Connecticut
CT weighs telehealth protections for abortion, gender-affirming care
A Connecticut legislative committee heard public testimony Monday on a bill that would expand the state’s existing “shield law,” which provides statutory protections for providers of abortion and gender-affirming care.
House Bill 7135 would add to the state’s current legal protections, safeguarding physicians who provide reproductive and gender-affirming services via telehealth to patients in other states. Several physicians testified that the measure provides added security in the face of national trends that are increasingly restricting access to reproductive care.
Kristin Newton, a family physician based in Warren, said the bill would help to protect the “sacred” relationship she shares with her patients.
“The idea that I could be criminally prosecuted for providing evidence-based and individualized care to one of my patients in this sacred space is reprehensible,” Newton wrote in submitted testimony.
Several residents also applauded the protections Connecticut has already put in place, saying existing legislation has helped preserve access to reproductive and gender-affirming care.
“I’ve been a citizen of Connecticut my whole life and I’ve had access to trans health care that has helped me live happily as myself for the past half decade. Had this not been the case, I likely would not be here to speak today, a sentiment that is echoed throughout other testimonies,” Madison Iofino said during the hearing at the state Capitol.
In 2022, Connecticut became the first state to pass a “shield law” to protect those who come from outside the state to receive abortion and gender-affirming services, as well as the clinicians who provide them. The move came in anticipation of the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and, with it, the federal constitutional right to abortion.
The following year, Connecticut legislators expanded those protections, passing a law that blocks state agencies from revoking licenses of physicians for providing reproductive care, among other measures.
Recently, other states’ shield laws have faced real-world tests in the cases of a Texas lawsuit and a Louisiana indictment brought against a New York doctor, Margaret Carpenter, for abortion care provided via telehealth to residents of those states.
Rep. Matt Blumenthal, D-Stamford, who serves as the co-chair of the Connecticut legislature’s Reproductive Rights Caucus, said he and other members of the caucus have expected such moves from states where abortion is outlawed for years.
“It’s something that we had been predicting for a very long time,” Blumenthal said in an interview with the Connecticut Mirror. “We were very proud to pass the first shield law in the country, but we owe it to our doctors, nurses and residents to have the strongest one possible.”
Eight states, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York, have shield laws that include protections for care provided via telemedicine.
Gender-affirming care for minors
Testimony before the Judiciary Committee Monday overwhelmingly supported the shield law expansion. Opposing testimony focused on gender-affirming care for minors, which the bill does not mention.
Rep. Craig Fishbein, R-Wallingford, expressed concern that the law would shield physicians who provide gender-affirming surgical care for minors, and he questioned proponents of the bill about how often adults who received gender-affirming care as minors regret their decision.
Research suggests gender-affirming surgeries for minors are rare — as are cases where individuals regret undergoing gender-affirming care after the fact. But both do occur.
Surgery is rarely used as treatment for transgender and gender-diverse children in the U.S., a 2024 Harvard study found. A study published in 2023 found that, out of a total 48,000 gender-affirming surgeries performed in the U.S. between 2016 and 2020, 7.7% were performed on children between the ages of 12 and 18. The vast majority of the procedures performed on children were breast and chest surgeries.
A review of 27 studies that pooled nearly 8,000 transgender patients who underwent gender-affirming surgeries found that roughly 1% regretted the procedure. But providers, as well as some advocates both in favor of and opposed to expansions of gender-affirming care, acknowledge that current research on the topic is limited.
Elle Palmer, who testified in opposition to the bill, said that at age 16 she sought gender-affirming care at Planned Parenthood in Montana and was put on testosterone. After several years she decided she wanted to detransition, but she said the organization wasn’t able to answer her questions about how to stop testosterone safely — such as whether to taper off, stop completely or begin taking estrogen, she said.
“Almost six years later, I still have a deep voice,” Palmer said. “I was only on testosterone for three years. This effect is permanent.”
Palmer eventually turned to Reddit where other individuals undergoing detransition discussed how they stopped testosterone treatments. She does not live in Connecticut, but during an interview with the CT Mirror, she said she was invited, through connections she had made on the social media platform X, to testify at the hearing. Those connections included the Family Institute of Connecticut, an organization that frequently testifies against expansions to reproductive care.
Palmer has also testified against expansions to gender-affirming care bills in South Dakota.
Nancy Stanwood, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, said the organization is committed to providing high-quality, compassionate care to all patients.
“We offer gender-affirming hormone therapy to patients aged 18 and older and support them every step of the way, including if they wish to pause, adjust or stop treatment,” Stanwood wrote in a statement responding to questions about the care provided to people who decide to detransition.
Blumenthal and Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, D-West Hartford, co-chairs of the Reproductive Rights Caucus, confirmed that gender-affirming care for minors isn’t a part of the proposed legislation. Blumenthal said he was unsure why opposition to the bill focused on the topic.
Connecticut
Lawmakers again push to restore Shore Line East service to 2019 levels
Connecticut lawmakers are again looking to restore Shore Line East rail service to its pre‑pandemic levels, a proposal that could add about 90 more trains per week.
Lawmakers are also weighing a separate cost‑saving proposal to shift the line from electric rail cars back to diesel.
The plan comes as ridership remains well below 2019 numbers, though state data shows those numbers have begun to climb.
The Department of Transportation provided the General Assembly’s transportation committee with the following data:
- 132 trains per week today versus 222 trains per week in 2019, according to the CTDOT commissioner.
- In 2019, most weekday SLE trains traveled between New Haven Union Station and Old Saybrook. This allowed SLE to operate with only five train sets in the morning and four train sets in the afternoon.
- It should be noted that 2019 SLE service levels were very different due to constrained infrastructure; 2019 service levels had a reduced number of SLE trains serving New London (13 trains per day Monday through Friday, as opposed to 20 today), while other stations had increased service (36 trains per day Monday through Friday, as opposed to 20 today).
“2019 levels beyond Old Saybrook to New London would require more crews and more train sets than were used in 2019, requiring significantly more financial resources,” the department wrote in its written testimony.
The department said the governor’s FY2027 budget does not include funding for a full restoration. In other words, even if the legislature requires additional trains, the funds are not included in the current financial plan.
Governor Lamont said on Monday to remember that the state subsidizes the line more than any other rail right now.
“There’s not as much demand as there are for some of the other rail services in other parts of the state, so that’s the balance we’re trying to get right,” Lamont said.
At a public hearing on Monday, concerns about the line’s reliability and schedule were a central focus in the testimony.
“We’re making the line less attractive, some would say. The schedules are very, very difficult to manage,” said Sen. Christine Cohen of Guilford, the co-chair of the committee.
The current schedule for eastbound morning commuters is difficult. The train either arrives in New London just after 7 a.m. or after 9 a.m.
“So obviously not really … conducive to a typical workday,” Cohen said.
Cohen, who represents communities along the line, said she continues to reintroduce the bill to expand service year after year, pushing the state to do more with the line.
She thanked the department for the work it was able to do with the recent funding to establish a through train to Stamford.
“What do we need to do, and what are the challenges that you face in terms of expansion at this time?” Cohen asked.
Commissioner Garrett Eucalitto responded that the biggest hurdle is the cost of labor and access fees to Amtrak, which owns the territory.
“The cost to provide rail service is very expensive,” Eucalitto said.
He said CTDOT knows the current schedule is “not ideal,” but the economics of a work-from-home society are difficult.
“People expect 100% of the trains that they had in 2019, but they only want to take it two days a week,” Eucalitto said.
Asked about the eastbound schedule, the commissioner explained Shore Line East still operates on a model that sends trains toward New Haven in the morning rather than toward New London.
Changing that would require more equipment, more crews, and a second morning operations base, as well as negotiations with Amtrak, which owns the tracks.
Amtrak is “protecting their slots to be able to run increased Northeast Regional service as well as increased Acela service,” Eucallito said. “They’re going to look at us and question, ‘Well, how does that impact our need for Amtrak services?’ They’ll never give you an answer upfront, it’s always: ‘show us a proposal and then they’ll respond to it.’”
Cohen, who chairs the Transportation Committee, touted how a successful Shoreline East benefits the environment, development along the line, and reduces I-95 congestion.
“We need to start talking about how much money this costs us and think about all of the ancillary benefits,” Cohen said during the hearing.
Cohen said there is multi-state support for extending the line into Rhode Island.
“We will need some federal dollars. But as you say, there are other businesses up the line in New London,” Cohen said. “We’ve got Electric Boat. We’ve got Pfizer up that way. If we can get those employees on the transit line, we’re all the better for it.”
Rider advocates said the issue is familiar.
“I’d rather see solutions, and not things that are holding it back,” said Susan Feaster, founder of the Shore Line East Riders’ Advocacy Group.
She said she worries the line is facing a transit death spiral, with reduced service leading to lower ridership and falling fare revenue.
“They have to give us the money,” Feaster said. “It shouldn’t have to be profitable.”
Like other train lines across the country, Shore Line East relies on subsidies.
“We’re not asking for everything to be done overnight, but just incrementally,” Feaster said.
The line received $5 million two years ago, which increased service levels.
The proposal comes as the state reviews whether to return to diesel rail cars that are more than 30 years old.
The state says the switch would save about $9 million, but riders have said it would worsen the passenger experience.
NBC Connecticut asked Cohen whether she’ll ask DOT to reverse that proposal.
“I really want to,” Cohen said. “I appreciate what CTDOT was trying to do in terms of not cutting service as a result of trying to find savings elsewhere. This isn’t the way to do it.”
Connecticut
Iranian Yale scholar in Connecticut celebrates fall of regime, calls for free elections
HARTFORD, Conn. (WFSB) – Thousands of Connecticut families with ties to Iran are watching and waiting as their home country undergoes a historic change.
Among them is Ramin Ahmadi, a Yale doctor, human rights activist and founder of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. He has spent decades advocating for freedom in Iran from his home in Connecticut.
Ahmadi moved to the United States when he was 18. On Saturday morning, he learned of military strikes in Iran and the death of the country’s supreme leader.
Ahmadi said protests for democracy and human rights in Iran intensified in December, drawing millions of participants — including his own family and friends.
“The situation in Iran was a humanitarian emergency and it needed an intervention,” Ahmadi said.
He said he celebrated when he heard the news Saturday morning.
“I was celebrating along with all other Iranians inside and outside the country,” Ahmadi said. “I do regret that we cannot bring him to a trial for crimes that he has committed against humanity.”
Ahmadi said he spoke with his sister in Iran after she celebrated in the streets. She was later told to return home for her safety.
He shared a message she relayed from those around her.
“They said do not let our death be exploited because worse than that is having to live with the criminals who have done this to us for the rest of our lives,” Ahmadi said. “We do not want to do that.”
For those questioning whether the conflict was America’s to engage in, Ahmadi offered a direct response.
“We will all be affected,” he said. “And to those that tell you that the U.S. and Israel are beating the drums of war in Iran, one has to remind them that it was not like before this Iranian people were listening to Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9 in D minor. We had a war already declared on us by this regime. We were being slaughtered on a daily basis.”
Ahmadi said he believes the path forward begins with young military officers forcing out what remains of the regime, followed by free elections.
“Everyone’s life will be safer in the future and not just Iranians,” Ahmadi said.
Connecticut lawmakers are also responding to the U.S. strikes on Iran.
Copyright 2026 WFSB. All rights reserved.
Connecticut
Two people shot in New Haven restaurant Saturday evening
New Haven police say two people were shot at a restaurant on Grand Avenue Saturday evening.
One of the victims was a 22-year-old male from East Haven who was shot in the leg and was transported to Yale New Haven Hospital for treatment.
According to police, the second victim was a 17-year-old male and arrived shortly after.
While on scene, police confirmed one of the possible shooters was still inside the restaurant.
According to police, the victims were both inside the restaurant when the teen was approached by Naguea Bratton and another suspect.
They say a fight occurred which resulted in both victims being shot.
Police detained Bratton who was charged with carrying a pistol without a permit, two counts of illegal possession of a high-capacity magazine and larceny of a motor vehicle.
Bratton is being held on a $200,000 bond.
Both victims have non-life-threatening injuries police say.
They say additional arrests are expected to be completed by warrant.
-
World5 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts6 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO5 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Technology1 week agoYouTube TV billing scam emails are hitting inboxes
-
Politics1 week agoOpenAI didn’t contact police despite employees flagging mass shooter’s concerning chatbot interactions: REPORT
-
Technology1 week agoStellantis is in a crisis of its own making
-
Oregon4 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling