A multi-vehicle crash has closed a road in Newington on Saturday morning.

Firefighters said the crash is on Willard Avenue at Greenlawn Avenue.

The area is currently closed. There’s no estimate for when it will reopen.

Anyone nearby is asked to avoid the area.

Investigators have not said exactly how many vehicles are involved in the crash or if anyone is injured.

This is a developing story.

There’s a powerful, well-funded political machine operating in Connecticut — and it’s not coming from the state Capitol. It’s a private, tax-exempt nonprofit with deep ties to progressive academia, national advocacy movements, and left-leaning foundations. It’s called The Connecticut Project (TCP). With deep financial reserves and influence, this group is spending millions to reshape the state’s policies, politics, and future in its own image. 

Through its 501(c)(3) nonprofit and 501(c)(4) political lobbying arm — The Connecticut Project Action Fund — TCP is funneling millions into advocacy groups to advance a broad progressive agenda.  

The organization describes itself as a “social change organization” focused on overhauling the state’s economy, housing system, and public services.  

Their goals may be well-intended, but they come with a high price tag — including expanded government-subsidized housing, universal pre-K, broader “financial safety net programs,” job subsidies, and so-called “wealth-building supports” 

TCP wants the state’s spending priorities and policymaking to be steered by and for low-income and “asset-limited” households. That includes pushing for expanded access to healthcare, criminal justice reform, and “specific needs of immigrants.” 

The group’s 2024 report lays out their plan.   

They’re not just pushing policy — they’re running a statewide marketing campaign. TCP has poured money into billboards, glossy mailers, bus ads, and even grocery cart ads to push their message. They’re also hiring part-time foot soldiers at $25 an hour to knock on doors and rally support. 

According to their most recent tax filings, TCP spent just over $9 million in Connecticut in 2023 while amassing a $22.7 million war chest. Nearly $6 million in grants went to groups like Husky 4 Immigrants, the Connecticut Tenants Union, and the Partnership for Strong Communities — all pushing policies like rent control, higher taxes, expanded public services, immigration reform, and efforts to dismantle state’s fiscal guardrails. 

How they’re funded remains unclear. Donor privacy laws shield contributors on both sides of the aisle. But TCP isn’t just bankrolling activism — it’s shaping the policy agenda. Last year, the group partnered with Yale’s Tobin Center to release a study outlining how the state’s fiscal guardrails should be rewritten. 

The report argues that the current guardrails — especially the volatility and spending cap — are too rigid and have put “billions of dollars of revenue out of reach.”  

In a CT Mirror op-ed announcing the release of the paper, they warn that without changes, Connecticut is heading toward a “self-imposed budget cliff,” and that lawmakers will be forced to make “deep cuts to current services” despite projected surpluses.  

Their solution is “redesigning the volatility cap” with a “dynamic” model based on a rolling average of past years, and adjusting the spending cap so it “keeps pace with Connecticut’s economic conditions.” 

The volatility cap, enacted in 2017, was designed to prevent the state from using unpredictable sources of revenues — like capital gains taxes — to fund permanent programs. Instead, surplus revenue is directed toward the rainy-day fund and/or to pay down pension debt.  

TCP’s goal isn’t just budget flexibility — it’s to make room for increased state spending on their priority projects.  

The report was just the beginning. TCP is actively calling on lawmakers to weaken the guardrails.  

In an April 2025 press release, the group responded to proposed federal cuts by urging lawmakers to suspend the rules entirely. “Working class and middle-class people are in a cost-of-living crisis,” said TCP’s Vice President of Advocacy Melvin Medina.  

“If Connecticut doesn’t step up to responsibly adjust the fiscal rules, working people are going to literally pay the price,” Medina added. TCP also called for a budget that’s more “responsive,” urging lawmakers to use an emergency declaration to bypass the caps and unlock more spending on social programs. 

Not Everyone is Convinced This is a Responsible Move 

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association (CBIA) warns that the Tobin Center’s proposed “dynamic cap” could backfire — freeing up revenue in good years but setting the state up for shortfalls when markets take a downturn.  

“These revenues remain volatile and can fluctuate up to 20% in any given year,” CBIA notes, pointing out that capital gains and pass-through entity taxes can drop sharply with little warning.  

The Tobin Center assumes recent boom years are the “new normal,” but CBIA calls that a dangerous form of “recency bias where unusually strong recent performance (like the market gains of 2019-2024) may lead to overly optimistic projections.”  

CBIA states that changing the cap now would come “at the expense of savings,” and highlights that “as a result of the contributions to the pensions system, Connecticut will save $737 million per year for the next 20 years.” 

Public Opinion Echoes the Data 

Connecticut voters overwhelmingly support the fiscal guardrails. A March 2025 poll conducted by Global Strategy Group (GSG) found that “voters are highly supportive of the fiscal guardrails,” and that support goes across party lines.  

According to GSG’s findings “more than two-thirds of voters (69%) support the guardrails, including 65% of Democrats, 73% of Independents, and 73% of Republicans.”  

Voters aren’t asking lawmakers to break the rules. They’re asking them to live within them.  

The survey also found that once voters were told the state had “$900 million in additional spending room below the spending cap,” roughly three-in-four (76%) said that amount should be “enough money for the state to use without changing the guardrails.”  

Even when opponents make their case, voters still want fiscal responsibility.  

“Though hearing a statement from opponents of the guardrails does lower support somewhat, pro-guardrail messaging is highly effective and raises support back to baseline levels, above 80% support,” the study reported.  

The study also notes that “the best reason to support the guardrails is the personal impact they have on Connecticut voters and the state’s fiscal future.” That includes helping the state “pay off interest on debt” and keeping the budget balanced — priorities shared by all three parties. 

This puts TCP and its Yale allies on the wrong side of public opinion. 

While TCP and the Tobin Center insist the guardrails are holding the state back, voters see them as a safeguard against exactly the kind of reckless spending Connecticut used to be known for. The idea that working families want lawmakers to dismantle the very rules that rebuilt the state’s finances just doesn’t hold up.  

If anything, the public is asking lawmakers to do their jobs — not rewrite the rules every time someone wants to launch a new program. 

The guardrails were put in place for a reason. They’ve stopped lawmakers from blowing through our tax dollars, helped pay down billions in pension debt, and brought some stability to a state where running in the red was the norm.  

Adjusting the guardrails now to make room for more programs and bigger government isn’t responsible — it’s exactly what got Connecticut into trouble in the first place. Lawmakers shouldn’t fall for it. They need to stick with what works and not cave every time a well-financed special interest group wants more spending. 

The bill would codify the right of minors to receive contraceptive and pregnancy-related care without parental permission.

Fareed Salmon

12:41 am, Apr 18, 2025

Staff Reporter

Rachel Mak,

A proposed bill in the Connecticut state legislature seeks to address disparities in access to contraceptive care for minors.

Currently, state law allows minors to receive emergency medical treatment, HIV testing, mental health services, abortions and STI testing without parental consent. Minors can often access these services at school-based health centers. It is technically assumed that minors can access contraceptive care without parental permission. However, House Bill 7213 would codify this provision into law.

“Young people should not have to face the risk of unwanted pregnancies, HIV or untreated STIs simply because they’re afraid to speak to their parents to access contraceptive care,” said Melanie Wilde-Lane, executive director of the Connecticut Association of School Based Health Centers. “If a teenager knows they may have an STI but fears telling their parents about their sexual activity, it can lead to a situation where the condition goes untreated — putting their health and even their life at risk.”

Various healthcare providers last month highlighted their support of the bill. Wilde-Lane believes that the government has been prioritizing intervention over prevention. The association views contraceptive care as an effective means to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions in the first place. 

Planned Parenthood prioritizes this bill due to the changing federal landscape. Its leaders believe that Connecticut has an obligation to protect access to contraceptives in a time when the federal government is infringing on those rights.

“Although young people in Connecticut for decades have been able to obtain contraceptive care, one of the things that we are concerned about are the potential changes at the federal level,” Gretchen Raffa, chief policy and advocacy officer at Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, said. “[These federal actions] could directly threaten access for minors to confidentiality or to consent to contraceptive care on their own.”

According to Wilde-Lane, at school-based health centers, access to contraceptive care is not that simple. When a student comes in to request products like condoms, they would be put on a schedule. Next, they would talk with the therapist on call to explore why the minor would want to ask for or need the product. They would ask questions such as “Have you talked to your parents?” and “Is there a partner involved?” Therapists would also try to explain to students about the various physical, mental and emotional side effects of intimate behavior.

Most students are not able to access contraceptive care on the first visit. Most are sent home with a little homework as they explore the questions and make sure they still want contraceptive care. If kids below the age of 13 request any form of contraceptive care, the Department of Child and Family Services is contacted.

If the proposed bill is passed, students would not only be able to access contraceptive care at a school-based health center, but also at other medical facilities across the state, such as clinics and hospitals, all without requiring parental consent or notification. Their privacy would be fully protected, including safeguards against disclosure through billing or medical records. 

“Healthcare professionals who work with young people, especially children, often consider their full history during assessments,” Bonnie Roswig, senior staff attorney at the Center for Children’s Advocacy, said in the committee hearing on the bill. “These spaces allow for early detection of potential issues, ensuring that children who are at risk can be identified, reported and protected.”

According to Wilde-Lane, this bill is not meant to hinder relationships between parents and children. 

The bill is intended to allow minors to receive contraceptive care without parental involvement, particularly in situations where the parents might harm the child if they knew about the treatment. Even though parents might desire to talk with their children about contraceptive care and sexual health, many parents aren’t or don’t know how to.

Wilde-Lane notes that having this kind of support system that can provide them with initial counseling can even encourage children to talk with their parents about sexual health earlier rather than later. Therapists can also help familiarize children with telling their parents about their situation. 

Though minors can access contraceptive care at some medical facilities currently, there are several barriers. 

Cost is a major issue, as many contraceptives are expensive without insurance or parental help. Additionally, fear of parental discovery and limited clinic access can discourage minors from seeking care, making it harder for them to obtain the contraception they need. This bill will allow minors to bypass the barriers and access the care if deemed necessary. 

According to Roswig, this bill does not force doctors to provide care they’re uncomfortable with.

“If a doctor isn’t comfortable prescribing something, they’re not ethically obligated to do so. That ultimately falls under the professional and ethical responsibilities of physicians,” she said.

Wilde-Lane believes that it is very likely that the bill will become law, and it has already been passed in the House. She hopes that this bill is a step toward meaningful change, providing much-needed protections and support for communities.

Planned Parenthood is located at 345 Whitney Ave.