Hundreds testify as Connecticut hearing debates bill to let health commissioner set vaccine standards

Chairs Anwar and McCarthy Vahey convened the Public Health Committee on March 12, 2026, for a hearing on two companion bills—House Bill 5044 and Senate Bill 450—that would let the state’s public health commissioner establish a vaccine standard for Connecticut residents and change how the state treats religious challenges to vaccine policy. The committee voted on a procedural motion to limit testimony; the motion passed by a recorded tally and the chair announced the motion had passed.

Supporters, including Department of Public Health Commissioner Jutani, told lawmakers the bills are intended to preserve Connecticut residents’ access to vaccines and insurance coverage if federal advisory guidance changed. "The overarching goal of this bill is to maintain the status quo for access to vaccines in the state," the commissioner told the committee, repeatedly stressing she said the bills do not create immediate mandates and that the adult standard is a mechanism to ensure procurement and coverage. She described a pilot program for flu vaccines for uninsured adults and said the state has expanded a medical-exemption advisory portal and seen increased reporting of exemptions in recent years.

Opponents said the same provisions would concentrate too much authority in an unelected official and would undercut judicial review. Representative Vin Candelora, introduced at the hearing as the House minority leader, said the bills would "remove the regulatory review process from vaccine approvals" and that a legislated carve-out of RFRA protections looks like an effort to blunt litigation currently under way. "It really sets a dangerous precedent if we are going to try to change the rules of the game in order to achieve an outcome," he said. Several other legislators, including Senators Ryan Fazio and Summers, pressed the commissioner on whether the proposal would create de facto standards that function as mandates, and asked for clarity about safeguards for clinicians and patients.

Most of the hearing was occupied by public comment. Dozens of residents, clinicians and advocates described personal experiences in which they said medical exemptions were difficult to obtain, or described alleged vaccine reactions in family members; other physicians and public-health professionals spoke in support of the bills, saying strong evidence-based immunization policies protect those who cannot be vaccinated. Multiple testifiers, from parents to pediatric and infectious-disease clinicians, urged that changes to fundamental legal protections should not be rushed while a lawsuit over the earlier removal of school religious exemptions remains active. Several speakers urged the committee to allow all registered speakers to testify rather than cutting the hearing short.

The committee recorded the procedural vote to limit testimony and announced the tally before continuing the panel. The hearing included extended question-and-answer exchanges with Commissioner Jutani on the state’s authority to procure vaccines, how the state would respond to new safety signals, and how the process for school and nursing-home schedules would work under the proposals. Several members asked the commissioner to provide more detail later—on vendor contracts, inventories and protocols for identifying and responding to possible safety concerns. Public commenters repeatedly requested that the committee preserve RFRA protections and keep the Legislative Regulations Review Committee involved in major changes to immunization rules.

What’s next: The hearing produced a long public record of concerns and arguments on both sides that lawmakers can use in follow-up committee work. The bills remain subject to the committee’s decision whether to report them out for further consideration. Several members said they want additional briefings and written responses—particularly on the commissioner’s procurement and exemption statistics—before voting.