Bill allowing CT minors access to reproductive care without parental consent passes
The Connecticut Senate approved bipartisan legislation Tuesday in a 31-5 vote that would allow minors under the age of 18 to access prenatal care, contraceptive counseling and pain management during pregnancy without the consent or notification of their parents or guardian, according to the bill's analysis.
The bill heads to Gov. Ned Lamont's office for his signature.
HB 7213 passed the House on May 1 in a 117-27 vote and also passed the Public Health Committee by a 19-11 vote on March 27.
'By increasing the breadth and scope of services accessible and available to minors in Connecticut supporting reproductive health care – most seriously focused on preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, encouraging safe sex and ensuring access to care and resources during pregnancies and labor – we take a step to not only keep our youths safe but provide them with stronger health throughout their adult lives,' said Sen. Saud Anwar, Senate chairman of the Public Health Committee.
Anwar said the bill is not about abortion, referring to abortion services for minors which were enacted into law in 1994.
The bill also prohibits physicians and other health care providers from sharing any information about these services or related consultation with the minor's parent or guardian without the minor's express consent, according to the bill's analysis.
While most senators supported the bill, several Republicans cited concerns with taking away parental consent for contraceptive counseling and prenatal care, arguing that the government is intruding on parental rights to guide their children.
'We are going to grant a minor child 13 to 14 the ability to consent to include whether or not they are going to have contraception,' said Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott. 'We are writing laws that are making it so easy to replace the parents with the government. I don't ever want to replace the right for parents to be involved in their children's lives with the government.'
Anwar said there is a whole effort around the bill aimed at reducing abortion.
'It is increasing access to contraception,' he said.
Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, also shared concerns about the bill.
'I have always been an advocate for parental notifications for medical outcomes,' he said.
Sen. Henri Martin, R-Bristol, also voiced his opposition to the bill, explaining that he believes that the family institution has eroded for decades, putting blame on what is going on at the Capitol as the cause.
'I believe that our values have been eroded because of the deterioration of the family institution,' he said. 'I do not think the legislation we are passing today fixes it.'
Several health organizations supported the bill including the Connecticut Association of School Based Health Centers; Fair Haven Community Health Care; the Cornell Scott Hill Health Center; the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.
Sen. Heather Somers, R-Groton, viewed the bill as pro women, pro baby and pro saving lives.
'I think the part that is particularly important to me is the ability for minors to receive prenatal care,' she said. 'Prenatal care saves lives. Prenatal care is essential to detect complications early.'
Anwar cited data from the Connecticut 2023 School Health Survey finding that 30% of high school students reported having sex, with 10% of 12th graders with four or plus sexual partners and only 10% used dual protection. He added that data also showed that 11% used no protection for pregnancy.
'From a public health perspective we have the responsibility to have counseling and services available,' Anwar said for contraceptive use.
He said 21 states including Washington DC allow minors to consent to contraception services and 34 states have minor consent to prenatal care.
He also cited other medical studies that found that of those teens using clinic-based planning services only half received contraception if parents were notified.
Sen. Paul Honig, D-Harwington, also supported the legislation.
'It's unthinkable to imagine forcing a young person to give birth without adequate pain management treatment simply because they did not first secure parental notification,' he said. 'This legislation will ensure that no one is subjected to such draconian barriers to care, all while broadening access to contraceptive counseling and prenatal services that are critical to the health and well being of young patients.'
Further, the provisions in the bill do not affect a provider's obligation to make a report to the Department of Public Health or the Department of Children and Families or any other report or disclosure that may be required under state law, the bill's analysis also states.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
19 minutes ago
- Business Insider
What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it
Elon Musk has departed his role as a "special government employee" in Trump's White House — and he's using his time outside the administration to hammer the GOP spending bill that's a cornerstone of the president's agenda. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote on X earlier this week. Trump responded by saying Musk's criticism of the legislation is "disappointing." President Trump's tax bill will likely face a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks after passing the House in May. It would reduce the tax rates of lower-income workers, particularly those earning less than $107,200, and eliminate taxes on tips, social security, and overtime. The bill would also cut spending on social programs like Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to low-income Americans. Like Musk, investors and economists are seemingly concerned that the bill will cause the national debt to balloon and further widen the US budget deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that it would grow the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade . Trump and his allies have pushed back, arguing that higher economic growth from lower taxes would help boost government revenue. Here's what top economists are saying about the bill. Phillip L. Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office Despite the lower tax rates for low earners, Swagel said in a May 20 letter that the bill would negatively impact poorer Americans. "CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP," he wrote. "By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe." William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation McBride, along with several colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, said in a May 23 report that while the bill would support economic growth, it wouldn't be enough to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts. "Our preliminary analysis finds the tax provisions included in the House-passed bill would increase long-run GDP by 0.8 percent," the report said. "The bill's tax and spending changes would increase the 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the deficit would increase by $1.7 trillion over ten years before interest costs." It continued: "The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the revenue reduction would fall by nearly 22 percent to $3.2 trillion over 10 years before added interest costs." 6 Nobel Laureates Six Nobel Prize-winning economists — including Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Peter Diamond, Paul Krugman, Oliver Hart, and Joseph Stiglitz — said in a June 2 letter that the bill would worsen wealth inequality in the US. "The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households," the letter said. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," it added. Ken Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, cast doubt on the notion that the bill would boost growth in a piece for Project Syndicate this week. "Trump and his acolytes argue that his "big, beautiful bill" will supercharge economic growth, generating enough revenue to make up for sweeping tax cuts. But history offers little support for such claims," he wrote. "While both Democratic-led spending sprees and Republican-backed tax cuts have fueled the growth of US debt over the past two decades, tax reductions have accounted for the lion's share of the increase. Moreover, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves was already discredited in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts led to soaring deficits rather than self-sustaining growth." He added: "Will America's rising debt ultimately trigger a full-blown crisis? Perhaps, but a continued upward drift in long-term interest rates is more likely." Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Lachman, a former IMF official who currently works for a conservative-leaning think tank, said in a June 4 post that rising bond yields, a declining dollar, and appreciating gold prices could be harbingers of an economic crisis brought on by Trump-driven policy volatility. Trump's tax bill is adding to investors' fears due to its inflationary implications. But one of its clauses undermines confidence in the reliability of the returns on Treasurys, he said. "That bill includes a clause that has to be sending shivers down foreign investors' spines. According to Section 899, the US Treasury can impose additional taxes of up to 20 percent on income earned by foreign entities from countries that enact taxes deemed 'unfair' to US interests."
Epoch Times
20 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
House Democrats Fall Short in Subpoenaing Elon Musk in 20–21 Vote
House Democrats on Thursday couldn't get enough votes to issue a subpoena to tech entrepreneur Elon Musk to testify before Congress. The House Oversight Committee rejected the Democrats' request for Musk, a Trump adviser and former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to appear before lawmakers in a 20–21 vote.
Los Angeles Times
20 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat
Paramount Global's efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento. Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October '60 Minutes' interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe. Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. 'I haven't seen a president act in this brazen of a manner,' state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. 'We're concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats.' Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount's $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family's fortunes. Trump contends CBS edited the '60 Minutes' interview to enhance Harris' appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount's recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous. 'This is a really important case,' said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA's School of Law. 'Legislators are starting to raise alarms.' But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount's leaders paid a bribe. Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room. 'We would have to have a lot more facts,' Cummings said. 'Bribery requires a quid pro quo ... and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking.' Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it's unclear who would prosecute such a case. No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the '60 Minutes' edits rose to the level of news distortion. It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said. That hasn't stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company's deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down. 'It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act,' the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. 'If Paramount officials make these concessions ... to influence President Trump ... they may be breaking the law.' Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators' questions by this week's deadline, according to Warren's office. Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment. Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance's proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal's particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power. Trump has demanded Paramount pay 'a lot' of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC. For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution. Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology. The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations. Paramount's leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources. The two California state senators — Becker and Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — hope such fractures provide an opening. Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former '60 Minutes' executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento. McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said. Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence. 'You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector,' Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times. The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris' response to a question during a '60 Minutes' interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show 'Face the Nation' used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, '60 Minutes' aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul. Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered 'mental anguish' as a result of the interview. CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine. Since then, the FCC's review of Paramount's Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr's approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family. Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters. Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction. Trump and his team 'essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns,' Cummings said. Paramount's decision could open the company to shareholder complaints. The reason Trump's CBS '60 Minutes' lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is 'because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous,' said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates. 'This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown,' Stern said. Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump's goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million. 'The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit,' Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. 'If Trump's goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President's best interests.' UCLA's Cummings sees another deleterious outcome. A settlement could 'legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there's some sort of corruption within these media entities,' Cummings said. 'He could point to a settlement and say: 'I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.' ' 'Even though they would be paying to get this deal through,' Cummings said.
