts for nearly thirty percent of abortions nationwide, a number that continues to grow each day. This expansion of access, particularly for under resourced areas, represents a rare bright spot in the post Roe landscape. Telemedicine is the preferred method of abortion for patients in a variety of circumstances, including those who face challenges with travel, such as caregiving, worker education commitments, immigration status threats, financial barriers, risks of intimate partner violence, and more. Reproductive Futures strongly urges the Judiciary Committee and General Assembly to pass SB two ninety five. Building off of Connecticut's existing SHIELD law, this more comprehensive telemedicine abortion shield bill will enable Connecticut licensed clinicians to have greater protection when providing safe, legal, and affordable abortion via telemedicine, regardless of where a patient is located. SB two ninety five will further cement Connecticut's status as a leader in safeguarding reproductive freedom for all. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important bill.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee? There are none. Thank you very much for joining us today.

[Dr. Nancy Stanwood (Planned Parenthood Southern New England CMO)]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Let's see. Next, we have Thomas Bonanno.

[Thomas Bonanno]: Yes. Can you hear me?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: I can't hear you. I can't see you, but I can hear you.

[Thomas Bonanno]: Okay. I don't I have my camera on. I don't well, I I'm not very tech savvy, so I'm just gonna speak.

[Speaker 4]: Go ahead, please.

[Thomas Bonanno]: Mister chair and distinguished members of the committee, I wanna thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Thomas Bonanno. I reside in North Connecticut, and I am, here to, to speak in support of h b five three zero nine. Now in as much as many, people have testified prior to me with a substantive and accurate testimony that I would only echo. I'm, I'm I'm going to forego my prepared statements. I would like to make this one comment, though. When I first read this, proposed bill on the, CGA website, my first thought, and and be preferably forthright, it disturbed me a great deal that there's even a need for this legislation. The fact that, parental rights in the decision making process in the care custody control of their children is being ignored, if not, outrightly abrogated by the present system is is very unhealthy. And I strongly encourage this committee to pass this bill, and I strongly encourage the general assembly to pass it and enact it into law. We have to get off this slippery slope. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment question from members of the committee. Comment question. Seeing none, thank you very much for joining us today. Doctor Mara Viola Sanchez? Caitlin Triphon Triphonetti?

[Speaker 4]: Oh.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: You are on mute.

[Caitlin Triunfetti (One Standard of Justice)]: Thank you for letting me know. Apologies for that. Thank you, senator Winfield, members of the judiciary committee. My name is Caitlin Triinfetti, and I come to you today as a board member and representative of One Standard of Justice, a nonprofit civil rights organization that is committed to ensuring that all individuals accused or convicted of sexual offenses in Connecticut are treated fairly and in line with constitutional standards before, during, and after their sentences. I also stand before you today as a survivor of both domestic violence as well as sexual assault and rape. It may surprise some of you that I stand here, or I should say sit, because I'm sitting down testifying remotely, on behalf of one standard of justice in support of HB 5,306, an act concerning sentence reduction or relief for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, or human trafficking. However, it's important to note that one standard of justice supports equity for all that come in contact with the criminal justice system and applauds the legislator later for putting this important bill forward. I've come here today to emphasize a single point for your consideration. OSJ asks that you consider removing the carve outs that exist in the current draft of the bill for certain offenses. These carve outs prevent some survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence from a chance to tell their story in court and have a judge determine at his or her sole discretion if sentence reduction is appropriate in any particular case. OSJ's view on this is informed by, one, current and evolving understandings about domestic violence and sexual assault, and two, testimony that has been provided by organizations in New York State that have been at the forefront of representing survivors who have applied for sentence reductions under New York's own survivors law that as many of you know was passed in 2019, and that law like the current draft of Connecticut's does allow for carve outs. Specifically, I want to draw everyone's attention to some written testimony that was provided by Kate Mogulescu, a professor of clinical law at Brooklyn Law School over the 2025 in support of Massachusetts' own survivor's bill that is currently being considered. And that bill notably departs from both New York and Connecticut and does not contain such carve outs. The professor submitted testimony on behalf of an organization called the Survivors Justice Project that describes itself as leading the implementation of New York survivors law. In that testimony, I quote, as JP stated, we have seen time and time again the devastating disparities caused by exclusions that resulted in unintended consequences. In many instances, the very survivors who experienced the most extreme abuse are left serving the longest sentences. They went on to note that, quote, individuals who commit the most serious offenses may in fact be among those most deserving of relief given the well documented link between victimization and violent crime. Excluding certain offenses also has the potential to create racial disparities among those who receive relief given the prosecutors

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Your time has elapsed

[Professor Audra King (CCSU; CTCLD)]: Oh, thank you.

[Speaker 4]: To be precise.

[Caitlin Triunfetti (One Standard of Justice)]: If I could just conclude, we ask that you consider, in the name of equity and justice to remove these carve outs and allow all, DV and sexual asylum victims to have their day in court and for judges to use their discretion in determining whether a reduction is warranted. Thank you very much.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. If there are none, thank you very much for joining us and providing us with your perspective.

[Claire Circus (Fourth-year medical student)]: Thank you. Shannon Coulter.

[Shannon Coulter (MSW candidate)]: Good afternoon to the co chairs, ranking members, and other esteemed members of the judiciary committee. My name is Shannon Coulter. I'm an advanced year MSW candidate at Yukon focused on policy, and I previously studied sentence modification laws for survivor defendants in other states. My testimony today reflects only my views. I strongly urge you to support HB five three zero six and thank the committee for bringing this important bill forward today. This bill addresses a procedural gap in Connecticut's sentencing framework by creating a defined mechanism for courts to consider credible evidence that various forms of gender based violence contributed to a criminal offense. One thing that hasn't yet been mentioned in testimony today is that we actually now have empirical data documenting this gap. In a 2024 Stanford law in 2024, Stanford law did a study of 649 individuals incarcerated in women's prisons on manslaughter and murder convictions. The researchers did in-depth surveys with those 649 people and found that nearly seventy five percent had experienced significant intimate partner violence in the year prior to their offenses. But it's really this whole other set of findings from that study that I think is the most relevant to h b five three zero six. Those findings related to the individual's experiences in court. The Stanford researchers asked questions like, did your lawyer argue that the killing was justified because of self defense, stand your ground, provocation, domestic violence, or other reasons? Seventy three percent of respondents to that question said no. Did your lawyer submit evidence of abuse that occurred? Seventy eight percent said no. Did the judge prevent your lawyer from submitting evidence of abuse that occurred on the day of the killing? 41% said yes. The reason I highlight these statistics is that a common objection to laws like HB five three zero six is the courts already do this. They already consider abuse at sentencing. But the Stanford study proves otherwise. It proves that this isn't an issue with an individual lawyer or a judge. It's a structural gap, and structural gaps require structural solutions. I noted senator Kissel's questions to doctor Van Cleave this morning with interest. So I also wanna mention that there's a lot of peer reviewed academic research on intimate partner violence that shows that survivors' interactions with courts and law enforcement do not automatically produce disclosure of abuse even when stakes are very high. The upshot of that research, I think, is this. We cannot place the full burden of disclosing abuse on traumatized individuals. If we want that evidence of abuse to surface more reliably, the system has to take more accountability for ensuring that evidence makes it into court. HB five three zero six creates that mechanism. I'd like to conclude by saying that in looking into similar laws, I saw that they tend to be used sparingly and only when applicants clearly meet defined evidentiary standards. At its heart, HB five three zero six is about the integrity of the sentencing process in Connecticut. It's a narrow, thoughtful refinement of that system, and I encourage you to support it. Thank you very much for your time today.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. I don't know why I'm looking. No one's over there. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question. There are none. Thank you very much for joining us today. Kate Prokop. Kate Prokop. Beth Hamilton. Beth Hamilton. Shannon oh, no. I did that one already. Susan Allen. Susan Allen. Kristen Cronin.

[Kristen Cronin]: This is Kristen Cronin. I am a mother of four grown children and a grandmother to four minor grandchildren. I fully support HB 5309 five three zero nine for these reasons. A surgical abortion is a frightening traumatic experience. The young woman is given sedation and anti anxiety drugs or an IV drip that will induce a twilight sleep to keep her calm. But what if she has an allergic reaction to any of these drugs and her parents will not know about it? This happened to my very daughter-in-law. When she was giving labor, she went into anaphylactic shock. After an abortion, things can go very wrong. Women are transported from abortion clinics to hospital emergency rooms every day in this country. The instruments used to dismember the fetus and the vacuum used to extract it have caused lacerations and patients have hemorrhaged and needed emergency blood transfusions. Also, if all the fetal tissue is not removed before leaving the clinic, the woman will develop sepsis and she will need to go to the hospital to have infused antibiotics into her bloodstream as well as a DNC. So imagine being a parent and not knowing the cause of this nightmare because your daughter kept the secret of her teenage pregnancy from you because the clinic did not ask or even care about parent or guardian consent. These scenarios happen. Abortion is not always safe surgery. I did my research. Between the years 2009 and 2013, eleven percent of post abortive women ended up in hospitals thirty days of their surgical abortion from clinics. And even worse between 2002 and 2013, thirty five percent of women who use the chemical abortion pill ended up in the emergency room from serious complications. The pill is unsupervised and it takes three days to work. That's three days of pain and agony for a young woman to go through. Planned Parenthood should not be handing out chemical abortion pills without the parental consent. I want to encourage the writers of this bill to be sure to include the language of the chemical abortion pill, as well as the surgical abortion in this bill. In closing, abortion is never a good choice. Minor children should be encouraged and not discouraged from communicating with their parents when it comes to teen pregnancy. Healthy dialogue is always better. And I think that kids will be surprised that an attitude of support, love, and understanding will be from their parents. My hope and prayer is that every pregnant woman will walk away from the abortion clinic and give their baby the same chance at life that they have had. Your baby will bring you joy, love, happiness, responsibility, and a purpose for your life. Let them live. Choose life for your baby. Thank you very much.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Questions or comments? Seeing none. Elise Coleman will be next.

[Elise Coleman (REACH Fund, CT’s abortion fund)]: Hello? Can you hear me?

[Speaker 4]: Yep. Go ahead, ma'am.

[Elise Coleman (REACH Fund, CT’s abortion fund)]: Thank you. My name is Elise Coleman. I'm from the REACH Fund, Connecticut's only abortion fund. We at REACH are strongly opposed to HB5309. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Connecticut has a long history of protecting reproductive rights from Griswold v Connecticut in 1965 to the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act in 2022 to Governor Lamont's act concerning access to reproductive health care in 2025. HB five three zero nine attempts to dismantle Connecticut's explicit legislative commitment to being a reproductive rights safe harbor, a commitment reaffirmed and strengthened just months ago. The majority of young people who need abortions already talk to a parent about it. For those who can't or don't, they usually turn to a trusted adult. Young people should be able to seek out someone safe and that is not always a parent. HB five zero three five three zero nine does not help the most vulnerable people young people or victims of abuse or incest. Research shows that young people who would not otherwise have involved their parents are the ones most likely to suffer serious harm such as physical or emotional abuse, loss of financial support, homelessness or being forced to have a child against their will. Connecticut currently requires providers to discuss with a minor whether involving a parent would be in their best interest. That provision centers the minor's ability to speak for their own safety and it already works, let's leave it alone. Judicial bypass is not a realistic solution. Going to court is scary for an adult, let alone a child who would have to share the most intimate details of their life with a judge and might have to meet someone who knows their family. HB 5,309 would require a minor victim of abuse to be aware of the law, figure out the right courthouse, and go before a judge. They would have to arrange time away from school or home and travel to the courthouse without raising suspicion. All these barriers delay care and may force an abortion later in the pregnancy, adding medical complications and high costs. HB 5,309 contradicts the advice of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Medical Association. Research shows that parental notification laws have almost no effect on a young person's decision to talk with their parent or guardian about their decision prior to an abortion. Connecticut should not try to legislate a healthy family relationship. Let's invest in solutions that work for all our young people and families. Thank you so much.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question? There are none. Thank you very much for joining us. Anastasia of Law. Anastasia of Law. Lisa Thomas. Lisa Thomas. There you are.

[Anastasia Law (Equality Now)]: No. Anastasia.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Oh, your honor, Anastasia. Okay.

[Anastasia Law (Equality Now)]: Thank you for raising s b two five nine, an act concerning female genital mutilation and providing the opportunity to give testimony. My name is Anastasia Law. I'm a lawyer and the legal advisor for North America at Equality Now, an international human rights organization established in 1992 working to protect and promote the rights of all women and girls around the world. FGM C is recognized in The US and internationally as a human rights violation, an extreme form of gender based violence that can amount to torture and a harmful cultural practice. Under international law, including the international covenant on civil and political rights, which The US has ratified, governments are obligated to protect women and girls from FGM as a form of sex and gender based discrimination. In October 2023, the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the

[Speaker 4]: committee that oversees compliance with

[Anastasia Law (Equality Now)]: the ICCPR treaty, that oversees compliance with the ICCPR treaty, urged The US to encourage States to pass legislation that prohibits and criminalizes all forms of FGM. Connecticut remains one of only nine States without a law against FGM. And while federal law prohibits FGM, it is not enough. Federal agencies lack the local reach necessary to comprehensively tackle F GMC and states thus play a critical role in enforcing laws preventing the practice and supporting survivors. S b two five nine, by criminalizing f g m c for survivors, creating a civil cause of action with a total statute of limitations and directly addressing vacation cutting is a necessary step towards protecting all children from f g m c. Additionally, the provisions in the bill to safeguard survivors under the age 12 by adding specific safeguards around testimony and by waving parent child immunity when a child brings an action against a parent are critical to reducing retraumatization and barriers to disclosure especially given the shame and secrecy that often surrounds FGMC. Finally, I'd like to address an important distinction between FGM and gender affirming care which fundamentally differ in purpose, context, and consent. FGM involves the partial or total removal or other injury to female genital organs, for non medical reasons and is internationally recognized as a human rights violation.

[Speaker 4]: Gender affirming care, by contrast, refers

[Anastasia Law (Equality Now)]: to evidence based medical and psychological interventions refers to evidence based medical and psychological interventions provided with informed consent to align an individual's physical characteristics with their gender identity. These distinctions are widely recognized by major medical associations and by international human rights law. Upholding accurate and evidence based distinctions between FGM and gender affirming care is necessary to ensure access to justice for FGM survivors as well as access to medically necessary healthcare for LGBTQ communities. Equality now strongly supports SB two five nine and urges lawmakers to vote

[Speaker 42]: for the bill. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Senator Kissel.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: Thank you very much, chairman Winfield, Ms. Law. Thank you so much for coming to testify. We've had a huge amount of testimony on some of these other bills, but happy to hear you come forward on this bill. As you, you hopefully are aware, this has been an area that I've been championing for a number of years. We've got it to various degrees towards passage, but haven't been able to get it across the final finish line. It's, it's actually a very odd thing for Connecticut to have the federal government already have taken the field and protect people's rights to have 41 other States take the lead on this. We are an outlier. We're one of nine. And I don't know what it is about Connecticut that we just can't get this done to protect young women from having their bodies mutilated for whatever reason that still I can't make heads and tails out of. Do you have an opinion as to why Connecticut of all States is having such a hard time passing a law regarding this issue?

[Anastasia Law (Equality Now)]: You know, I think a lot of States passed their laws back in the nineties and back in 2020 in response to the two versions of the federal law. And so I think, you know, Connecticut didn't do it then. And we've been working for the past seven years to get it passed. I don't know, you know, I can't tell you exactly what the calls was every year for the Bill not getting through, but we're very much hoping that, you know, this year is the year we're happy to be here, in Committee and we're really hoping for bipartisan support on the issue and hopefully to get it, get it passed.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: Thank you for your efforts. I'm hopeful that we can get out of this committee and then it's just going to question, can we get it through the two chambers? And I'm, I'm very thankful that you came and testified that this has nothing to do with gender affirmation. That's a whole nother set of issues, but this is isolated on its own. And it's one where we're just an outlier and 41 other states and the federal government are way ahead of us on this. And I too am hoping that this is the year that we can get it across the finish line. Thank you for taking the time this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, Senator Kessel. Comment a question from other members of the committee. Comment a question. There are none. Thank you very much for joining us.

[Senator Mae Flexer (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Lisa Thomas. Lisa Thomas. Okay. Next, then we will have doctor Nancy Stanwood.

[Dr. Nancy Stanwood (Planned Parenthood Southern New England CMO)]: Yes. Good afternoon. Are you able to hear me?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: I am. You may proceed.

[Dr. Nancy Stanwood (Planned Parenthood Southern New England CMO)]: Thank you so much. Thank you distinguished members of the judiciary committee. I am doctor Nancy Stanwood, a board certified OBGYN and chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Southern New England. I'm here today testifying in strong opposition to raise House Bill 5,309. Planned Parenthood believes that all people should have access to high quality and affordable health care as a human right. I'm before you today to defend the health and rights of young people in Connecticut and ensure that they can continue to get the time sensitive health care that they need. The issue of parental involvement in health care has been settled law in Connecticut for thirty six years. The current law requiring comprehensive counseling for youth is working well. It protects the most vulnerable young people. Adding parental notification requirements would be deeply harmful to youth and must be rejected. We know that when young people are assured of their confidentiality, they are more likely to access and obtain the healthcare they need, disclose sensitive information to their providers, and seek out future health services. In short, they are healthier. Decades of research demonstrates that young people are capable of making safe decisions about sexual and reproductive health. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the AMA, and the American College of OB GYNs all oppose mandatory parental involvement laws because they delay access to critical care and threaten the privacy and safety of vulnerable young people. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures and years of rigorous research demonstrate that there are no long term negative medical or psychological after effects associated with abortion care among people 18. Meanwhile, delaying or denying access to needed abortion care increases risks. I think of a patient I took care of several years ago whom I'll call Natasha. She came to me for abortion care as a 16 year old during a difficult time in her life. Her single parent suffered from substance use disorder and Natasha was the one holding the family together. Despite being unhoused, she got herself to high school each day. Natasha was clear about her decision to have abortion care, and she was relieved that she didn't have to involve her parent in the process, a parent she loved, but who created chaos in her life. The vast majority of young people voluntarily tell a parent or another trusted adult about their pregnancy. When they do not, it is often because they do not have a trustworthy adult in their life. They have valid reasons for not telling their parents, such as fear of abuse or the loss of their home or financial support. If they can't safely involve their parents or a trusted adult, they should not face barriers or delays. Connecticut has been a leader in recognizing young people's ability to make informed decisions, including the passage last year of Public Act 2,528, which enshrine young people's ability to consent to and access contraceptive care and pregnancy related care. For decades, Connecticut law has recognized and protected the ability of young people to consent to abortion care. The young people of Connecticut must continue to have access to healthcare when facing important life decisions, not barriers, mandates, and delays. As a health care provider caring for young people, I strongly oppose h b five three zero nine because of the harm it would do to the young people of our state and respectfully urge the judiciary committee to vote against the bill. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question for members of the committee. Comment or question for members of the committee. Sina, thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. Roxanne McNellis.

[Roxanne McNellis (Hartford GYN, Women’s Centers)]: Senator Winfield, representative Stauffstrom, and distinguished members of judiciary committee. My name is Roxanne McNellis and I'm here on behalf of the Hartford GYN Center, part of the women's centers with locations in Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

[Terry Forlenzo]: and and Pennsylvania.

[Roxanne McNellis (Hartford GYN, Women’s Centers)]: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in strong support of SB two ninety five. Every day, we care for patients who rely on us for essential reproductive health care, which is fundamental fundamental to the health, dignity, autonomy, and economic security of the communities we serve. We operate brick and mortar sexual and reproductive health care centers and specialize in the provision of abortion care. We've done so since the nineteen seventies. Medicine and technology have advanced significantly. Today, medication abortion is the most common way patients access this care. And telehealth has expanded access for those with mobility and chronic health conditions, as well as people living in rural areas and in states where abortion care has been banned. At the same time, access to medication abortion is under increasing attack. We are seeing efforts to restrict telehealth, block the mailing of medication, and challenge long standing FDA approvals. All this despite the overwhelming evidence that this care is safe and effective. In the post Dobbs reality, telehealth is, for some, the only realistic option. People seeking abortions, most of whom are already parents, are balancing work, dependent care, cost, and travel. Many simply cannot cross state lines to reach a clinic. Without telehealth, they would go without care from a trusted clinician. The women's centers are ready to meet this moment. We have the training, experience, and infrastructure to provide telehealth care safely, but we are now questioning how and whether we can continue to expand equitable access to care if it means putting our clinicians and our centers, which are lifelines for so many, at risk without legal protection. As we approach abortion provider appreciation day, I wanna share how proud I am to work alongside providers who continue to show up with courage and conviction because they know how important the care that they provide is. Providers like our medical director, doctor Lisa Pereira, who recently shared that in addition to being a physician, she's also a mother. And she has to think about who would care for her children if, something were to happen to her for providing care that is legal in the states in which she work.

[Speaker 4]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Collapsed. So thank you. Okay. Comment or question from members of the committee? Comment or question from members of the committee? There are none. Thank you very much for joining us. Mark Minich Minich.

[Mark Minich (CT Republican Assembly)]: Thank you, chairman win Winfield. Thank you very it's thank you very much for allowing me to speak today. My name is Mark Minich, and I'm the president of the Connecticut Republican Assembly, where we believe that the preborn child from conception to the end of natural life is a human being possessing the same unalienable rights as all other people on this side of the womb and entitled to the full protection of the law. I am speaking in support in strong support of HB5309. Frankly, I'm surprised and disappointed that a minor female does not need to notify her parents when she wants to murder her unborn child, but she does need her parents' permission to receive common over the counter medications from the school nurse for various minor ailments. I do wanna voice, two concerns that I have, though. First, on line 72, subsection six reads, if applicable, the minor has determined that not involving the minor's parents, guardian, or other adult family members is in the minor's best interests. I fear that this is creating an unintended loophole in this law that could be abused to maintain the status quo, so I would like to see that subsection removed. The whole point of this bill is to affirm that minors do not have the capacity to make these types of decisions about life and death on their own. My second concern is the looming amendment that would codify abortion at any time and for any reason in our state's constitution. This appeared as s j four in 2024. My worry here is that legalizing murder of unborn children in this way could render this bill null and void and would prevent any legislative attempt, to curb the practice of abortion in the future. I would like to see some assurances from this committee that this would not occur. Personally, I believe that all abortion should be outlawed and that anyone who performs them should be prosecuted for murder, Just like a person who murders a woman while she is pregnant and is charged with a double homicide. I am particularly angered by the abortion industry's practice of not providing fully informed consent to these vulnerable women regarding the fact that the more abortion a woman has, the more likely that she will not be able to carry a pregnancy to full term when she does wanna become a mother, and it's more likely the baby will be born underweight. I personally knows knew someone who couldn't even have a baby after just two abortions. But I am thankful that we have the opportunity with this bill to ensure that parents will finally have a chance to save the souls of not only their unborn grandchildren, but of their daughters also. I appreciate your time, and I pray that the Holy Spirit guides you in making the right decision to support and pass HB five three zero nine. Thank you, and God bless.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: You. Comment question from members of the committee. Comment question from members of the committee. There are none. Ayanna Lyles. Ayanna Liles. David Cohen.

[Professor David S. Cohen (Drexel University)]: Yes. Can you hear me?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah. You're a little bit low, but I can hear you.

[Professor David S. Cohen (Drexel University)]: Okay. I'll speak up just a little.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: There we go.

[Professor David S. Cohen (Drexel University)]: Senator Winfield, representative Staffstrom, and distinguished members of the judiciary committee, my name is David Cohen. I'm a law professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia where I teach constitutional law and related subjects. I'm here today in support of SB two ninety five. Four years ago this month, I appeared before this committee testifying on behalf of HB 5,414, the bill that eventually became the first abortion shield law in the nation. At the time, months before the Dobbs decision, you had the foresight to create a novel and groundbreaking response to the threats to reproductive freedom that we all knew were on the horizon. Little did I or you know that over the course of the next two years, 21 states and the District Of Columbia would follow Connecticut's lead. In large part because of the innovative approach you took four years ago, abortion patients around the country have been able to obtain care even though the Supreme Court overturned Roe. I wanna take this opportunity to say thank you on behalf of abortion providers and patients in Connecticut, as well as providers and patients everywhere. Your courageous efforts paved the way for the rest of the nation. I've been tracking these developments closely from the start. In January 2022, after my coauthors and I previewed the ideas we'd been developing for SHIELD laws in a New York Times op ed, Representatives Blumenthal and Gilchrist called us to talk about what states could do to protect abortion providers if Roe was overturned. From that initial phone call, the first ever shield law was born. Since your initial law, I've been part of efforts to pass shield laws in at least a dozen states and the District Of Columbia. As so often happens, states that acted after you have expanded on your initial efforts in ways that make their shield laws broader and stronger than yours. Now's the time to bolster the original SHIELD law and bring it in line with those other states. In particular, all of your neighbors have a key provision you don't: protecting their providers regardless of the patient's location. Massachusetts was the first, New York followed suit, and Rhode Island was the most recent state to have such a provision. Five other states have this language too: California, Washington, Colorado, Maine, and Vermont. Collectively, these eight states are considered to have the strongest shield laws in the country. Connecticut can join its neighbors and this esteemed group by passing SB two ninety five. You may have seen reports in the news that these shield laws are under attack. While it's true there have been a tiny handful of legal actions, none has shown any crack in the wall of shield laws, for good reason. Shield laws follow the requirements of the US Constitution while legislating within the domain of law given to states. With relatively few attacks and all of them having gone nowhere, shield laws have facilitated abortion care for literally hundreds of thousands of people over the past few years. In other words, without your groundbreaking law in 2022, the effect of Dobbs would have been immeasurably worse than it has been. You should be proud of these efforts for the people of Connecticut and for the people throughout the country. Today, I urge you to continue the work you started in 2022 by strengthening your law so Connecticut's abortion and gender affirming care providers and supporters can have all the protections they deserve. I urge you to vote for s B295 and show the country Connecticut is once again a leader in protecting reproductive rights and justice. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee. There are none. Thank you very much for joining us today. K. We have Bethany Pavel.

[Caitlin Mitchell (U.S. End FGMC Network)]: Hi, senator Winfield and representative Stoffstrom and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Bethany Pavel, and I'm a resident of New Haven, Connecticut, a master's student at the Yale School of Public Health and a leader of the YSPH Reproductive Health Equity Now Group. I stand in strong opposition to House Bill 5,309. As someone in public health, I am both deeply committed to reproductive justice and to using evidence to make data informed decisions that will benefit health. Luckily for us when it comes to the topic of abortions and notification laws there is a wealth of information. The evidence shows that these mandates do not improve family communication or health outcomes but rather delay care and harm the most vulnerable minors. Everyone hopes for a situation in which teens and adolescents can turn to a trusted parent when faced with an unintended pregnancy and talk through the decision together. For many this is the case. A national survey of more than 1,500 unmarried minors obtaining abortions in states without parental involvement laws found that sixty one percent discussed the decision with at least one parent and among minors 15, ninety percent involved a parent. Among those who did not, the majority talked with another trusted adult. When a young person does not involve a parent, it is often for a very compelling reason. In the same body of research, minors reported fearing being kicked out, fearing physical abuse by a previously abusive parent, not living with either parent, or having a parent who abuses drugs or alcohol. Mandated notification does not repair these underlying risks and it can escalate them by triggering retaliation, homelessness, or violence. Instead teens may seek judicial bypass or often travel out of state increasing stress and delaying care. We saw this in Massachusetts after a parental consent law was implemented about a third of pregnant teens left the state for an abortion. In Connecticut we can imagine many of these teens would seek care from neighboring states without parental notification laws such as New York or Vermont. Furthermore the alternative of judicial bypass puts healthcare decisions in the hands of judges who don't have the medical background or expertise to make the consequent consequential decisions for young people's health. Finally it is important to be clear eyed about how notification functions in real life. Parents generally control a minor's transportation phone access and sometimes finances. When a parent is unsupportive notification can operate like de facto consent by enabling a parent to block access. This is why all major U. S. Medical organizations support encouraging not requiring parental involvement. As a resident of Connecticut I'm proud to live in a state that has a history of prioritizing the health of its constituents championing reproductive rights and providing access to care. If enacted this bill would for the first time in thirty six years place a substantive restriction on abortion access in our state. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in opposition to house bill five three zero nine. I strongly urge the committee to oppose this bill.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question. There are none. Thank you very much for joining us and providing us with your testimony today. Sarah Lamontagne?

[Sarah Lamontagne]: Yes. Good afternoon, members of the committee. Thank you very much for your ability to testify. My name is Sarah Lamontagne. I am a resident of Carmelton, Connecticut. I'm here to oppose senate bill two ninety one unless modifications are made to address the consequences of related public act 25 dash 78. I apologize for the technical issues on my end, which prohibited me from submitting written testimony. Section 16 of public act 25 dash 78 removes the ability of low income or someone on the poverty line, such as me, to appeal a CHRO or state agency decision. Previously, if one chose to appeal an unfavorable decision, service by registered mail or certified mail was sufficient. In my own appeal, the cost was $20 for a certified mailing. Now if one wishes to appeal before filing and prior to getting a waiver of fees, one must pay a state marshal to serve the papers. Again, from my own experience, the same papers to serve by state marshal would have cost me $200 from a state marshal that was literally down the street from one of the parties I needed to serve. As someone living on disability, dollars 250 is almost a quarter of my monthly income. State agencies already have undue power with the courts when it comes to administrative appeals with this further burden. This makes it nearly impossible since the required form does not exist. The only form for an administrative appeal is j d dash c v dash one thirty seven, which is for service by mail only. I would like to ask why such a change was required in the first place. I would additionally, I would like to remark that the section of public act 25 dash 78 dealing with administrative appeals seems to have no connection with anything else in that act. I fear this was added due to my past CHRO appeals two two three zero five five four and two two three excuse me, two three three zero five five. I would encourage the committee to look up these cases, who the parties and their representative attorneys were, and look at the justice that was denied, which I tried to appeal that was denied at the superior court level. As it stands now, I cannot even appeal any other CHRO cases before this, the superior court. Please also consider that there may be more overlooked consequences of senate bill two ninety one as the war as I've listed for public act 25 dash 78. Additionally, I would think that I would like to thank senator Winfield, for recognizing and challenging the misinformation given by miss, Bosilla earlier today. As a transgender youth, I suffered the consequences of male puberty for which I do not have the words to describe the horror that happened as a result of being ignored. Unchecked puberty in trans individuals is permanent. Giving trans youth the chance to prevent this horror is essential health care proven by science. Detractors say a child cannot make such a decision. I am here to say that at 14, I knew fully well who I am and what help I needed. It is impossible to reverse all the damage that I was subjected to by not having such access to such essential health care. That is why I support senate bill two ninety five. Thank you very much for your time.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Great timing. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question from members of the committee? There are none. Thank you for joining us here today to provide us with your testimony. Have a great afternoon.

[Sarah Lamontagne]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Simon, Amaya Price.

[Simon Amaya Price]: Hello. Can you hear me?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: I can.

[Simon Amaya Price]: Awesome. Good afternoon, committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in opposition of s b two nine five. My name is Simon Amaya Price, and I used to be trans. Now I have good reason to oppose this bill, but first, I would like to give you a compliment. Never have I seen a state level bill given a hearing which so quickly violates the constitution. Section one b is in clear violation of the eleventh amendments and arguably in violation of article four section three. But I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but you don't need to be a vet to know what a dog is. This bill protects interstate child abusers from accountability, and in some cases would provide them with a chance to sue the individuals who rightly assisted in their prosecution. When I was 14, I was groomed by people on the Internet, by my teachers, and by medical professionals into wanting to take the same drugs which were used to quote, unquote, cure Alan Turing's homosexuality. They ignored my history of being bullied and sexually abused, instead encouraging me to go behind my parents' backs to obtain cross sex hormones, which were never approved by the FDA for use in treating pediatric gender dysphoria. Every systematic review conducted on the topic has found that cross sex hormones and puberty blockers cause irreversible harm and have at best uncertain benefits in pediatric populations. A disproportionate number of the children who are given these drugs and cut up by surgeons under the guise of gender affirming care are same sex attracted or autistic. When you transition a young gay man, he becomes a straight woman. Why does Connecticut want to protect this same sort of conversion therapy as has been in vogue in the fascist theocracy of Iran? Now let's talk about Nazis. Trans activists often talk about how the Institute for Sexual Science was attacked and their researchers killed at the beginning of the Third Reich. What they don't talk about is how the ones who weren't gay or Jewish ended up working for the Nazis. They performed sex change and sex nullification procedures on countless children and adults. Hitler personally awarded doctor Erwin Gorbans, the father of the vaginoplasty with the knights cross silver, one of the highest medals in Nazi Germany. Why does the state of Connecticut want to protect doctors who perform the same procedures done on children in Nazi concentration camps? Please vote against this bill to protect vulnerable youth, not just in Connecticut, but across the country from mutilation, sterilization, and conversion therapy. Thank you very much. I am happy to answer any and all questions.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, Repode. Repode. Mister chair? Yes? Repode, you're muted. You're on mute. Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee?

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Mister chair?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yes. Repode. Yeah. Received. Any other questions from members of the committee?

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: I was just gonna ask if the if the if mister Price has submitted written testimony.

[Simon Amaya Price]: I have not submitted written testimony, but if permitted, I believe I'm allowed to. I will later today.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: You you may. Any other questions?

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Please please do. Thank you, sir. Thank you, mister chair.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? Comments from members of the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much for joining us again. Olga Acosta. Olga Acosta. Miss Gustafsson.

[Liz Gustafson (Reproductive Equity Now, CT State Director)]: Hi, Senator Winfield, representative Staffstrom and esteemed members of the judiciary committee. My name is Liz Gustafson and I am the Connecticut state director with reproductive equity. Now, Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify in strong support of SB two nine five. Reproductive equity now works in Connecticut and across New England to make sure that equitable access to the full spectrum of reproductive health care is a reality of all people. As the Connecticut state director of Wren, a former clinic escort and abortion funder, and someone who has needed access to abortion myself, the last eight years has only solidified my understanding that those who oppose access to reproductive and gender affirming care were never gonna stop with overturning Roe. And particularly after today's hearing, I know others may have found themselves. I'll also come to that understanding. Thankfully, in 2022, Connecticut, as a state did see what was coming and took action to pass the first shield law to protect providers, patients, and helpers pre DOTS, the provisions of our shield law work together to allow Connecticut to, to do everything in its power as a state government to protect licensed medical providers following the standard of care and their patients by stipulating that Connecticut's law will govern over what we deem to be legally protected and lawful health care and will protect that care from unprecedented civil or criminal liability, which is exactly what Dobbs purportedly enabled states to do. Now, four years later, we know how critical it is for to continue protecting providers and expand our existing shield provision to include those who choose to utilize telehealth care for patients no matter their zip code or their circumstance. Our state's licensed providers deserve better than targeted attacks and legal threats from out of state actors for providing the highest quality standard of care that is legal in our state. Patients deserve better than medically unnecessary, unnecessary barriers and threat of surveillance or criminalization because of the outcomes of their pregnancies. People should be able to access the abortion care they need. And for millions of people in The US that is medication abortion via telehealth. As someone who has had a medication abortion in the comfort of my own home, advocating to ensure everyone can obtain the care that they need and in the way that is best and most accessible to them is not only my profession but it is personal. Bolstering our shield provisions to include licensed telehealth providers who treat patients regardless of their zip code is a key way to ensure our state is utilizing every tool available to us so providers can continue to utilize every tool available to them and provide timely, essential, and compassionate care to their patients. And with that, we urge the committee to pass and support s b two nine five. Thank you so much.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee? Comment or question? There are none. Thank you for joining us again, and, I'm sure we'll see you again. Okay. We have John

[Speaker 46]: Jujas. Good evening. My name is John Juhas. I'm a resident of Connecticut since 1998, and I'm here to voice my strong support for HB3 5309. I'd like to start by thanking the committee for bringing forward this important bill and strongly encouraging the committee to continue its support. I am not an expert. I am not an activist, and I have no teen pregnancy story to tell. So why am I here? Well, I'm the old guy who's been waiting thirty six years to have this chance. Because, as a parent of four and a grandparent now of 13, I have experienced over thirty years of a pattern of parental exclusion in sexual health and sexual education of my children. This began in another state by denied access to the health curriculum, which ended up having to be brought into a public meeting chaired by the commissioner of health and education of the state, actually, Commonwealth. Subsequently, in Connecticut, my wife and pubescent daughter had the experience of being told that my wife needed the consent of my daughter to be present for a consultation on sexual health. That was not merely disturbing. It was a sign of deep underlying problem. Finally, we experienced, once again in the schools, one of our sons being threatened with withholding his high school diploma in the senior in his senior year because he was seeking an accommodation in the health curriculum. He was actually rendered ill by the material that was being presented. So he's being asked to be excused, and he was being threatened with not being able to graduate due to the state mandate. I would just add that my student my my child was the top student in the school. How do I know this? Well, at an award ceremony, there was nobody else present for academic awards. So I am very grateful that this bill is being considered. And I think it's, important for me to add my voice, not because I'm talking about abortion per se, but parental notification has been under persistent attack for about a generation. And we have now seen the fruits of that, and I applaud the turn in the tide to bring parents back into the conversation. I thank the committee, and I urge your continued support of this important legislation. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question. Representative O'Dea.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Just real quick. I'm looking for your testimony, sir. Did you submit the testimony?

[Speaker 46]: Yes, sir. I did. Alright.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: I just missed it. I appreciate it. Thank you, mister chair.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, representative O'Dea. Comment or question from other members of the committee. Comment or question. There are none. Thank you for joining us.

[Speaker 46]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Lisa D'Angelo.

[Lisa DeAngelo (Deputy Chief State’s Attorney for Operations)]: Good afternoon chairs, Winfield, Staffstrom ranking members, Kissel and Fishbein and esteemed members of the judiciary committee. My name is Lisa DeAngelo and I am the deputy chief States attorney for operations. I am here on behalf of the division of criminal justice, which opposes HB five three zero six. Thank you for the time and opportunity to hear my testimony. I know this has been a long day. I'm going to keep my remarks short. I am available for questions when I'm finished and the division has submitted written testimony. The relief being sought for survivors under this legislation already exists at varying stage of the criminal justice process. First, this information can be presented to the prosecutor and the judge while the criminal case is still pending before a conviction. If the evidence related to the victimization rises to the level of duress, this would be a complete defense to the criminal conduct committed by the survivor. For instances in which the victimization does not rise to the level of a complete defense under our statutes, judges shall consider any evidence on any matter related to the disposition of a criminal case and to allow the defendant to prevent present any information that might mitigate his or her sentence in our revised prosecution standards, which will be available in the coming weeks and are posted online for anyone to review. We have added specific language regarding the consideration of evidence related to victimization in making plea and sentencing recommendations. Understanding that survivors may be unable or unwilling to speak about their trauma at the time their criminal case is pending, there are other post conviction remedies currently in place, such as sentence review, sentence modifications, appeal, parole, and commutations, all of which are included in house bill five three zero six as alternative mechanisms of relief. The division of criminal justice has particular concern about removing discretion from judges as it does not allow them to take into consideration the individual characteristics of every case. The division is not alone in this concern and reading written testimony. It appears that the public defenders that neither the public defenders nor the Connecticut criminal defense lawyers association support the sentencing guidelines articulated in this bill. This legislation would mandate that any person charged with any crime or convicted of any crime who can provide evidence that their victimization was a contributing factor in the commission of such person's offense or conviction shall have their sentence reduced in accordance with the bill. With no consideration given to how violent and egregious that crime might've been, with no consideration of how much time has passed since the victimization, and without any consideration with regard to the degree of victimization compared to the degree of the crime committed by the survivor. The division is unaware of any case in Connecticut in which a survivor has sought relief under the current mechanisms in place for the reasons outlined in this bill and has been denied. For these reasons, the division of criminal justice opposes house bill five, three zero six. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment question from members of the committee. I I have just one. So you you talked about the addition in your revision.

[Dr. Cara Delaney (OB-GYN)]: Yes.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: It seemed to me you were suggesting that what what is needed is already in place. So why do why do we need the addition and the revisions?

[Lisa DeAngelo (Deputy Chief State’s Attorney for Operations)]: In discussions and and talking about this proposed bill, we went back and we were looking at our standards to begin with. And although in general terms, it's in there that we consider mitigating factors, we specifically outlined that we would consider mitigations when making plea recommendations and sentencing recommendations.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Comment or question from others? Comment or question from others? There are none. Thank you for joining us.

[Lisa DeAngelo (Deputy Chief State’s Attorney for Operations)]: Thank you. Have a nice day.

[Speaker 50]: Victoria Hill.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Victoria Hill. Michael Matrides.

[Speaker 39]: Good afternoon. Happy to see you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thanks for

[Speaker 39]: being here. I don't know all of you personally, but I would love to, have a chat afterwards or, answer questions. I'm Michael Petridis. Started my psychiatric services down the street at the Institute of Living in 1978 and retired about twelve years ago. I'm here today in firm support, strong support of the HB5309. My experience tells me that I need to be clear. So to be clear, current Connecticut law enables a pregnant minor child to independently decide to procure an abortion at any time up to the moment of birth legally without any any parental notification. Keeping parents from parenting is not a solution. It's just more assurance that no other options will be offered to someone in need. Just by the very fact that they are parents, all parents should be able to utilize their right to care and protect their children. Abortion has been held sacrosanct for too many years in Connecticut, immorally superseding parental rights and their ability to perform their God given duties. We say no longer. Abortion must be addressed for what it is, the ending of a human life and complete and necessary parental rights reinstituted. We want the highest standards in government and moral certitude in our leadership. A coercion rate of estimated sixty percent is far too common by boyfriends, abusers, traffickers, and others. The current law may have been crafted extensively

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Sir, sir, sir. We're we're right in front of you. You don't have to yell

[Speaker 4]: at us.

[Speaker 39]: I'm used to projecting. I'm sorry. That's alright. I apologize.

[Representative Steven Stafstrom (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Take it down a notch. You're good.

[Speaker 39]: Thanks. The current law has may have been crafted ostensibly to protect pregnant children, yet inherently seems to encourage secrecy and abortion. Children without loving, mature, and independent resources are also more likely to be swayed to rush to the easiest solution, trying to avoid any further threats. Logically, parents or guardians must know to help combat coercion. And how many teenagers tell their parents anything they don't have to, especially if not to their benefit? So a covert abortion is more likely. We have the moral compass to know what is right and true and best for families. For example, the Catholic church has a stellar record in teaching the truth. In matters regarding morals, it has been 100% correct, perfectly accurate in every official moral teaching, never failing to promote social justice, condemning slavery, safeguarding peace, and condemning all other moral evils. It has never been wrong in moral matters and teaching morals in February. It has never been wrong in moral matters and teaching matters in two thousand years. The foremost earthly moral authority is abundantly clear that parental rights should not be abrogated. Those rights might be suspended only if a parent or parents were not of sound mind or not competent in pertinent ways, but that should always be determined on a case by case basis. Thank God for moral certitude. Thank you very much. And I apologize for the noise.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Mister chair?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yes. Repo there.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Sorry. I know we've got a long list here, and we're we're in the eighties. Just just briefly, sir, I just read your testimony as well. I was going through it, and I was just sitting next to a stained glass of, Saint Joan of Arc. So I appreciate your quote of Joan of Arc there. So thank you for your testimony, both written and oral, sir. Thank you, mister chair.

[Speaker 39]: God bless you. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, Repo Dan. Comment question from other members. There is none. Thank you.

[Speaker 4]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Miley Markowitz. Miley Markowitz. Rishani Rees.

[Dr. Bishani Reese]: Greetings. Good evening. It's been a long day, everybody. Thank you. I'm Doctor. Bishani Reese. And, thank you so much for hearing my testimony today. I'm on HB five three zero six, the survivor justice act. I am the facilitator for the Connecticut Survivor Justice Coalition, and I am also a doctor of forensic psychology. And as I shared with this committee last year, I am a survivor of attempted murder. For the past thirteen years, I have worked at the intersection of trauma and the legal system, and I'm here today specifically to represent the incarcerated survivors that our coalition has been working with over the last eighteen months. Individuals whose lives have been defined by domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and human trafficking. The individuals I speak for are survivors whose acts of survival were often a direct, albeit tragic result of the violence that they endured. The range of these survivors, is broad in terms of their actions from women who eventually killed their abusers in a moment of life or death crisis to those who whose prolonged exposure to violence led to a PTSD driven response against others. I have heard today, a lot of opposition to this bill suggesting that trauma is already sufficiently weighed during the trial and or plea negotiations. As a professional of forensic psychology and a practitioner of restorative justice, I must tell you that this is a fundamental understanding of how trauma works. Trauma is not a set of facts that we just check off on a checklist. It is a psychological phenomenon that often remains invisible to the survivors themselves at the time of arrest. For many of the survivors that we work with, the extreme violence that they experienced in their childhood, in their teens, in their early early, young adulthood was normal. And when they were in the thick of survival, they did not label their experiences as trauma. There's also the safety of distance. It takes years, sometimes decades of being removed from an abusive relationship and abusive environment. Even the physical safety of prison actually encourages people to allow these memories to be processed, to come to the realization. My firsthand experience in the last thirteen years confirms that trauma is realized often as a mid sentence discovery for people who are serving long sentences. Lastly, I would just say that there's strategic silence that is involved. Even when a survivor is aware of their abuse, there's often a profound justified fear, shame, other emotions that are preventing them from sharing it during a high stakes trial, or a plea negotiation. When you're facing a life sentence or other extreme sentences, disclosing a history of sexual assault or domestic victimization feels like just yet again another layer of vulnerability that you have to share with strangers, and many are just not psychologically prepared to navigate this in a cold adversarial courtroom process. Lastly, I'll I'll just give a couple examples from Connecticut of why this was not shared. In one case, a survivor shared with me that her defense attorney told her, you're on trial. He's not. He's dead. And so that information was never shared with the prosecutor. In another instance, the, man who was killed was actually a gang member. So the survivor took the fall because she is the one who killed him, but she had family members on the outside that were so vulnerable to being harmed. I'll just wrap by saying thank you for your time and for your consideration on this bill. I really appreciate it.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment or question from members of the committee. Comment or question. There are none. Thank you very much for joining us and providing us with your testimony. Patience Crozier. Patience Crozier. Susan Zabozzabonski?

[Susan Zabozzabonski]: Very good. Close enough. I'm here to testify in support of h b five three zero nine. I'm struggling to understand the logic of those in this chamber who clearly are against this legislation, which I noticed by the hostile questioning, to the those testifying in favor today. We're not, talking about a veto or consent. We're talking about a phone call. HB five three zero nine asks nothing more than the decency of notifying a parent before their child undergoes a medical procedure, yet many are treating this common sense notification as a radical assault on privacy or a denial of an abortion. Let's look at the Connecticut standard already created, which many have spoke about. In this state, if a 16 year old girl wants to get a tattoo or a nose piercing, the law is clear. She can't do it without her parents' explicit written permission. The state believes that she is not mature enough to handle the ten minute sting of a needle or the permanency of ink without her parent being there. But when it comes to abortion, a procedure that involves systemic medical risks and profound life altering consequences, we suddenly claim that that 16 year old is a fully autonomous adult who must be protected from her parents. By opposing a simple notification bill, you're not protecting reproductive freedom. You're protecting ignorance. A favorite point today is that notification will lead to a child being kicked out of their home or alienated from their family, but let's be blunt. Parenting is hard, and families have conflicts. Parents threaten to kick kids out for drinking or failing classes, yet we don't pass legislation forbidding schools from sending home report cards or pass laws saying police can't call a parent when their kid is caught shoplifting. We don't dismantle the family unit because some families are messy. We don't solve domestic tension by keeping the state as a coconspirator in a child secret. To those legislatures who think a parent doesn't deserve notice, you're effectively telling every mom and dad that you're good enough to pay taxes, you're good enough to provide health insurance, and good enough to legally be liable for children, but they aren't trusted enough to know when their daughter is in a clinic. Support parental notification and stop treating parents in Connecticut like they're the enemy. And I'd like to say there were some doctors in here who said, you know, that they're gonna provide all this support and counseling. Well, when I was pregnant with my daughter, I went to Planned Parenthood because I had nowhere else to turn, and I had no medical insurance that covered my own health care. And so I went there, and the only alternative they they would talk to me about and even provide counseling about was if I got an abortion. They didn't provide any other alternative care for me. So this is nonsense, and I it needs to end in the state.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment question from members of the committee. Comment question from members of the committee. There are none. Thank you for joining us.

[Representative Brian Lanoue (45th District)]: Audra King.

[Professor Audra King (CCSU; CTCLD)]: Hello. Can you hear me?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: I do.

[Professor Audra King (CCSU; CTCLD)]: Awesome. Members of the judiciary committee, my name is Audra King. I'm a philosophy professor at Central and a matter member of Connecticut civil liberties defense. I am here in opposition to h b five three zero nine. Connecticut should be protecting and expanding civil liberties, reproductive freedom, and bodily autonomy, not contracting them. At bottom, this bill is actually a claim about state power. It asserts that the state may insert itself between a minor and their doctor and that a young person's body is not fully their own. That before they can access medical care, the government gets to decide who else must be told. I reject that claim on principle, and I also reject the rule about tattoos, by the way. Bodily autonomy and medical privacy are foundational civil liberties. They don't disappear when the patient is young or the procedure is controversial. But once you accept that the state can override them here, you open a door that does not close easily. If the state can mandate parental notification here, then it can do so for contraception, STI treatment, or any health care it deems too sensitive for a minor to access privately. The logic of this bill has no natural stopping point. What we are really debating today is whether young people have any protected space between themselves and the state, between themselves and the parents or adults who may not have their best interests at heart. I understand supporters believe parents should be involved in their children's health care, And, actually, many parents will be. But this bill is not written for minors who have loving, trusting relationships with their parents. Those minors already involve their parents. This bill is about the ones who not who cannot safely go home and tell a parent they are pregnant. For a minor living in an abusive household, a forty eight hour notification window is not a safety window, and the abuse exception does not serve as protection. It asks a traumatized teenager to produce a signed written statement declaring parental abuse while they are alone, often without a lawyer or an advocate. This is a procedural obstacle masquerading as a safeguard. And I wanna name something else. This bill fits right nicely into a broader national attack on reproductive rights and civil liberties. It starts with parental notification, moves on to waiting periods, slow steps towards making access functionally impossible for the most vulnerable young people. Until now, Connecticut has held the line. A fact reaffirmed in, like, last June with the signing of Public Act twenty five twenty eight. This bill rolls all that back, and I wanna leave you with an image. If this bill passes, somewhere in Connecticut, there will be teenagers who cannot safely tell their parents they're pregnant. Maybe they are being abused. Maybe they are queer, and this bill would notify parents who have already rejected them. Currently, those minors can get the care they need. Under this bill, they'd face a forty eight hour clock, a port house they don't know how to navigate, and a signed statement they cannot safely write. So they will delay. They'll travel if they can afford to, or they will avoid care if they can't. That is what research shows happens. That is what you will have chosen if you pass this bill, and I'm asking you not to. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment, question from members of the committee. Comment or question? If not, it's good to see you and thank you for joining us today. Tonisha Signore. Tonisha Signore. Rich oh, the Hi.

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: I'm here. I'm sorry. I just got promoted to panelist.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Alright. Got you.

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: Thank you. Hello, senator Winfield, representative Staffstrom, oh, and members of the Connecticut General Assembly's Judiciary Committee.

[Speaker 4]: If you

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: can turn if you can turn on your camera.

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: I cannot turn on my camera. I'm sorry. It's not working today. I apologize. My name is Tanisha Signore. I'm the policy director at She Leads Justice. We're a statewide nonprofit that uses a justice and equity lens to advocate for under resourced and marginalized women and girls in Connecticut. For over fifty years, we've been a leading advocate for policy solution to enhance women's economic security, combat discrimination, and increase gender equity. I am here to speak, to give testimony in support of SB two ninety five, h b five three zero six, and in opposition of h b five three zero nine. I'll try to be as quick as I can. In regards to s b two nine five, we would like to, voice our strong support. This bill further broadens Connecticut shield law by offering an additional layer of protections to health care providers who are able to provide legal protected care, including abortion and necessary care for transgender young people via telemedicine to out of state patients, to out of state patients. The bill represents a commitment to fulfill the promise the state has made to expand and protect access to safe and compassionate abortion care and essential age appropriate medical care for transgender people in Medicare. Technology continues to evolve and health care is evolving alongside it. Telehealth allows patients to communicate with their licensed providers, and this type of care has risen exponentially since COVID nineteen. Utilizing tele health care providers are utilizing telehealth to provide safe and effective care to their patients regardless of zip zip code. We believe that every person should be able to make their own decisions about their bodies, their health care, and their future. I'm going to go down to, my testimony on h b five three zero six, which we'd also like to voice our strong support for. This would allow for survivors of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, and or trafficking who are incarcerated as a result of actions related to their abuse and opportunity for sentence modification, parole, or commutation hearings. We're a long time partner of organizations in the state that focus on advocacy and protection of victims and survivors. We understand that every experience by a victim or survivor is unique and complex and that hearing these different stories provides an opportunity for us to propose and pass laws which increase trauma informed and victim centered language. There are multiple reasons a person might not disclose the violence they have experienced during their initial processing and sentencing. There are even cases where victims or survivors are not aware that they experienced as what they experienced is classified as these things. Because of mandatory sentencing minimum sentencing laws, there are over 70 crimes where minimum sentence must be imposed regardless of the circumstances of the crime. This law would allow for judicial discretion where it might not be otherwise possible. Really quickly on HB five three zero nine, we would like to voice our strong opposition and just remind the legislature that we reaffirm that Connecticut reaffirmed their commitment to to reproductive health care access last year, and we need to continue doing that, especially in the climate that's going on today, not explore ways to make access to care more difficult and stigmatized. Did it.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Right at the bell. Perfect. Okay. Comment, question from members of the committee. Coming to a question. There are none. Thank you for joining us.

[Tanisha Signore (Policy Director, She Leads Justice)]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Let's see. Richard Jennings. Richard Jennings. K. Diana Bump.

[Sheila Kimble]: Hi.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Hello.

[Diana Bump]: I'm hi. Thank you. I'll be really brief. I just wanted to address the topic of child sex trafficking in the context of h b five three zero nine. I don't feel like it received enough attention today. It's real. It's happening a lot more commonly than people realize. These are typically not children who are regularly seeing medical providers like OB GYNs or pediatricians. Children having secret access to pregnancy terminations is aiding their abusers and traffickers in covering up their crimes, and it's perpetuating the abuse. Child sex traffickers know that states like ours have laws around this that are to their advantage, and therefore, they operate more prevalently here. This puts all children in Connecticut at greater risk of being sex trafficked. Child sex trafficking disproportionately affects undocumented children, which is a larger population in Connecticut than in some other states without sanctuary status. Notification of a parent, guardian, or trusted adult has the ability to rescue a child from trafficking. If no such adult is able to be identified, a law enforcement response can take place in conjunction with child protective services. Think about Elizabeth Smart. She was a high profile case. There are many others out there like her who don't make the news. If one of those girls is watching this hearing today, what would they hope that you would do? We must pass this bill to blow the cover off of child sex traffickers in Connecticut and save young girls from perpetual trauma and abuse.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comment, question, comment, question from members of the committee. There are none. Thank you for joining us today.

[Speaker 92]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Steven Sudinski.

[Stephen Sadowski (Retired State’s Attorney, Danbury)]: Good afternoon, Senator Winfield, Representative Schaffstrom, Senator Kissel, Representative Fazino, and, members who are attending, remotely. My name is, I'm here actually in support of, Senate Bill, two ninety, an act clarifying the meanings of sexual intercourse and sexual contact. My name is Steven Sadowski. I'm the retired State's attorney for the Danbury judicial district. And even up until last year was actively trying child abuse cases and charging, as the law as charging as the law allows, criminal, I'm board certified in criminal trial advocacy. And I can feel comfortable speaking to why this statute or this bill is needed to be passed up until December 2022. We were able to prosecute as a continuing offense, sexual assaults of children with the decision in state versus Douglas and state versus Joseph. The sexual assault crimes were taken out of the, ability for us to prosecute that. All right. So that we had a prosecute only, we were only allowed to prosecute specific acts that we could prove and where this comes up is with children who are sexually abused over a long period of time. Multiple offenses. So that the memory of individual offenses tends to become blurred. Alright? So that if you have an offender who chooses to sexually abuse a child repeatedly over a long period of time in a similar manner, we are not able to prosecute that as a sexual assault offense. Okay? If however, we can somehow get a, an an individual excuse me, a, the act to be a little different so that the child can remember that particular incident that we can prosecute. And that's what we're actually left with doing. So even, as recently as last year, I had a number of, number of, of, victims in various cases where we were able to, not prosecute the ones that they couldn't remember. I mean, they remembered that they occurred, but could not specifically, separate them out, we were able to prosecute an individual. Usually it's oftentimes it's the first time it occurs, the last time it occurs, or if it's in a different room. But the more the, the statute, excuse me, the interpretation of the statute, by our Connecticut Supreme Court took out continuous course of conduct, which up until December 2022 was the law in the state of Connecticut that we could prosecute that way. And specifically in Douglas, the legend, the, the Connecticut Supreme Court said, this is an issue for the legislature. And they specifically, identified that they understand the difficulty in prosecuting child sexual assault cases, but noted that that particular issue in the sexual assault realm was one for the legislature. I I'll take any questions and I have read the public defender's testimony. I have comments on that. If you have questions.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: You knew what I was going to ask you. Similar question to attorney, walk it walk out. The conversation in their testimony about, continuing course of conduct and it not being well defined here. You you wanna I I

[Stephen Sadowski (Retired State’s Attorney, Danbury)]: dis I disagree with that. I disagree with that assessment. Okay. Up until December 2022, continuing course of conduct was available. It's available as I believe one of the, representatives this morning mentioned in the context of embezzlement. Right. It's if you look at those two cases, Douglas and Joseph, they, they fully recognize what a continuing course of conduct is in that is that it takes place over multiple, multiple instances over a period of time. And in Douglas, and I also believe in Joseph, they specifically highlight that the children could not remember details in terms of being able to distinguish specific instances. So I disagree with the public defender's representation that it, that it somehow there needs to be a definitional section in there. Continuing course of conduct has been part of our law, not just for, not just for sexual abuse cases, but for other cases, such as the embezzlement, which was, which was mentioned for a long period of time. So I disagree with that assessment that it somehow needs to be defined.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Question, comment from other members of the committee question or comment. There are none. Thank you very much for joining. Thank you, sir. Good. Next, we have Melissa Melissa Mannion. Melissa Mannion.

[Kristen Cronin]: Hello?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yes. You may proceed.

[Melissa Mannion]: Hi. Thanks. Sorry about that. I was waiting to get in. Thank you, Senator Winfield, Representative, Safferson, and ranking members of the judiciary committee. I am here today in a strong yes for HB five three zero nine. I know that it's been mentioned, but I just wanted to reiterate from my own personal experience that it is absolutely astounding to me that a few short years ago, my then 16 year old daughter wanted a tattoo here in the state of Connecticut. And not only did she need my consent, but she needed for me to be present and to present an ident my my license. And I had to sign a form saying that I consented to her getting that tattoo, which mind you, I know that it has been brought up a number of times. We're not even asking for consent. It that that's not even on the table right now. We as parents in the state of Connecticut are asking to be informed about a very serious medical procedure happening on our children, not the state's children, our children. I also got a call two times this year from my daughter's junior high, because I forgot to sign the form saying that she could have ibuprofen. So when she had her period, like many young girls do, which is another lovely OB GYN situation, I needed to be called and had to give verbal consent over the phone for an ibuprofen to be administered to my 14 year old. Yet if she wanted to go to planned parenthood, she could get an abortion and I would not even know. This is a huge problem. Here is why. There is trauma. There are there is bleeding. There is hemorrhaging. Even if she's given an abortion pill to go home subsequently into my bathroom and bleed out a child, a baby, and I have no idea what's going on. It is absolute insanity that anyone thinks that this is okay. As a person who is absolutely vehemently against abortion, I also am a mom who loves my children and I would definitely absolutely unequivocally without a shadow of a doubt, want to know what was happening to my child so that I could support them no matter what. I understand that I have no say in what will happen and that is fine. And I'd like to also bring this up. It's very interesting to me that one of the biggest arguments that gets brought up when it comes to abortion is, well, what about the rape and incest? I think that those are atrocious things. And I would argue much like the woman who just spoke a minute ago, that you're completely throwing it out the window that now let's just say that my daughter is being raped by her cousin, and I know nothing about it. And then her cousin has her go to planned parenthood to get an abortion, and I will again know nothing about it. That woman that spoke, Audra King, I believe that was her name. No. I'm sorry. Diana Bump was her name. She talked about sex trafficking. It is absolute common knowledge that sex traffickers use planned parenthood and their ability to bring people in without any questions asked. And now you want minors to have their parents not having any idea what is going on. This is absurd. And to say it's about anything other than money is completely disingenuous.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Your time.

[Melissa Mannion]: I'd like to add

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Your time?

[Elise Coleman (REACH Fund, CT’s abortion fund)]: I'd like

[Melissa Mannion]: to add that Audra King mentioned the slippery slope that she's worried about. If we if we take the parent

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Ma'am? The chair?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: I'm trying I'm trying here, ma'am, and there may be questions, but we have to treat everybody the same here. So representative Odette.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Thank you, mister chair. Miss Manion, I'm looking for your written testimony. Did you submit any written testimony? I'm sorry. You're you're muted. Can you un can somebody unmute her?

[Melissa Mannion]: I did not, but I would be happy to, sir.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Yes. Could you could you please submit some written testimony? And just briefly, you were saying when just Yes.

[Melissa Mannion]: Miss King, she mentioned that she was nervous about the slippery slope that this would cause because it would start with parental notification. It would go from there. And I very much understand the slippery slope because years ago, we had abortion as rare, safe, and legal. And now we have it up until birth. We're taking away parents' rights to even know that their daughter is in having one. Anyone can have one, any reason whatsoever. This is just, it's absurd.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Thank you for your testimony, and please do submit written testimony. Thank you, mister chair.

[Speaker 4]: Thank you.

[Melissa Mannion]: Thank you, representative Shay.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Comment or question from other members of the committee. Comment or question? There are none. Thank you very much. Let's see. Jason Guidon? This Maloney.

[Speaker 94]: Alright. Hi. Good evening. Thank you, members of the judiciary committee. My name is Lisa Maloney. I am executive director of Anchor of Hope Pregnancy Center in New London, president of the Connecticut Pregnancy Care Coalition and a licensed marriage and family therapist. And that's pretty much where my my, speech is gonna focus on is my work as a therapist who specializes in trauma. Melissa Mannion, who just spoke, had brought up brought up a couple of things. I have submit submitted written testimony about the adolescent brain that we've talked about earlier, and testimony about the effects of trauma on the adolescent brain. So I'm gonna let you all read my written testimony and I'm just gonna share with you a story that is far too common at our pregnancy center. We receive phone calls from young women who have received the abortion pill, whether through telehealth or a clinic, and they're in panic mode because they have just had the abortion alone at home and pass a fully formed dead baby. They call the abortion clinic and they're told to flush it. And the child and the child, because it is a child who's calling us, says I can't do that to the abortion clinic. And the abortion clinic says, so close your eyes and shut off the light and flush it. This is the trauma that young people are experiencing. We talk about it being safe, but it really isn't safe as far as their mental health and their trauma. And so when a young person does not have the support of the family to go to and they're struggling in trauma, parents see the PTSD symptoms afterwards and do not understand why. And, a phone call to the parents would definitely, give them insight as to what's going on in their daughter. Tragically, there is also real harm while it is not common, it does happen. And I think about the case in California in 2003 where a young girl took the abortion pill and three days later later was dead from complications. And her parents had no idea that she had been pregnant nor had she taken the abortion pill. Her father says she suffered in silence. She felt she would disappoint everyone around her, then she had to carry that whole load. I wish she had told me so I could help her. And I think that's the bottom line of what, a lot of these people are testifying in support of HB five three zero nine is that parents want to know. I have sons. My oldest son broke his leg when he was 14 at a friend's house. The ER wouldn't touch him until I got there, and his bone was sticking out his leg, and he had to sit there and wait. But yet if he were a 14 year old girl looking for an abortion, I wouldn't have been notified. Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions on my written testimony.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Comments, questions. I keep doing this. I keep playing. Comments or questions from members of the committee? Comments or questions from members of the committee? If there are none, thank you very much for joining us today. Let's see. We have Jamie Reed.

[Speaker 95]: Good afternoon. Thank you for providing me the time to testify. Let me open my remarks, please. My name is Jamie Reed, and I am the co executive director of the LGB Courage Coalition. I'm also a whistleblower from a pediatric gender center, and I hold a master's of science in clinical research management. The LGB Courage Coalition is a lesbian and gay advocacy organization committing to promoting evidence based medical care, ending the medicalization of gender nonconformity, safeguarding homosexual rights, and building pathways back for LGB individuals who have undergone medicalization. We believe that no child should be subjected to the material harms that are caused by puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and so called gender affirming medical interventions. For these reasons, we oppose SB295. This bill significantly expands Connecticut shield law protections. It does not merely protect providers acting within the state, but it's insulating controversial medical interventions from interstate accountability, limits cooperation with out of state investigations, reduces transparency regarding disciplinary actions, and restricts how custody findings from other states may be considered. When medical practice is settled and evidence based, extraordinary shieldings may not raise as much concern, but the interventions at issue here are not settled at all. Puberty blockers and cross sex hormones carry known implications for fertility, bone density, and cardiovascular health, and long term developmental outcomes. Importantly, the recent decision from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons has updated its guidance to remove surgical interventions for minors from its recommended standards of care. When the specialty bodies that oversee these procedures are currently withdrawing support for performing them on youth, that should matter to the legislation. If the medical profession itself is reassessing these interventions for minors, Connecticut should not be expanding legal shields that protect providers from review or consequences related to them. Shield laws should not be outpacing evolving medical standards. As a lesbian and gay advocacy organization, we are especially concerned about same sex attracted youth. Historically, we know men are many gender nonconforming children will grow up to be gay or lesbian adults. This is the population that is often disproportionately medicalized, and we face serious questions right now about medical justice for this population. Public policies should not insulate practices that permanently alter children's bodies while limiting transparency and accountability. No child should be subjected to irreversible medical interventions without clear evidence, independent oversight, and full transparency. For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to reject SB two ninety five.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Representative O'Dare.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Thank you, miss Shayer. Just real quick. Miss Reed, did you I I looked for your written testimony. I couldn't find it. Did you submit written testimony?

[Speaker 95]: It was submitted today.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Okay. Alright. Thank you very much. Appreciate you, taking the time. Thank you, mister chair.

[Speaker 4]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, representative. Question or comment from members of the committee? Question or comment? There are none. Thank you very much for joining us. Peter Wolfgang.

[Speaker 96]: Hello. I'm Peter Wolfgang, president of Family Institute of Connecticut Action, testifying in favor of 5309. Thank you for holding this hearing. We appreciate you doing this. This is not a radical measure. This is not an outlier. Massachusetts and Rhode Island have parental consent laws. All we are asking for today is a parental notification law. 38 states have or have had some form of parental notification law. Now that number, 38, was challenged earlier today. Senator Lesser said to the Catholic conference that 13 of those states went on to ban abortion. So this must be a first step. I wish. But what 13 states? Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia? It took us thirty six years just to get this hearing. Connecticut will not turn into Alabama if you pass this. In fact, a Quinnipiac poll in May 2022 said that 70% of Connecticut voters support parent Connecticut, Connecticut voters, 70%. And this was just 2022, four years ago, support parental notification for minors 16, 59% of Democrats, 80% of Republicans, 75 of Independents. Again, this is Connecticut. These people don't necessarily agree with someone like me on the underlying issue of abortion. Those 59% of Democrats, do you think they're with me? Connecticut Democrats are with me on abortion. I don't think all of that 80% of Connecticut Republicans are with a guy like me on abortion. But they know that parental notification is a common sense measure that both sides can agree on, pro life and pro choice alike. That's what this issue is about. Even if you disagree on with me on the underlying issue of abortion, both pro life and pro choice people, as we see in the numbers, even in Connecticut, even among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. In Connecticut, all three groups, majorities, support the passing of a parental notification law. This committee did a great and reasonable thing just by holding this public hearing. It took us thirty six years since the codification of Roe v Wade in Connecticut law just to have a public hearing on parental notification. I asked this committee, please do the next great and reasonable thing. Advance this bill out of committee. We know there's no guarantee that the bill will be taken up for a vote. We know there's no guarantee that, the vote would even be passed. All you have to do is advance the bill. You are you it was an incredible act of reason to have this at all. Please do the next reasonable thing. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Thank you. Question, comment from members of the committee question or comment. There are none. Thank you for testifying today again. I'm sure we will see you in the future.

[Speaker 96]: Thank you, senator. And again, thank you for holding this hearing. We appreciate it.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Let's see. We have Claire sir Circus.

[Speaker 4]: Alrighty.

[Emily Hoagler (Americans United for Life)]: Can you guys hear me?

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Loud and clear.

[Claire Circus (Fourth-year medical student)]: Awesome. Well, good afternoon. Thanks so much for for having me. Senator Winfeld, representative, Fizino and Senator Kisla.

[Speaker 4]: I appreciate your patience this

[Claire Circus (Fourth-year medical student)]: afternoon and I appreciate the opportunity to, to testify today. My name is Claire Circus and I'm from Farmington. I'm a fourth year medical student and I will graduate as a physician in May. And I am here to testify in strong opposition to HB five three zero nine and in strong support of SB two nine five. Like many of my colleagues have been, doing already today. I have cared for patients seeking abortion for many years, first as a medical assistant, and then as a support person now as a medical student. It's truly an honor to meet patients in these vulnerable moments and provide them with the compassion, support options, and autonomy that they deserve. In Connecticut, patients currently have the ability to exercise autonomy over their reproductive health in many ways, as you know, but access is never equal. Most patients face significant barriers, difficulty taking time off of work, lack of transportation for, or childcare and financial constraints or limited support systems. One barrier that has not existed here for many years is mandatory parental notification. HP 509 would change that. And this has been said today already. So, I don't wanna, you know, belabor the point, but as clinicians, we absolutely encourage minors

[Speaker 4]: to involve a trusted adult when

[Claire Circus (Fourth-year medical student)]: safe and most do often a to involve a trusted adult when safe and most do often a parent research consistently shows that the majority of pregnant adolescents voluntarily involve a parent or a trusted adult, regardless of whether or not the law requires it. Mandatory notification does not improve communication and supportive families. What it does do is in danger, endanger young people for whom disclosure is unsafe. As we've heard data show that one third of minors who do not inform a parent have already experienced family violence and fear it will recur in adolescents who anticipate negative reactions are often correct. And forced disclosure can risk violence, coercion, homelessness, loss of financial security. As we've heard judicial bias pass processes also cause delays while abortion is extremely safe. Contrary to some testimony today, the risk of complications increases with gestational age and delays can push adolescents into later more and more complex, more expensive procedures, limiting access mandatory notification does not reduce adolescent pregnancy. It simply delays care and increases burden. Major medical associations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose mandatory parental involvement laws because they may cause harm. As a future physician, I took an oath to do no harm, and mandating parental notification does not strengthen families. It places adolescents at risk of harm, delays care, and creates medical and psychological burden. I also strongly support SB two nine five in the wake of the Dobbs decision. Abortion access has become fragmented nationwide, Connecticut led by passing shield law and SB two nine five will strengthen that protection. Thank you for your consideration.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Question or comment from members of the committee question or comment. There are none. Thank you for joining us.

[Dr. Savannah Kazubinski (OB-GYN)]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Next, we will hear Erin Friday.

[Erin Friday (Attorney; Our Duty)]: Good afternoon. Erin Friday, attorney, president of Our Duty, a nonpartisan nationwide advocacy group protecting children from transgenderism. My daughter at age 13, like many in her class, said that she was trans after teachers taught her that her sex body is meaningless. She was convinced not only that she was a boy, but that she would commit suicide if she couldn't alter her body. With love, I convinced her that her natural body was perfect and that she did not need drugs or surgeries to be authentic. She desisted as and this is not rare. I've I've spoken to at least 500 parents of gender dysphoric children. This bill shreds the what the rights of parents to make critical decisions for their kids by shielding sex rejecting care from out of state scrutiny while embedding loopholes that allow kids to bypass parents. This bill elevates state ideology above parents in direct violation of the constitution and more than two hundred years of jurisprudence. It violates the full faith and credit clause and the PKPA by permitting one parent to disregard the custody agreement made in another state, even if that parent has no legal right to that child so that girls can get their breasts chopped off and kids can be pumped with puberty blockers or hormones, destroying their health and future. This bill protects Mendeley like doctors who are sterilizing children and chaining them to the medical complex for life. These children, when they discover what they have lost, need to be able to hold those carving up and wrecking their bodies accountable. Young boys placed on puberty blockers and then estrogen will never experience an orgasm. Females on testosterone suffer from clitoris growth that results in daily chafing and pain, when engaging in sex, along with dryness and atrophy of their vaginas. There are ten thousand complaints related to puberty blockers, and that's just when they were being used for precocious puberty. Are you aware that the, WPATH clinicians admitted that they are just winging it when it comes to treating children with gender confusion? Just winging it with children. And that regret is real and that kids cannot understand their loss of fertility. You may think that this bill is progressive, but you're really being regressive. Trans ideology is based upon antiquated stereotypes of how a female or male is supposed to behave. You are hurting children if you pass this bill who would likely just grow up to be gay and lesbians if they are just left alone. This bill is the ultimate conversion therapy. Children deserve to grow up with their natural bodies, and gender identity politics has no place in the state of Connecticut. I'm from California. Stop doing what we're doing in California. We are sterilizing a whole generation of children in the name of this odd gender ideology that really has no basis in science whatsoever. I am open for questions.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Question or comment from members of the committee. Rep.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Sorry, mister chair. Just looking for your testimony, miss, Friday. Did you submit written testimony?

[Erin Friday (Attorney; Our Duty)]: I haven't yet, but it will be on its way.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Thank you very much. Please do. I appreciate you taking the time. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, miss Friday, for your testimony.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, Repode. Comment or question from other members of the committee. Comment or question. There are none. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. Emily Hogler.

[Emily Hoagler (Americans United for Life)]: Hello, Chair Winfield and members of the Joint Judiciary Committee. Thank you for having me here today. My name is Emily Hoagler. I serve as Policy Counsel for Americans United for Life, a national non profit organization specializing in early life issues and bioethics law. I'm here today to urge your support for House Bill five three zero nine, which strengthens the essential role of parents in helping their minor daughters make permanent life altering decisions about pregnancy and parenting. I urge your support for HB five three zero nine, and I submitted an in-depth testimony with citations for three main reasons. First, it's constitutionally permissible. Second, it protects the well-being of minor girls. And third, it safeguards them from coercion and abuse. And I would encourage you all to read my testimony. But instead of summarizing my testimony with the time that I have right now, I just kind of wanted to address some of the concerns that I've heard the Committee members ask other proponents of this bill. I think the, the main one that I've heard a lot of is, Committee members being concerned about the minors who don't feel comfortable telling their parents about abortion. Kind of the argument is, well, if they want their parents to know, they'll tell them. If not, legislation should not require them to. And I just want to address this. I think the underlying assumption in, in these arguments is that minor children are more competent than their adult parents to, sort of, weigh the, the costs and benefits to, and to make these very important life altering and permanent medical decisions when it comes to abortion and reproductive health care. And, and the data is just not, not consistent with this assumption. So, what we see is that pregnant adolescent patients, do not make the, the most competent decisions compared to adult counterparts. They're more likely to delay care. Girls are more likely than adults to postpone abortion care until after fifteen weeks gestation. Research indicates that this is because of a lack of knowledge about the importance of prenatal care and a lack of understanding about the consequences of its absence. And this lack of or delayed care is associated with adverse maternal outcomes, girls are also more likely than adults to resort to unskilled practitioners and dangerous self induction methods of abortion. In contrast, when parents are involved, they're able to help their minor select competent health care providers who prioritize their health. They're able to help provide medical histories, which is important. They're able to help the minor understand the medical risks of abortion, and they're able to monitor for post abortion complications. And this is especially vital because adolescent girls face heightened risks when they conceal abortion from their parents. There are a number of, of heartbreaking anecdotes that I could read. Just a few. Dawn Ravenel from New York died at 13 while she was left unattended in recovery after receiving an abortion. Her parents were not not notified about her abortion, and they were not able to to advocate for her or to be with her while she was in recovery, and they could have prevented this tragedy. Sandra Kaiser in St. Louis died at 14, from a suicide three weeks after a secret abortion. Her mother was unaware of the procedure and was unable to alert the provider, providers of her pre existing psychological history, which significantly increased her risk for post abortion distress. So this bill is important for the vast majority of cases when parents are competent to help their children make informed decisions about their healthcare. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Senator Kissel.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: Thank you very much, chairman Winfield. And I know that it's already after five, Ms. Hugler. Thank you for your testimony. And I know you're here on behalf of an organization that's pro life, but what you stated is may seem to some folks counterintuitive. And I, and I think it's an important point. A lot of folks approach this issue from a moral standpoint, but the part that I just wanted to highlight is what you're saying is that medically for the health of the young lady, that if you get a an adult involved, namely a parent, that these decisions are optimized whether it's to have an abortion or not have an abortion. But let's say it's to have an abortion, that that medical decision is best made sooner rather than later because of the physical consequences of postponing, that issue being addressed. Is that correct?

[Emily Hoagler (Americans United for Life)]: I would agree that when, when there is an important medical decision to be made by a minor, it's important that the parent is involved in that decision. And I think in my testimony, I I cited extensive examples of the physical health and mental health risks of abortion. And I think it's important for parents to be involved to help inform their child of those risks and help their child make the healthiest decision for that child.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: I understand, but I don't want you to be advocating for your position that's pro life. I I get that. And then there's groups on one side and groups on the other. But the part that I wanna focus in on very specifically is the sooner this decision is addressed, the most informed decision, which is helped by a parent because they will be an adult, but the when you're dealing with an abortion, the quicker that decision is made medically, the better the health outcomes for the young lady. Is that true or false?

[Emily Hoagler (Americans United for Life)]: Not necessarily. Are you talking about for the abortion specifically, perhaps, but it's not necessarily a matter of expeditiousness. It's a matter of making the best decision for the minor child, which typically is not abortion.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. I misunderstood your testimony and I'm glad you clarified it. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Representative O'Dare.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Thank you, mister chair, just briefly. Thank you for your testimony. I'm going through it, but you you you at the end, the conclusion, you say parental involvement laws save lives. You just gave a couple examples. Can you just, expound on that a little bit, what you mean by that, or how you can say that?

[Emily Hoagler (Americans United for Life)]: Yes. Parental notification laws save lives because parents are in the best position to advocate for their child's physical and mental health. And I outlined extensively in my testimony examples of this. So, for example, you see with abortion an increase, in the risk of mental health issues. There's, varied data, anywhere between sixty five to eighty one percent increase in the risk of psychiatric disorders, of suicide ideation, of substance abuse, and things like this. And these are, these are complications that oftentimes minors aren't equipped to understand and to actually weigh these long term, risks. And in addition, the of the stories that I cited, I have, I have several more. There's a woman named Holly Patterson, 18, who died from septic shock caused by a chemical abortion that her father only learned about after the abortion. In Maryland, there was a woman named Erica Richardson, a girl. She was 18. She died after bleeding to death from a punctured uterus. The abortion was performed without her parents' knowledge. And there's case after case of these stories where minors died of of very avoidable deaths. Their parents were not involved in these decisions to warn them about these physical health risks, in addition to the mental health risks I discussed before when I talked about the example of, Sandra Kaiser, the, the young girl who unfortunately died of suicide. So parents are able to stand in the gap here and, and help minors receive the the resources and the support they need to make these decisions. And that is that's how these these laws are able to save lives.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: And when the when the parents aren't the right people to step in the gap for whatever reason, whether they're there's an involvement with a a relative or the parent, a stepfather or something. Can you give us some examples? Because I we heard that some of the judicial procedures or processes that are in place in other states don't work. There are are there states that do work, the judicial process works?

[Emily Hoagler (Americans United for Life)]: Yes. So it's it's hard to get statistics on I I think, Representative Fazzino asked a question before about a similar thing about the statistics of, for example, minors who are, appointed free counsel for a judicial bypass process, and, and things like that. And it's hard to get statistics, kind of, to get to the heart of your question on exactly, the rate at which these things occur. But, the, the closest that I was able to find is if you look at Massachusetts, a study done on, just that kind of looked at minors who received, or who sought judicial bypass. It, it followed 467 minors as they were going through the process of receiving judicial bypass. And it wasn't, the purpose of the study was not to talk about what percentage of them were assisted and were successfully able to file that petition. But, a 100% of those 467 minors, received free pro bono legal services from, non profit organizations to help them file that petition. So, it is, it is important in the cases when a minor is not safe to, or when a parent is not safe to, to be informed of an abortion for a minor to to have an avenue to seek judicial bypass. And it's important for those minors to receive assistance in that. And we see that the vast majority, if not all minors, do receive that assistance. And and additionally, just a quick Google search of if if you Google something, like, you know, I'm a minor, and I'm looking for a judicial bypass, and I need, assistance, Google will come up with Jane's Due Process. It's a nonprofit organization that assists minors in in receiving judicial bypasses. Repro Legal Health Line is another one. ACLU has a judicial bypass coordination process. And so, you see minors receiving assistance with this. And I and I do also wanna just put this in context also. There there have been, previous people have have cited like, Representative Linue talked about 10% of cases. When minors receive abortion, they they seek a judicial bypass. Of those 10%, only 13% of those 10% cite the fact that the parent is not safe to tell as the reason that they're seeking that. So I just wanna put this in context. Like, it is very important to protect minors who are in these situations where they don't have a parent that it's safe to be notified about abortion. But to put this in context, it's one point three percent of minors seeking abortion, according to the data that we have available. And this bill is the the standard that this bill will establish is notifying the vast majority, ninety nine percent of parents who are competent, who are able to protect and support their child while providing an alternative avenue to those children who do not have a parent that it's safe to inform.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony, taking the time to get up here, to give it to us. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: Thank you, Representative O'Day. Further questions, comments from Committee members? Seeing none, Ms. Hegler, thank you for joining us.

[Speaker 56]: Thank you.

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: Next, we have Robert Hale. Robert Hale. Next, we have, I'm sorry if I pronounce this incorrectly, Nimisha Sircanth.

[Namisha Srikanth (Yale PhD student)]: Good evening. Can you hear me?

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: Yes. I can.

[Namisha Srikanth (Yale PhD student)]: Perfect. Dear co chairs, Senator Winfield and representatives, Stastrom, and the distinguished members of the judiciary committee, my name is Namisha Srikanth, and I am a PhD student from Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut. I am testifying today on behalf of myself in strong opposition to House Bill five three zero nine, an act concerning the provision of notice to a parent or guardian of a minor child who has received pregnancy related health care services. I have also submitted written testimony online with additional information, and I will also speak in support of Senate Bill two ninety five, an act concerning state law protections for health care providers and patients related to the provision of a legally protected health care activity. For the past four years, I have been a volunteer with Jade's Due Process, an abortion fund for minors in Texas. Part of my duties is to assist young people in Texas in the funding, scheduling, and coordination of their out of state abortions. Additionally, I provide resources and support to abortion seekers outside of Texas, navigating their state's laws to find the best path forward, which may include dealing with the judicial bypass for minors. And every week, I listen to teenagers tell me their worries about not being able to get an abortion, their thoughts in the complex and complicated process they must undergo, and sometimes their withdrawal from the process due to the insurmountable barriers ahead of them. I am left angry and heartbroken for these young people who may have been victimized or simply lacked the knowledge they needed to maintain their reproductive health, ending up with the pregnancy as a consequence and further trauma. HB five three zero nine possesses dangerous potential for the regression of reproductive rights in Connecticut. While most young people involve their parents in their reproductive healthcare, prior research has shown that mandating the involvement of parents or guardians exposes those young people without parental support or stability to the anger and retaliation from those adults ranging from violence to homelessness and financial loss. Subjecting these young people to a judicial bypass is an unnecessary and highly inequitable process that further exposes a young person's privacy and increases the risk of losing stability as described in research and anecdotes. On the other hand, SB two ninety five would continue to champion and progress reproductive rights in Connecticut As Connecticut was the first state in the nation to pass and implement a shield law for abortion, we were truly leaders in reproductive rights and justice. However, other states have now implemented expanded shield laws to protect their residents. Connecticut should follow suit and protect the privacy of reproductive and gender affirming health care providers, especially that through of telehealth. This law would better ensure the reproductive freedom Connecticut has enjoyed and grown to be known for. As a native Texan, I am proud to now live in a state where reproductive freedom is championed and empowered for all people, including young people in the state. Connecticut must continue to champion reproductive rights, especially in the light of continuous attacks from the federal government. I urge you to not vote HB five three zero nine and favorably vote SB two ninety five out of the judiciary committee. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: Thank you for your testimony. Questions, comments from committee members? Seeing none, thank you for joining us. Thanks for sticking it out at this late hour. Appreciate it. Next, we have Mark Buchanan. Mark Buchanan. Next, we have Doctor. Savannah, Kaz Zubinski.

[Speaker 4]: That was

[Kristen Cronin]: perfect. Thank

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: you. It's okay. You don't have to lie.

[Speaker 4]: No. No.

[Claire Circus (Fourth-year medical student)]: No. You did great. Okay.

[Representative Matt Fazzino]: Whenever you're ready.

[Dr. Savannah Kazubinski (OB-GYN)]: Thank you so much for the distinguished members of the judiciary committee. My name again is Doctor. Savannah Kazibinsky. I currently reside in West Hartford and I'm an OB GYN who serves patients in both Farmington and Hartford again. I want to urge the strong support of SB two ninety five. This bill is a necessary step to strengthen the foundational groundwork that has already been laid by Connecticut shield law for Connecticut practitioners to continue to provide essential abortion care and care for transgender patients without fear of litigation. I recently had a visit with a patient whom I counseled when prescribed pills to undergo a medication abortion. Before the end of the visit, she looked at me and with concern and stated, what if I would have done this in another state after the Dobbs decision? This herring question is a reality for many patients in restrictive states. I want to contrast the story with one I've experienced during my residency training in Rochester, New York. I had a young patient who presented around fifteen to sixteen weeks who flew in from Texas. This was her first pregnancy and she expressed that she was hoping to finish high school, go to college and work in healthcare someday. A pregnancy now would not allow her to accomplish her dreams. Her aunt from Rochester drove her to the visit and her mom was on the phone. Her travel was the cause of her delay, even though she knew she was pregnant much earlier, she was no longer eligible for medication abortion, but we were still able to provide her care in New York. My story today isn't unique and many providers have had similar patient interactions. Patients who want care, but live in restrictive states have to travel extraordinary lengths to seek abortion. Some patients like the patient I described have family willing to help and the funds able to travel, but so many of them don't. Thus, they are forced to carry a pregnancy that is undesired or is dangerous to them. Telehealth abortions proven safe and effective can bridge the gap in access for patients. This would have made a substantial difference for my patient from Texas bolstering Connecticut shield law is not based on unfounded fears of litigation from hostile states. For example, shield laws in New York have been tested. And in December 2024, Texas New York rejected this citing their strong shield law and protected Doctor. Carpenter from the gross overreach of the Texas courts. The New York attorney general Leticia James stated that New York will always stand as a strong safe Haven for healthcare, and she will fight every last attempt to roll back our rights and turn back the clock on reproductive freedom. I sit here today as a Connecticut OB GYN provider who urges this law committee and gen con Connecticut general assembly to do the same by supporting SB two nine five. Again, let's continue to make progress on Connecticut shield laws to protect providers and patients, to be able to access safe and legal abortions. Thank you so much.

[Speaker 4]: Thank

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: you. Question or comment from members of the committee. Question or comment from members of the committee. Alright. Nine. Thank you for being here with us all day long. Alright. We have George Austin. Howdy. Good afternoon.

[George Austin (Candidate, U.S. House CT-2)]: Hello, everyone. I'm George Austin, candidate for US House in the 2nd District. With me today is my son, George Junior. The reason for his presence will be made clear in a moment. We've heard it's been a long afternoon. We've heard a lot of testimony on a wide variety of topics from a wide variety of perspectives. I did not submit rest written testimony because my remarks will be more anecdotal in nature with with regards to my, experience with abortion. And I'm here to speak in favor of HB five three zero nine. Our story begins about nineteen years ago. I was a 19 year old newlywed living in Atlanta with my wife of about ninety days when we learned that we were pregnant. We discovered that she was pregnant, and my knee jerk reaction was to abort. It was born of fear, maybe from not being ready to be a teen father, or it was, it could have been born from selfishness, not willing to lose my lifestyle at the time. Over the next thirty days, I convinced my wife of about ninety days into my way of thinking. And we proceeded to try to abort my son using a whole bunch of means and methods, everything ranging from, from chemical met from chemical means to homeopathic remedies, even voodoo magic. Nothing worked. As you can see, thankfully, we were unsuccessful in inducing early labor. It was then that I hatched a scheme. We were living in Atlanta at the time, and that were performing abortions in Georgia. So I was gonna come home, visit my my my relatives, visit my friends, and on the way back out of town, we were gonna visit an abortion clinic and do the deed. The night before we left on the trip, I I actually heard my son's adult voice as he speaks now, asking me, hey, dad.

[Speaker 4]: Why are

[George Austin (Candidate, U.S. House CT-2)]: you trying to kill me? Why are you trying to deprive me of my shot at life, liberty, and my pursuit to and my ability to pursue happiness. So, obviously, we did not. I, I I hesitate to use a platitude such as seeing the light, but I tell you, I did. I saw it. I've told this story to anyone who will listen, mainly in hopes to not only save the life of the unborn, but hopefully, the life of the potential mother. And I can certainly empathize. And the reason why I'm here speaking on this bill, on this subject, is because I can certainly empathize with the fear that a young teen mother would be facing, staring a daunting prospect, such as a teen pregnancy and teen motherhood in the face. So, to ask, I'm asking you, Mr. Chair, to make sure that this bill is voted on and hopefully, all the members who are listening to to vote in favor of it, see that it passes and moves on onto the chamber for, into the open floor and voted on favorably there. Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Senator Kessel.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: Thank you very much, Chairman Winfield. Mr. Austin, thank you so much for being patient and being here all day. You are indeed one of my constituents and I'm very proud or honored that I'm able to represent you here in our legislature. And I think it's really good when you speak from the heart regarding your own life story. We hear in this committee and throughout the legislature all the time that if we allow parental notification, not even consent as I'm amazed that they allow, they have consent in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, but we're just looking for notification, that children or young people will be afraid of their parents getting thrown out of the house, that it will end up in violence. And, you know, you've been here, you've listened to the testimony on both sides of these arguments. And a lot of people take the position of pro life for moral reasons, religious reasons. But I view just the simple notification of a parent is that individual is gonna have the most knowledge of, physical, possibilities as far as being allergic to certain drugs and things like that, the mom or dad or the guardian is going to know if they were going to go for surgery for anything, what the pros and cons are as far as that young person that the young person may not even know. And so I'm just wondering what your view is regarding the arguments that are always mustered against this proposal and why we should, on balance go with parental notification.

[George Austin (Candidate, U.S. House CT-2)]: Well, so without espousing legal precedent and facts and figures, just speaking and anecdotally as a successful father, I would say that you're absolutely right. There's no one who's gonna have a more in-depth or intimate knowledge of potential allergies, to medication. So looking at it from a pragmatic standpoint, that makes sense. But also, in a more, let's, for lack of a better term, wholesome point point of view, there's no better consul than one's own parents, than one's own kin, or even a court appointed GAL, you know, in in absence of of a parent. And as I referenced earlier, staring a teen pregnancy in the face is a very daunting, you know, a prospect. And I think that having a parental notification, whomever that brings in, whether it's your parents, your grandparents, aunt and uncle, custodian or guardian, that can only result in something positive to make sure that there is no med there are no medical complications as you alluded to in terms of medications and procedures or just to make the right choice. Who knows? Maybe all these fears whether rational or not are are very natural. It's a very natural reaction to have especially when it within our cultural zeitgeist, teen pregnancy is frowned upon. And of course, because who's ready for it? But, I think there would be a lot of a, a, a lot of upside in making, in making sure from a legal standpoint that parents are notified and brought into the process.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: And did you want your son to testify?

[George Austin (Candidate, U.S. House CT-2)]: Is that, is that proper?

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: It's up to the chair. But let me just say this before I turn it over to the chair, and we have gone very, very long, and there's specific rules that the chair is more familiar with than I am. But I'm gonna say this, because I'm not sure this bill is ever gonna get a vote in this committee. I have always supported parental notification. At the same time, I want people to understand there's a libertarian streak in me that says I'm very hesitant to have government interfere with a woman's decision, even if that woman's a minor. And so once we move in that direction, I'm hesitant to have government intervene in prohibiting a woman's right to choose. It's a very fine line and I'm probably making none of the interest groups happy with my position. I have people within my own family that wouldn't even go down the path of artificial insemination because they feel that those eggs that have been inseminated, the ones that are tossed away because they weren't used to fertilize the woman, that that was an example of life. That at conception there is life. And they believe so strongly in the life position that they wouldn't even count it as artificial insemination. On the other hand, there's constituents and people that I know that are so stridently in favor of choice that when I would argue about partial birth abortion, that very, very late term, that that fetus was viable on its own. They would say, but as long as it's within the woman's body, it doesn't matter. It's her choice. They should have no rights. And there's like, really that I mean, that's about as polar opposites as it can be. I've tried to weigh that. I also it would be foolish for me not to say, being a man, I will never really understand all that comes down to a woman because I believe, and sometimes even this amazingly in the last decade has been questioned. I just don't feel that a man can be pregnant, and, and have to deal with all of those ramifications. It's not philosophical. It's purely biological and physiological. But that being the case, I would see my way to supporting this issue because I think on balance, I think a parent or guardian should be notified. But that being the case, I just wanted to get that out there for folks that may be watching. And I'm going to defer that question to, my friend and colleague, the good chairman, as far as you've been here all day and maybe your son wants to say something, but I don't have the right to do that.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: But you did put it on the record. But no. If you have a brief comment, you can make it, I'm not going to allow three minutes unless you wanna wait until the end. That's what we've done for everyone else. And it wouldn't I don't think it would be fair to, let you step in front of them. So

[George Austin Jr.]: I don't have no comments to make, but I do support no print notification.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Night. That that works. Rep DiCaprio. There's another question. Rep DiCaprio.

[Representative Greg Howard]: Thank you, mister chair. And, I just wanted to thank, mister Austin for coming in tonight and or today and tonight and his son bringing him. So I just wanted to thank you both for your your testimony. You bring a very interesting point as many of the others, through the day have done. So thank you very much. Thank you, mister chair.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Any other comments or questions from members of the committee? No. Alright. Thank you for joining us today. Thank you, sir. Michael Derrerwianca? Michael

[Speaker 4]: Durayanka.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: K. Mona Caldwell. You're muted. Ma'am, you're muted. You're muted. There you go.

[Speaker 92]: Sorry about that. Good evening, everyone. Thank you so much for listening to all of the testimony today, including mine right now. My name is Mona Colwell, and I'm here as a concerned Connecticut mother, a citizen, and I'm also the Connecticut state leader for Intercessors for America. I have submitted written testimony, and I'd like to make comments on several bills. I do urge you to support both s b two five nine and s b two nine two as both of these protect children. I also urge you to reject s b two nine five and any other bills that further shield doctors from civil liability for performing transgender surgeries and treatments on children. These are not health care. They're irreversible mutilations that sterilize maim and cause lifelong regret for some children. Children who survive them deserve their day in court. Shielding the doctors who profit from this experimental harm is it's morally wrong, and it tells every vulnerable child in Connecticut that their body is not worth protecting. I don't understand why our state would even consider taking away their civil liberties, especially when many are being led astray at a time when they're not even old enough to make these life altering decisions. At the same time, I strongly support h b five three zero nine, the parental notification bill for minors seeking abortions. Parents, not the state or planned parenthood or any other provider who performs abortions on minors, have the fundamental right to know when their daughter is about to undergo a life altering procedure. This is not restricting any access for the child. It's protecting the child. And the way the bill is presented, children in abusive situations, as we all know, still have options. We need to protect families, and there's not been one reasonable argument all day today that would that would support preventing parental knowledge. Connecticut parents resoundingly want this bill, and so I really wanna thank you in advance for advancing it because I do believe that you all should. And thirty six years has been a long time for parents in Connecticut to wait. I'm also a Christian. I'm guided by scripture. We heard earlier today, Matthew eighteen six, when Jesus warned, whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better to for him to have a millstone fastened around his neck and be drowned in the depth of the sea. And Isaiah ten one declares, woe to those who make unjust laws and to those who issue oppressive degrees decrees. So I just say heed these biblical warnings and make sure that you pass bills that protect the innocent rather than enable harm. Thank you so much for allowing me to testify.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Repo Dett.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Thank you, mister chair. Miss Caldwell, thank you for your testimony. I'm just looking for the written testimony. I don't see it. Did you provide written testimony?

[Speaker 92]: I did for several of the bills.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: I I I see it now. I'm sorry. Sorry, miss Chair. We're only the second to last one. So thank you, miss Caldwell, for your testimony.

[Speaker 92]: Thank you.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: No problem, representative. Comment or question from other members of the committee. Comment or question from other members of the committee. Seeing none, thank you for joining us today. Christopher O'Brien.

[Christopher O’Brien (Paramedic)]: Hey. Good afternoon, mister chairman and members of the committee. My name is Christopher O'Brien, and I'm testifying in support of h b fifty three zero nine. After twenty nine years as a paramedic, I can tell you that when a 16 year old crashes a car, their first concern isn't usually about the damage. It's please don't call my dad or my parents are gonna kill me. That's fair. In that moment, we still call the parents because they are minors. The law recognizes that minors lack maturity and capacity to navigate serious medical decisions alone. Yet Connecticut makes an exception for one of the most serious life decisions a minor can face. We are only one of a few states without parental involvement requirements in law. Massachusetts and Rhode Island have parental involvement statutes, and abortion remains firmly legal in those states. When parents are removed from the process, secrecy fills the gap and secrecy creates risk. My written testimony includes some examples of how current law supports sex trafficking of minors. When a parent says don't drink, teen often responds, I don't like the taste. Don't do drugs. I would never do that. Don't wreck the car. Dad, I'm careful. Don't get pregnant. I don't even like him. Teens don't plan to make life altering mistakes. Adults don't either. But when mistakes happen, fear should not drive young people away from the very people responsible for loving and protecting them. As parents, let's recommit ourselves to making sure our children know that no matter what happens, they will still be loved. We will still be there and will they will still be okay before they make mistakes. If abortion is a medical procedure, then informed consent standards that govern every other medical scenario should apply here as well. Serious medical decisions, even without visible injury, require parental input. Parents know their medical child's medical history, allergies, medication risks, and some medications have the risk of bleeding risks, which could be involved in any surgical or abortion procedure, conditions a teenager may not fully understand. Abortion carries medical and psychological consequences. One recent retrospective study, and it's in my written testimony, found that sixty seven percent of women described their abortion as coerced or inconsistent with their values, and sixty percent of women said they would have had continued their pregnancy if given emotional or economic support. Fear should not replace family. Secrecy should not replace support. Parents should not be excluded from one of the most life changing decisions a minor will ever face. This is a difficult subject. And if anyone listening today carries pain from a past abortion experience, help is available. You're not alone. Let me give you four resources, hopeafterabortion.com, Rachel's Vineyard, standupgirl.com, and the national hotline for abortion recovery at (866) 482-5433. In conclusion, this bill includes safeguards. In cases of abuse, prior writers or mandated reporters, Judicial bypass is available, and protecting minors from abuse does not require excluding parents in every single case. Thank you for your

[Speaker 4]: time. Well you? Not bad.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: You did great. You hit the bell right on. Representative O'Dea.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Thank you, mister chair. Last person so I feel okay asking this question. Mister O'Brien, I looked for your written testimony. You say you submitted it, but I don't see it online. Did you just do it submit it today?

[Christopher O’Brien (Paramedic)]: I did about forty five minutes ago. The, committee administrator said she did get it up.

[Representative Tom O'Dea]: Okay. Alright. Thank you very much, sir, and thank you for your testimony and and sitting through. And thank you, mister chair, for putting up with me.

[Christopher O’Brien (Paramedic)]: Yep. Thank you, representative.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Always happy to put up with you. Alright. So I know we have a couple of folks who were online and got skipped because for one reason or another, they weren't able to get on. So I believe we have Caroline Magnan. Is that one of them?

[Caroline Magnan]: Yes. Hello.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Yep. May testify.

[Caroline Magnan]: Alright. Dear chairman and distinguished members of the judiciary committee, my name is Caroline, and I'm a graduate student in health policy at Yale University. I'm speaking today in opposition of raised House Bill 5,309. Connecticut is known for its historical position at the forefront of reproductive rights and sexual health. Given the political climate we have seen since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, it is more critical than ever that the state remains a safe haven for those seeking one. There are a number of strong arguments to reject this proposal. First, though they might be less experienced in the world, young people deserve privacy, autonomy, and our respect, especially regarding matters involving their own health. Second, the majority of minors do turn to their parents before seeking abortion care. Additionally, current protocol already requires physicians and counselors to discuss the possible involvement of a trusted adult. This is outlined in subsection A. Five of the existing statute. If a minor decides to proceed without guardianship after consulting a provider, then that choice should be honored and accepted in good faith. Third, if a minor does not feel safe or comfortable discussing the situation with a parent or trusted adult, this new rule could put her in potential danger. A substantial portion of minors electing to independently pursue pregnancy related services do so out of fear of abuse or disappointing their parents. While there is a provision to apply for a waiver, it represents a barrier above all else. Many of these young individuals would either be unaware of such a waiver or would not know how to petition for one in the first place. Furthermore, forcing minors to navigate a complex legal process will accomplish little except for delaying care, increasing stress, and inviting unnecessary administrative burden to the court system. Though we may not agree on this issue, I can appreciate the parents who support this bill with the intention of protecting their children. It is true that parents are often required to be present for medical procedures and involved in decision making. At the same time, a situation as complex as child pregnancy does not fall within that same category. The most proactive thing parents can do to support our youth is foster open, trusting, and loving relationships with their own children. Make sure that they feel like they can come to you with their problems. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to reject this bill and allow Connecticut to maintain its status as a leader in reproductive health. Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to testify. And one last thing is, I will be posting written testimony later today.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. Anticipation. Good. Thank you very much. Are there comments or questions from members of the committee? Comments or questions? There are none. I wanna thank you for sticking around. Okay. We have Ayanna Liles.

[Dr. Ayanna Lyles (Vice Chair, CT Section ACOG; OB-GYN)]: Hi. Good evening, Senator Winfield, Representative Staffstrom, and distinguished members of the joint judiciary committee. My name is doctor Ayanna Lyles, and I'm a board certified OB GYN physician licensed to practice medicine in Connecticut for the last eleven years, and I'm the vice chair for the Connecticut section of the American College of OB GYNs, which represents a 68 OB GYN physicians and partners in women's health answering the call for our profession and our state. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony, on behalf of the Connecticut section of ACOG in strong opposition of HB five three zero nine and in strong support of SB two nine five. You have my written testimony, but I wanna start with HB five three zero nine. And I apologize for being late. I just got out of the Operating Room. But this bill is a manipulation tactic to con continue to exert control over reproductive health for minors. Last year, public back '25 dash 28 was passed, bolstering a minor's right to consent to all pregnancy related care and contraception without parental involvement in response to the mistreatment minors experience regarding parental involvement. This bill will require health care providers to notify parents and guardians when a minor seeks pregnancy related care, but specifically targets abortion. This isn't about protecting the adolescent and providing them with support and care as they contemplate serious decisions about their health. This bill sets up additional unnecessary barriers to reproductive health care in another attempt to restrict abortion access.

[Catherine (Katie) Kraschel (law professor)]: We in

[Dr. Ayanna Lyles (Vice Chair, CT Section ACOG; OB-GYN)]: the medical community understand that decisions regarding pregnancy care are complex and should not be subject to unnecessary politically motivated nonmedical involvement. ACOG's evidence based clinical guidelines are clear. Confidential care for young people is important because it encourages access to care and increases discussions about sensitive topics and behaviors that might substantially affect their health and well-being. Our goal is to encourage shared decision making between the adolescent, their parent or guardian, and the physician to best care for them. Parental notification, as well as onerous tasks outlined in this bill breaks down this relationship, which in turn leads to poor outcomes for the adolescent. Turning to s b 20 two ninety five, this bill will bolster Connecticut shield law to ensure that abortion providers in Connecticut continue to provide abortion care to their patients regardless of zip code. This bill would also allow abortion and gender affirming care providers to list the facility instead of their personal information on prescription labels. This legislation would offer critical layer of confidentiality and anonymity for providers of reproductive healthcare and gender affirming healthcare services by allowing them to remove their individual names. SB two ninety five would also offer the same telehealth protections to gender affirming care providers. It also would not only protect the abortion workforce in Connecticut, but would also support patients who can't get access to care in their own community. By protecting Connecticut's abortion and gender affirming care workforce, the legislator legislature, sorry, will be supporting patients across our state and country who are seeking this care. ACOG strongly opposes the passage of HB five three zero nine and strongly supports the passage of SB two nine five by the joint judiciary committee and the Connecticut General Assembly so that we can continue to support reproductive freedom in our state and offer a critical layer of defense for its dedicated and compassionate health care workers workforce seeking to respond to the national public health emergency that is post Roe reality. Thank you for your time and consideration for this bill.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you. Senator Kessel.

[Senator John A. Kissel (Ranking Member)]: Thank you very much, Chairman Winfield. Doctor, I may not necessarily agree with you on the parental notification bill. I think it's really important on the other topics you testified on, but in all my years, I cannot recall anyone ever walking out of surgery and then testifying immediately thereafter. And so, I just have to give you super duper props on raising multitasking to a level I've never seen. So thank you for your dedication and your commitment to testifying here this afternoon and your commitment to all your patients. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: Thank you, Senator. Question or comment from other members of the committee. Question or comment from other members? If not, doctor Lyle, thank you very much for joining us and providing us with your testimony. Okay. We have Molly Markowitz.

[Speaker 42]: Good evening. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak and so sorry to be, to be late. I was seeing patients. My name is doctor Molly Markowitz. I'm a pediatrician, who practices in New Haven, and I represent the Connecticut chapter for the American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents over 600 pediatricians in Connecticut. And today, I or this evening, I'm speaking in strong opposition to house bill five three zero nine, and I want to echo what so many others have shared is health care providing confidential comprehensive comprehensive reproductive health care for adolescents in Connecticut, including abortion care. This is a considered standard of care and is supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of OB GYNs, and other medical organizations. And to not repeat kind of all of the really important points that all of my other people have shared this evening, I just wanted to share my personal experience as a pediatrician where we meet with these patients, these adolescents, and have these really tough conversations, give the positive pregnancy test result. Oftentimes, you know, I am having those first really initial present in those first really initial moments with with patients and recognize that this is can be, you know, such a challenging time. And it is really critical and important that the the space that we create in our medical offices is safe and that fam or that patients feel like they can come to our office and they can, you know, have that pregnancy test and discuss all of their options. And this is how that we make sure that children and or patients, excuse me, are, you know, are are safe and receiving the medical care that is needed. And we, in fact, try to always encourage our patients when it's appropriate and safe to engage their parents in the discussion, and I've been present many times, you know, bringing a a parent, into the room and helping disclose the the positive pregnancy test per the patient's wishes and discussing all possible options and kind of just being present with everyone in that moment, and these are some of the toughest times. But I've also been present when that was not safe and appropriate, and I've had those discussions with a patient. And we've talked about next steps in identifying other potential people in their life, whether it's an aunt or some other trusted adult that they felt like they could reach out to. So, I just wanna emphasize that this is standard of care, to be able to provide confidential, comprehensive reproductive health care is so important for, Connecticut's adolescents. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. And thank you again for allowing time to speak.

[Senator Gary Winfield (Co-Chair, Judiciary Committee)]: And thank you. Question or comment from members of the committee? Question or comment? There are none. Thank you for coming back to make sure you gave us your testimony. We appreciate it. Have a good evening. Okay. That is actually the end of the public hearing. So thank you for sticking around, whoever has left, not many of you. And we'll be back.