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

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.