New Haven Register (New Haven, CT)
Bill advances to protect abortion providers, patients
Faced with a surge of new abortion restrictions in Republican-led states, Connecticut lawmakers on Thursday advanced legislation that would shield doctors, nurses and patients from out-of-state penalties associated with abortions performed here.
The legislation — one of a several measures being sought by Democrats this session to ensure ready access to abortions in Connecticut — was described as a response to new laws in Texas and Idaho that impose some of the nation's most stringent restrictions on abortions by allowing lawsuits against anyone participating in most of the procedures after the sixth week of pregnancy.
Conservative lawmakers in other states, including Missouri, have proposed taking those restrictions a step further by allowing their residents to sue people in other states for aiding anyone who seeks to access to an abortion by traveling over state lines — outraging many Democrats and abortion rights advocates.
“The prospect of American women fleeing from one state to another because of the actions of opportunist politicians is horrifying,” said state Rep. Pat Dillon, D-New Haven.
In order to protect those seeking abortions in Connecticut, a bill filed by two pro-choice Democrats would forbid state courts and other agencies from cooperating with out-ofstate legal actions related to abortion, including a prohibition against assisting depositions, delivering subpoenas or turning over medical information through legal discovery.
In addition, the proposed law would allow anyone in Connecticut who faces an out-of-state judgment for participating in an abortion to counter-sue in state court to avoid incurring the costs associated with the original lawsuit.
After a public hearing that included opposition from various religious and anti-abortion groups, along with support from prochoice and civil liberties advocates, the Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Thursday to send the bill to the House floor.
Even Republicans, who voted against the bill, expressed concerns with the actions of their counterparts in other states to go after abortion providers with civil and criminal penalties. One GOP lawmaker, state Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, questioned whether laws such as the Texas statute would permit lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies in Connecticut that manufacturer abortion-inducing pills.
In the end, however, each of the Republicans on the committee who spoke said the remedy proposed by Democrats raised its own legal and constitutional concerns by attempting to thwart lawsuits in other jurisdictions.
“We are going down a dangerous path here,” said state Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin. “This sees the problem, and raises an additional problem.”
While Connecticut codified abortion rights in state law beginning in 1990, lawmakers are seeking to take those protections a step further this year by enshrining abortion rights in the state's constitution through a popular vote.
Such an action could come as the U.S. Supreme Court issues its most significant decision on abortion rights in America since its 1973 decision affirming a person's right to chose in Roe v. Wade. That decision could come before the end of the court's session in July, experts say.
The likelihood of conservative-majority court overruling or at least clawingback aspects of that decision have led both Republican and Democratic-controlled state legislatures to enact a flurry of legislation either restricting or expanding abortion rights.
Roughly half of the states are likely to ban abortions altogether if Roe is overturned, according to the Pew Research Center, and at least 12 states have so-called trigger laws that would go into effect immediately upon a new Supreme Court precedent.
Those bans, which would cover millions of Americans, would likely cause a surge of people traveling across state lines in search of safe and legal abortions, advocates say.