The new resolution S.J.35 provides no new protections, but rather uses extreme language to prevent any compromise on some of the most controversial cultural topics of our time.
Kylyn Smith
Contributing Author, The Buckley Beacon
On Friday, February 7, I logged on to the Connecticut Government Administration and Elections’ Public Hearing at noon to testify against Senate Joint Resolution 35, or S.J.35.
For decades, the Equal Protection Clause of Connecticut’s state constitution has prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex, to include workplace rights for pregnant women. The new bill seeks to modify the definition of “sex” to include “terminating a pregnancy; sexual orientation; gender identity and expression; and related health care” wholly under the clause’s discrimination protections.
After hearing about this proposal for such a sweeping attack on traditional values and the defense of life in our state, I barely believed the legislation was being granted genuine consideration. Yet, for ten long hours, individual after individual came to the stand to speak on S.J.35. Attendees included the Connecticut Secretary of State and representatives from the ACLU, Reproductive Equity Now, and various LGBTQ+ organizations in Connecticut. Despite these changes being hot-button and far from ubiquitously supported, these fringe speakers harped on the merits of enshrining abortion in state law, providing gender affirming care to minors, and keeping transgender women in female sports and locker rooms.
I stuck around and joined the waiting room for speakers as the 166th testifier. Representing Choose Life at Yale, I argued in front of the panel, specifically mentioning the broad and ambiguous terminology used in the bill. With regard to the aforementioned new protections, discrimination would be barred “in intent or effect” — forcing compensation, for example, for so-called “misgendering” in the workplace.
Connecticut already permits abortions to the moment of birth, and has some of the most accepting LGBTQ+ legislation and protections of any state in the US. Several testifiers came to the stand citing judgmental comments about their gender presentation, stigma around “needing” an abortion, and the struggles faced in other states to acquire an abortion. This was taken as evidence of the inherent, structural inability of such groups to achieve their desired outcomes in Connecticut.
I found these arguments severely lacking.
This bill would not bring about any more “rights” for women seeking abortions, i.e., permit abortions beyond full term or for any more elective reasons. Instead, they would establish a permanent boundary against any compromise. For all voters in the state who disagree morally with laws failing to protect children at and after viability, the breadth of a bill like S.J.35 leaves them with no path forward to uphold such values in professional settings. “Intent or effect,” as is stated in the new verbiage, would strip employers and healthcare workers of their ability to maintain personal religious convictions or objections, even if their upholding of such beliefs are unintentionally perceived as bigoted.
Without adding any new rights or privileges to pregnant women or LGBTQ+ individuals in Connecticut, S.J.35 in effect viciously impedes the fundamental American liberty of religious expression. As I stated in my testimony, “A bill proposing what will, in effect, be a net negative to civil rights in society should not be considered, and rather should be vehemently opposed by those in our state.”
Despite my protests, the extremist language in this bill shockingly received support from dozens of Connecticut state residents, leaning dangerously towards an outcome which will leave no room to identify a substantially more popular middle-ground or permit alternative perspectives on some of the most controversial subjects of our time.
As president of Choose Life at Yale, I remain committed to fostering a campus where open debate, intellectual diversity, and the dignity of all human life are respected. Our mission is not only to advocate for the unborn but also to build a pro-life undergraduate culture and encourage meaningful dialogue on the most pressing ethical issue of our generation. No matter the political landscape, we will continue to stand for life and truth.