[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6626472,"mediaKeyId","2752903-6235e51c05add3de42d7ad88970d97da","parentId",2752903,"title","Survivors and advocates press committee to strengthen SB 1438 to ban female genital mutilation in Connecticut","audioSeconds",8646,"startMs",2454000,"endMs",11100000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2752903-6235e51c05add3de42d7ad88970d97da&start=2454&end=11100","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2752903-6235e51c05add3de42d7ad88970d97da/thumbnail_2454000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6626472/Connecticut/Survivors-and-advocates-press-committee-to-strengthen-SB-1438-to-ban-female-genital-mutilation-in-Connecticut","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6626472-9ffd1cc68edc258646d4076d9587ed51/orig.mp4?Expires=1771196635&Signature=eucZxe9Owf3M2eCYzXtiillEU8Alhwl3nEHH06GR0-XwkfR8m1B8eVqCN-rqK~U4ONSErq0BtJn1Cpa7owTGVcTwlZTFCwgK3Y8j8K5337OxgONkB4UoByhswdt9lmy5Jsz9GPlA73AlzMQyk2svJfXu8VtOaMMuM70SebNhdtDZXUaMij2cqL7K5QRf9b16p5VfSwqk710S2jvhzsfimf9WHfF1oDg-AoIWEVRuv2VHvuz0BD5aqLE92d5wZkNDmKb1XztxBRv53JeefXvEx8OMiSVW11TFWq-hiO8MgLUtSeI6LI6ONpcx2XbZmDOGPL4UuCQ9CdUIUx-f80UhXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Connecticut State Legislature - Judiciary","date","2025-03-24T17:56:05.513Z","article","Survivors, clinicians and human‑rights advocates urged the Judiciary Committee March 24 to pass Senate Bill 1438, which would prohibit female genital mutilation/cutting (FGMC) in Connecticut. Several witnesses said the bill as drafted is an important step but urged amendments to broaden the statutory definition, raise criminal penalties and add prevention and survivor‑support provisions.

Advocates and survivors pressing for broader language

Joe Keogh, a founding member of the Connecticut Coalition to End FGMC and a licensed professional counselor, said FGMC can have “profoundly traumatic and lifelong impacts” that include post‑traumatic stress disorder, chronic shame and psychosexual issues. He told the committee the coalition proposed alternative bill language attached to his written testimony that would be more “holistic, survivor driven, and shaped by meaningful discussions” with other statewide organizations.

Anastasia Law of Equality Now, an international human‑rights group, urged the committee to align Connecticut’s proposed law with international norms. She noted the U.S. has ratified treaties that obligate governments to protect women and girls from FGMC and said federal law alone is insufficient. Law recommended that the statute adopt the full WHO definition of FGMC, add prevention measures such as education and training for health professionals, and include a tolled civil cause of action allowing survivors up to 30 years after turning 18 to sue.

Medical experts and public‑health concerns

Catherine McKenzie, a Yale physician and director of the Yale Center for Asylum Medicine, described the medical harms she has observed in exam rooms and urged an education requirement for clinicians. McKenzie said FGMC often occurs in childhood, frequently without anesthesia, and can cause short‑ and long‑term medical complications including scarring, infection, menstrual problems, infertility and obstetric risks. She recommended adding a state health department educational program for prevention and ensuring the statute covers all four WHO‑classified types of FGMC.

Survivor voices and coalition asks

Survivors and coalition members said the bill as drafted should be strengthened in three areas: (1) expand the statutory definition to cover all WHO types of FGMC, (2) include civil remedies and an extended statute of limitations to allow survivors to sue later in life, and (3) create prevention and education programs for health and child‑welfare professionals. Maria Tyar, a Connecticut advocate and survivor, said education is essential because many providers do not recognize signs of FGMC and communities need culturally competent outreach.

Penalties and drafting questions

Witnesses recommended reclassifying FGMC as a Class C felony to match the seriousness of other childhood sexual offenses, rather than the Class D felony in the bill’s current draft. Several witnesses — including representatives of the Connecticut Coalition to End FGMC, Equality Now and the US and FGMC Network — said the cutter should be criminally liable and that survivor civil remedies should be available. They also cautioned against conflating FGMC with gender‑affirming health care, a distinction they said is necessary to avoid misunderstanding and unintended consequences.

What’s next

Committee members asked practical questions about implementation and cost of education programs and discussed which actors should be criminally liable (the cutter vs. those who facilitate the act). Witnesses said they would provide additional language and cost estimates. The committee did not take a vote March 24.

Speakers quoted in this article were identified in the committee record and submitted written testimony to the Judiciary Committee.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","3/24 Judiciary Committee Public Hearing","oneSentenceSummary","Survivors, clinicians and human‑rights advocates urged the Judiciary Committee March 24 to strengthen SB 1438 to ban female genital mutilation/cutting in Connecticut and to add education and civil remedies for survivors.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Connecticut","taxId",15631,"location","Connecticut","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6626482,"Lawmakers hear hours of testimony on HB 7135, bill to expand Connecticut shield law for reproductive and gender-affirming care",11288,682000,11970000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2752903-6235e51c05add3de42d7ad88970d97da&start=682&end=11970","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2752903-6235e51c05add3de42d7ad88970d97da/thumbnail_682000.jpg","/articles/6626482/Connecticut/Lawmakers-hear-hours-of-testimony-on-HB-7135-bill-to-expand-Connecticut-shield-law-for-reproductive-and-gender-affirming-care","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6626482-119897f2f9c9e264760e86975e1a0e4b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771196635&Signature=V97Pn~XVUavkaJ1ClTglzQ1VxrQyZNp3-HAsN5ZLJosZcUjrHVdZO5kqcXVi~epYxvU9Kzb00cso0ghmvL~V2kw7M-G1YtEMC0UAc0H7O4RbZY3nwJfJCkCcPYNn3M3BAojG6SBFvFaRRzb-92k~NE1SZofpt6y38HSdwhBIPEm~Vc5QB95JLNApPw2sPL0tdIiz~sVmCTF7typvo9EkhClqc0WrrqsBs8nvxjCyNd9YfPfXrbFITtP7uxpLwstQJ9tMLoKpIGkzliIcCpkzL3IJ67-nAKt1U56uYZSsc8MmNk5K1pt7M3RbVJXiBI4fPXwzmmb4t8Frahs3dmrFEA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","More than three dozen witnesses — including clinicians, patients and advocacy groups — testified March 24 before the Judiciary Committee on HB 7135, a bill that would strengthen Connecticut’s existing shield law for reproductive care and extend explicit protections to providers of gender‑affirming health care and telehealth services.

Supporters said the bill is needed to protect clinicians and patients after a wave of restrictions in other states. Mallory Sanchez, a staff attorney with the Center for Children’s Advocacy who works in the organization’s LGBTQ youth advocacy project, told the committee HB 7135 would “strengthen Connecticut’s reproductive freedom defense act and maintains Connecticut’s position as a leader in preserving access to health care.” Sanchez said the bill’s telehealth language is critical because “telehealth is an established practice that has good results” and allows specialists in other states to continue seeing patients remotely.

The proponents’ argument: why HB 7135 matters

Advocates and clinicians described the bill as a response to what they called coordinated legal threats in other states. Angel Foster, cofounder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, described how Massachusetts’ shield law treats the telemedicine visit as located with the clinician, allowing licensed Massachusetts providers to deliver medication abortion by telehealth to patients in states where abortion is restricted. Foster said her practice has cared for more than 18,000 patients since 2023 and urged Connecticut to adopt similar explicit telehealth protections so providers here are not vulnerable to out‑of‑state enforcement.

Nurses and clinic directors said expanding protections is also necessary to prevent a chilling effect on care. Palmer Lavelle, a nurse and nonbinary transgender person who provides gender‑affirming care, told the committee that most major U.S. medical organizations endorse gender‑affirming care and that “the majority” of research supports such treatment. Lisa Pereira, medical director for the Hartford GYN Center, said telemedicine expands access for people who otherwise cannot travel because of work, childcare or cost.

Concerns and opposition

Opponents urged caution, particularly over protections the bill would extend to providers treating patients who were not physically in Connecticut at the time of care. Multiple witnesses described themselves as detransitioners or raised concerns about treatment of minors. Simon Amaya Price, identifying himself as a detransitioner, testified in opposition and said he believed medicalization of minors had caused harm in some cases, saying: “If you’re serious about protecting families and the health of children, you must vote against this bill.”

Mona Colwell, a Connecticut resident, said HB 7135 “dangerously expands the framework for irreversible gender‑affirming procedures on children” and urged lawmakers to reject the bill and pursue criminal penalties for what she described as “gender mutilation.” Others who opposed the bill described cases of young people who later regretted medical transition and asked the committee to consider stricter oversight.

Legal and policy questions raised at the hearing

Committee members and witnesses debated specific statutory language. Representative Fishbein asked whether expanded telehealth protections would allow Connecticut to effectively “step into” another state’s regulatory space by shielding activity that, he said, might occur there. Witnesses responded that the bill aims to protect providers physically practicing in Connecticut from out‑of‑state civil or criminal claims — and to remove disincentives that currently cause clinicians to decline to treat patients by telehealth.

Several witnesses also discussed the bill’s exclusion for conversion therapy and whether existing statutory definitions could create overlap. Mallory Sanchez and others said the bill clarifies conversion therapy — efforts to change sexual orientation or gender identity — is not protected by this expansion.

Context and what happens next

HB 7135 would modify Connecticut’s existing shield protections for reproductive care, first enacted in 2022 as the Reproductive Freedom Defense Act. Proponents said the expanded language would help maintain access to medication abortion and gender‑affirming treatments amid a patchwork of bans nationwide, while opponents warned it would make legal redress for harmed patients more difficult. No formal committee vote or final action was recorded during the March 24 hearing.

Supporters urged the Judiciary Committee to advance the bill. Opponents said amendments or further study were needed. The committee will consider testimony and any proposed changes before scheduling further action.

Speakers quoted in this article appear in the committee record and were identified for the hearing.","More than three dozen witnesses testified March 24 to the Judiciary Committee on HB 7135, which would broaden Connecticut’s shield law to explicitly protect providers who deliver reproductive or gender‑affirming care — including by telehealth, and regardless of where a patient is physically located.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6626478,"Committee hears support for HB 7236 to create affirmative defense for juveniles coerced by human trafficking",5235,1750000,6985000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2752903-6235e51c05add3de42d7ad88970d97da&start=1750&end=6985","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2752903-6235e51c05add3de42d7ad88970d97da/thumbnail_1750000.jpg","/articles/6626478/Connecticut/Committee-hears-support-for-HB-7236-to-create-affirmative-defense-for-juveniles-coerced-by-human-trafficking","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6626478-2c038262298203a61f661a124227bce3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771196635&Signature=Mie5JSgA5VmtIXoIe6yH0AskCtUf713zAd3nN33~mQR0UpSQBCmvcQOGGDu1zYCb64FeQa5c-km9HTYAHWWX5mRHWgSukE-Y4SEkxrXJvaGEhoP4CTzu05hw1Sq116ZehhdtrmUZGnXCS-9ul0mWxCgsfFJWU2mEg5LKgba4kh11vp4hsu67PyinMDB5oZ29CTWiyIgU-AYcTfbLhu8D4AbgBMDVlnqO2XTL7Q3jI--wAn1N2LQKtqXC0dwDeNnPnD7G7xAENf8urJf8XljSt1V~2ahTS2~Bv2pUPhjZ-rC7YwLxATgOqnHTZqxOSEaRI-pc49eDs3zdzfEqKgXo5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Advocates, service providers and some prosecutors told the Judiciary Committee March 24 that HB 7236 would give juvenile victims of human trafficking a narrow legal tool: an affirmative defense to some misdemeanor charges when the offense was committed as a direct result of victimization.

Erin Williamson, chief programs and strategy officer at Love146, an anti‑trafficking nonprofit, told committee members she supports the bill in its entirety and focused her remarks on section 16, which she said provides an affirmative defense for juveniles who commit certain misdemeanors under coercion of traffickers. “When they’re arrested for these things, sometimes it comes out that they’re victims of trafficking, but they really have no reason to compel them to disclose that victimization,” Williamson said. She said the defense helps ensure victims will disclose the coercion so prosecutors and defense counsel can factor that into case handling and sentencing.

Why proponents say the change is needed

Speakers described routine scenarios in which traffickers coerce juveniles to commit petty theft or other low‑level offenses to meet quotas. Jamie Manarakis, executive director of Partnership to End Human Trafficking, which provides housing and wraparound services to survivors, said many survivors enter the criminal justice system for offenses committed under coercion. Manarakis said the affirmative defense would help keep those juveniles out of long‑term juvenile court involvement that can increase the risk of future harm.

How the language was developed

Erin Williamson and others said the proposed language has been negotiated over several years with the Trafficking in Persons Council, prosecutors and defense attorneys. Williamson told the committee the provision is intentionally limited to juveniles and requires showing that the crime was committed as a direct result of trafficking victimization. She said the council considered whether to include adults or felonies but agreed on the narrower juvenile‑misdemeanor language to achieve consensus.

Committee questions and concerns

Representative Fischbach asked how the affirmative defense would operate in practice and whether it would bar convictions completely or simply be asserted at trial. Williamson said an affirmative defense is asserted at trial and “it also helps prosecutors in understanding how to work with individuals that come across them that are also victims of trafficking,” adding that some prosecutors already take victimization into account even without the defense but that the statutory tool would formalize that practice.

Representative Fischbach and others expressed concern that the current statutory text might be used too broadly for offenses that occur long after victimization — for example, Class A misdemeanors such as certain abuse or reckless endangerment charges. Williamson and other advocates said the language had been through multiple iterations with the defense bar and prosecutors and that proponents were open to precise drafting to make sure the causal link remained tight.

What witnesses recommended

Speakers urged the committee to preserve an affirmative defense for juveniles while ensuring the statute requires proof of a direct causal link between trafficking victimization and the offense. They also recommended continued engagement with prosecutors and defense counsel to refine language and scope.

Next steps

The committee heard testimony but did not vote on HB 7236 at the March 24 session. Advocates said the language now reflects years of negotiation through the Trafficking in Persons Council and recommended further drafting if the committee raises concerns about specific offenses or scope.","Advocates and service providers urged the Judiciary Committee March 24 to approve HB 7236’s provision creating an affirmative defense for juveniles who commit misdemeanors as a direct result of human trafficking coercion.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Survivors and advocates press committee to strengthen SB 1438 to ban female genital mutilation in Connecticut

Lawmakers hear hours of testimony on HB 7135, bill to expand Connecticut shield law for reproductive and gender-affirming care

Committee hears support for HB 7236 to create affirmative defense for juveniles coerced by human trafficking