DPH holds hearing on abortion regs: “A problem of transparency”

Public comment at a hearing held by the Department of Public Health (DPH) on proposed abortion regulation changes today was largely critical of updates that removed several provisions of existing regulations, including allowing healthcare providers to decline to participate in providing an abortion if doing so violates their conscience, and occurred after an initial public comment period. A number of healthcare providers also testified in favor of the proposed changes.

DPH first proposed changes to existing abortion regulations in April 2023. The stated purpose of the changes was to incorporate a 2022 law that expanded the types of medical providers able to perform abortions, including midwives and nurse practitioners.

But after an initial comment period on the proposed regulations closed, DPH made further changes, including eliminating sections of existing regulation that allow healthcare providers to refuse to participate in providing an abortion if doing so violates their conscience, and another section directing medical care to be provided to infants born alive after an abortion. Language limiting when abortions could be performed during the third trimester of pregnancy was also changed in an earlier proposal.

The legislature’s Regulation Review Committee voted to reject the proposal after the Legislative Commissioners’ Office stated DPH did not have the statutory authority to make the changes. The Connecticut Catholic Conference also drew attention to the proposed changes, which DPH has not withdrawn in subsequent proposed versions of the regulations.

A public hearing on the proposal was held on September 4, announced shortly after DPH reopened public comments for the proposed regulation.

State Representative Brian Lanoue, R-Griswold, opened the hearing by stating that the proposed changes required legislative deliberation and the passage of a law.

Lanoue said that when he was sworn in as a legislator he had “sworn an oath before God and the people of Connecticut” to defend the state’s constitution and that included life.

He also spoke against DPH’s elimination of language directing that medical care be provided to infants born alive after an abortion.

“What incentive could there possibly be not to provide life-saving care to that baby outside of the womb?” I don’t understand the difference between a baby born alive in that situation and a baby dropped at the doorstep of a hospital.” Lanoue said.

Lanoue’s comments reflected concerns shared by many who spoke in opposition to the proposed changes.

Concern over the removal of the provision protecting healthcare providers’ conscience objections was also frequently cited in testimony opposing the proposed changes.

Erica Steinmiller-Permodoro, legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, described the removal of the sections of the proposed regulation as a “backdoor attempt” to override protections for healthcare workers’ right of conscience after “failed legislative efforts.”

Steinmiller-Permodoro also objected to the way in which DPH had made the changes, saying their notice of intent for the proposed regulations, which reflects the expansion in providers able to provide abortions under the 2022 law, fell short of legal requirements.

David Reynolds, the associate director for public policy at the Connecticut Catholic Conference, also reiterated the conference’s concerns with DPH’s process in his public testimony.

He said DPH had gone beyond the scope of its review of the regulation by eliminating the three subsections, which he said reflect the moral and ethical aspects of medicine.

Reynolds also dismissed DPH’s statement that the removal of the section on religious and conscience exemptions is not a problem because that protection exists elsewhere in federal law. Reynolds argued that the 1973 Church Amendments, which protect certain healthcare workers’ rights of conscience at the federal level, were incorporated through the section of the regulations DPH is removing and would result in healthcare providers having to file a grievance.

Several healthcare workers also spoke in opposition to the elimination of this section.

Other groups that spoke in opposition to the proposed changes include the Family Institute of Connecticut, Intercessors for America, the Connecticut Right to Life Education Alliance, and Choose Life at Yale.

A number of speakers representing organizations that provide reproductive healthcare, including Planned Parenthood, spoke in support of the changes, including eliminating the three provisions.

Roxanne Sutocky, director of public affairs at The Women’s Centers, said the changes show Connecticut is taking “crucial steps to safeguard access” to reproductive care.

Multiple speakers who testified in favor of the changes said the changes, including those limiting when abortion can be provided in the third trimester reflect more medically accurate language.

Rep. Jillian Gilchrist, D-West Hartford, who co-chairs the Reproductive Rights Caucus, said she believes the proposed regulations meet their stated purpose. She said that language limiting when abortions in the third trimester to when the life of the mother is in danger conflicts with current state law, which limits abortion based on a fetus’ viability. She cited the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which has no single definition of when viability occurs. Viability, she said, depends on complex factors, of which gestational age is only one.

Gilchrist called the section of regulation relating to medical care provided to infants born alive following an abortion “inaccurate, anti-abortion rhetoric” and said the conscience provision is unnecessary and “not in line with best practices.” She added conscience is already protected by federal law.

Speakers from Planned Parenthood of Southern New England also stated that abortion is overly regulated compared to other healthcare services.

But not all testimony was focused on the specific changes DPH is proposing.

A number of speakers condemned abortion in general and invoked religious imagery and doctrine. Multiple speakers from the Foundation to Abolish Abortion expressed a wish to eliminate all abortion regulations in the state and the practice of abortion in general, drawing comparisons between abortion and slavery and the Holocaust. Speakers associated with the group denied that abortion is healthcare, compared the practice to murder, and sometimes invoked satanic imagery.

The public comment period runs through September 20, and it is not yet clear whether DPH will make any changes before resubmitting to the committee.

The post DPH holds hearing on abortion regs: “A problem of transparency” appeared first on Connecticut Inside Investigator .