Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judiciary Committee rejects amendments that would ban gender‑affirming treatment for minors while advancing shield-law protections
Summary
Lawmakers in the Judiciary Committee debated Senate Bill 295, a shield-law protecting certain health-care activities, and rejected two proposed amendments that would have restricted gender-affirming care for minors (one banning specific treatments, the other forbidding certain care for children under 12). The underlying bill was reported to the floor with LCO 3529.
The Judiciary Committee voted Monday to send Senate Bill 295 (LCO 3529) to the floor after extended debate on whether state law should shield certain health‑care activities from out‑of‑state legal exposure.
Representative Dubitzky offered two high-profile amendments: Amendment A would have prohibited medical providers from delivering puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or surgeries to anyone under 18; Amendment B narrowed that prohibition to children under 12. Supporters of the amendments argued scientific and professional groups have cautioned against certain interventions for minors; Representative Fishbine and others referenced recent positions by medical societies urging restraint for surgical interventions on young people. Opponents, including Senator Winfield, said the amendments were broader than the specific surgical practices under discussion and cautioned against legislating medical standards in Judiciary Committee proceedings.
Roll-call votes rejected both amendments. The transcript records Amendment B’s final tally as 10 in favor, 27 opposed and 4 absent; Amendment A likewise failed to secure a majority. After those defeats, the committee advanced SB 295 to the floor (JFS) with the underlying LCO 3529.
Committee members also debated whether Connecticut law or hospital policies already limit surgeries for minors; the chair said some reporting suggested surgical procedures on children are not occurring in Connecticut but deferred detailed medical-regulation questions to the public-health committee. Representative Dubitzky framed his proposals as clarifying statutory definitions so certain procedures would no longer qualify as "legally protected health care activity" under the bill.
