On Thursday, the Chamber granted the latest adoption to a bill to pre -emption from potential federal changes to public health and reproductive care policy.
The legislation includes sections which would codify in the law of the State, the current federal guidelines for fluoride in drinking water and would create accounts to be exploited in the case of federal cuts to the financing of public health.
The Senate voted last week 25-10 to adopt the bill, a legislator missing the vote. The voting of the House Thursday was 92-55, with four representatives absent from the vote.
“Public health is a bit like a submarine, where there is a lot below the surface and the things we want for acquired. I think there are a lot in this bill which help to obtain some of the things we want for acquired,” said representative Cristin McCarthy Vahey, D-Fairfield, co-president of the public health committee, after the passage of the Bill.
However, the version that crossed the house deleted a section that would have allowed the Establishment of safe injection sites Due to the opposition of Governor Ned Lamont.
According to the president of the House Matt Ritter, the staff of the governor communicated to him that Lamont would oppose his veto to the entire bill if the section was included. Yesterday, during a press conference, the governor denied having made such a decision. But this morning, Ritter said that it was not what he had heard from Lamont staff.
“It was communicated to us and in the Senate that he was veted it by his chief of staff last night,” said Ritter. “I know there was this confusion yesterday. We have never been subjected to confusion in the house. We were told five days ago what he was going to do. ”
Safe injection sites, also known as safe consumption sites or overdose prevention centers, are installations where people can provide illegal substances to be used under the supervision of qualified personnel in a clean environment with access to safety supplies, such as clean needles and naloxone, a drug used to reverse opioid overdoses. The bill has referred to “overdose prevention centers“, Which is a term used by defenders to reflect the wider services offered, including medical references and other social services.
McCarthy Vahey called for the abolition of the “heartbreaking” measure, but said that she was already thinking about how to implement policy successfully in the future.
“I am starting to think today about how we can plan in the future. Because we absolutely have to face deaths in our state. It is a policy which, I believe, will work. And how can we do more people on board? ” McCarthy Vahey said.
Reproduction
The legislation also contains provisions which would strengthen access to reproduction care in the state.
The hospital emergency rooms should provide services related to complications of pregnancy, including the management of false layers and extraordinary pregnancies, if they are necessary to treat the patient.
It also creates a trigger to guarantee in Connecticut a federal right to emergency services under a law known as emergency medical treatment and work, commonly known as “EMTALA”. If the federal government makes changes to be dismissed Emtala, or to apply it to a lesser extent, the DPH Commissioner can adopt provisions moved to DPH regulations – an attempt to guarantee the rights and application of EMTALA in Connecticut, even if the federal government makes changes to the law.
Representative Jillian Gilchrest, D-West Hartford, during the ground debate, said that the measure was necessary, given the modifications to the federal interpretation of Emtala. Trump administration abandoned a case brought by the Biden administration against IdahoWho argued that hospitals were to provide emergency abortion care, despite the ban on state abortion.
“By rejecting this federal prosecution against the state of Idaho, this means that there is no Federal Emtala application when hospitals do not provide the abortion care necessary to stabilize the health of a patient,” said Gilchrest.
Another provision would create an “safety port” account to pay expenses, such as food, accommodation and meals, for people from other states to receive reproductive and sexist care. The fund would be managed by the Treasurer of the State and allocated subsidies to non -profit organizations which provide reproductive and gender -assertive care services. The fund would only accept private donations and would not include public money.
The measure has aroused the strongest opposition of the Republicans, who argued that even if the funds were private, the measure used the resources of taxpayers due to the work required by the treasurer and his staff.
“How does an elected representative of the Connecticut state collect donations from private suppliers, then uses his time paid by the state and time paid by his staff to invest them to create a profit and then give this money to a non-profit organization that will distribute it as they wish?” Nuccio said.
Several representatives have also raised concerns about the use of government resources to manage funds for people outside Connecticut. Others asked why the fund was going to reproductive services and not another problem that needed financial support.
Representative Jay Case, R-Winchester, as well as other Republicans, raised an amendment to change the beneficiaries of subsidies to non-profit organizations providing genesic health services to those who provide homeless services. The amendment failed 48-99, with four absent and not voting legislators.
McCarthy Vahey recognized the many other other needs that could use more funding, but said supporters made a specific choice of policy with this legislation.
“There are absolutely many things that we would all like to prioritize. The choice in this bill was to recognize that there are vulnerable people in places where it is not legal to obtain safe and accessible health care,” she said.
Public health and other measures
The omnibus bill aims to pre -empt several modifications to the public health policy by the Trump administration: it contains provisions to be guaranteed in the law of the state the current federal standard for the level of fluorine in drinking water; Allows the commissioner of the Ministry of Public Health to create an advisory committee linked to the recommendations of federal public health agencies; And this creates accounts to consolidate funds for emergency communications for public health and in the event of federal reductions in public health financing.
Several Republicans asked why the bill was trying to legislate for federal changes that had not yet produced.
“I think that the theme of the 2025 legislative session is” just in case “” said representative Nicole Klarides-Ditria, R-Seymour, member of the Public Health Committee. “Just in case something happens in Washington, just in case the president does something. And, although I care about certain things, I don’t think we should legislate in case.”
The Democrats postponed the notion “just in case” during the debate on the ground, claiming that there are federal changes that are already occurring. McCarthy Vahey also said that measures provide a certain predictability in a chaotic federal environment.
“It is a question of providing consistency and predictability to the inhabitants of our state, to our water companies, to our public health officials locally,” said McCarthy Vahey.
Although the bill creates emergency accounts to consolidate funds for emergencies, it does not approach any funding to access these accounts. McCarthy Vahey said that, despite the lack of funding, the accounts serve as a priority.
While the sections concerning potential federal changes have triggered a confrontation between the parties, several of the other measures received bipartisan support.
Several Republicans have spoken out in favor of the creation of a program to promote and provide references to the screening for pancreatic cancer, as well as a section which requires correction mediocats to assess the health care services provided by the Ministry of Correction to those imprisoned in the State.