10 hours ago
Hundreds of bills failed at the Capitol this session. See what could have been law.
The Connecticut Legislature passed numerous bills this session on hot button issues including immigration, child care and special education.
But hundreds more proposals failed to make it to the finish line, covering an array of issues from restrictions on private equity to regulating homeschooling to the regulation of artificial intelligence. And even within those bills that passed, oftentimes measures included in the original drafts were removed to ensure bipartisan support.
Connecticut lawmakers proposed several bills to restrict private equity's role in Connecticut hospitals after Prospect Medical Holdings filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this past year raising questions about patient care.
But no bill made it to a vote in either the House or Senate.
Prospect, which operates Manchester Memorial, Rockville General and Waterbury Hospital, has faced fiscal challenges in many of its hospitals in the state, from delayed payments to physicians and vendors to a shortage of health care providers.
Sen. Saud Anwar, Senate chairman of the Public Health Committee, argued for the restriction of private equity, calling it the responsible thing to do 'under the current circumstances where we have three hospitals that have been bankrupted by private equity and also the infrastructure of radiology services in the state of Connecticut has been harmed by private equity.'
'So much more harm to our patients has happened through private equity takeover of health care entities,' the senator has said.
SB 1507 would have prohibited private equity companies and real estate investment trusts from acquiring or increasing direct or indirect ownership interest in or operational or financial control over a hospital or health system, according to the bill's analysis.
HB 6873, Gov. Ned Lamont's bill, focused on the strengthening of the review of health care entity transactions, expanding the transactions that require prior notice to the attorney general, according to the bill's analysis.
House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said during a press conference with days before the session's end that time was running out.
The governor noted Thursday that he was surprised that the legislation did not pass.
'Everybody in this building was hostile to private equity until last night,' he said.
But Anwar said 'it's my understanding Gov. Lamont played a role in private equity bills not moving forward.'
Rob Blanchard, the governor's communication's director said that 'despite the governor's best efforts to work collaboratively with the public health committee on private equity, the co-chairs chose to not bring out a single bill on this issue and took no action.
'Only the legislature can bring out legislation and move it forward,' he said. 'Any inaction on this issue lies with them.'
While state senators voted overwhelmingly for a bill seeking oversight of artificial intelligence, it did not pass the House.
Lamont also remained adamant against slowing down one of the world's developing industries.
In a compromise designed to attract Republican votes, the bill was watered down by removing two sections covering 188 lines that would have allowed lawsuits against AI developers if 'the use of a high-risk artificial intelligence system resulted in algorithmic discrimination against one or more consumers.'
The Senate bill included the creation of an AI task force, the formation of a Connecticut technology advisory board, among others.
The measure would have also established 'various requirements concerning artificial intelligence systems and required the Department of Economic and Community Development to establish an artificial intelligence regulatory sandbox program,' according to a nonpartisan bill analysis.
'Connecticut had a real opportunity this session to lead on this issue,' said Sen. James Maroney, D-Milford, chair of the General Law Committee who led the state's efforts to regulate artificial intelligence. 'We passed a strong framework in the Senate, but for a second year in a row, we were unable to get the bill across the finish line.'
No legislation to regulate homeschooling was introduced this session despite urgency from child advocates.
Homeschooling parents and advocates gathered at the state Capitol this week where they celebrated their successful advocacy against state regulations for homeschooling.
The debate of the regulation of homeschooling was brought to the forefront after the Office of the Child Advocate released a report in early May that found that withdrawals of children from public schools for homeschooling had been used to hide abuse.
The legislature's Education Committee and the Committee on Children held a joint hearing last month to discuss the state's homeschooling policies, with both the Office of the Child Advocate and the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents calling for increased oversight of homeschooling.
The discussion came on the heels of a disturbing case where a 32-year-old man was allegedly held captive and abused by his stepmother in a Waterbury residence for 20 years. The alleged victim told investigators he was withdrawn from school at 11 years of age after being told to lie to DCF and say everything was fine, according to the warrant affidavit.
At a press conference Wednesday morning, Ritter said he thought homeschooling would likely come up again during next year's legislative session.
SB 1371, a bill that would have ended arbitrary and politically motivated teacher terminations did not make it to a vote in the House. The legislation passed the Senate.
Connecticut Education Association President Kate Dias said in a statement that House leadership 'turned their backs on the 54,000 public school educators in our state and on the broader labor movement at a time when workers are under attack and protections are needed more than ever.'
The bill required a 'showing of just cause when a nontenured or tenured public school teacher is terminated for the reasons allowed by existing law such as inefficiency, incompetence, insubordination, moral misconduct, disability, elimination of a position to another teacher, or other due and sufficient reasons,' according to the bill's nonpartisan analysis.' The current law allows for termination for one of the above reasons without any specified showing, the bill's analysis further states.
Legislation that would ban female genital mutilation of minors did not make it to the floor of either chamber for a vote.
SB 1438 would have established the crime of mutilation of female genitalia of minors as a Class D felony.
Similar efforts to ban the practice have failed in previous years.
Zehra Patwa, co-founder of the anti FGM/C movement WeSpeakOut, a survivor of FGM/C, wrote in her testimony in support of the bill that according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 'half a million women and girls living in the United States have been cut or at risk of FGM/C.'
'Over 2,500 such women and girls live in Connecticut, but this is often regarded as a severe underestimate as it is difficult to effectively quantify the risk,' she wrote.
Connecticut lawmakers considered a bill that would consolidate and strengthen the state's existing hate crime statutes into a new chapter of state laws, making it easier for law enforcement to charge and prosecute criminals with those particular crimes, according to Lamont's office.
The bill unanimously passed the House but did not make it out of the Senate.
HB 6872, the governor's proposed law, originated from the Connecticut Hate Crimes Advisory Council. The bill modified the intent standard, removing the element that a defendant must have acted 'maliciously.'
Opponents of the bill cited concerns about what they referred to as vague language in the bill, which they feared would be used to suppress free speech and others cited lack of clarity in several sections of the bill.
But advocates for the bill, including the executive assistant states attorney for the Division of Criminal Justice and the commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, argued that it would make the state a safer place and increase sentences for hate-motivated felonies and misdemeanors.
While a bill that would add Connecticut to the short list of states providing jobless benefits to strikers won final passage last week in the legislature, Gov. Ned Lamont has said he will veto it.
'I haven't supported that,' the governor said in a press conference Friday. 'I never have. Nothing compromises your job security more than a bill like striking workers. When it comes to job security, growing jobs in this state, I think it is a vote that is important for me to veto.'
SB 8 generally 'limits how employers at certain warehouses may use quotas for their employees and makes striking workers (in any type of employment) eligible for unemployment benefits after they have been on strike for 14 consecutive days,' according to the nonpartisan bill analysis.
The CT Mirror contributed to this report.
Reporting from Courant reporter Christopher Keating is contained in this article.
