HARTFORD, CT – A relatively straightforward attempt to combine two laws into one became an opportunity for a sometimes contentious debate over the efficacy of gender-affirming care for minors in the state.
The Judiciary Committee heard public testimony Tuesday regarding several different bills.
Gender-affirming care was added to a bill that protects medical professionals who perform abortions from legal actions taken by other states.
Gender-affirming care is a hotly contested topic across much of the United States. Currently, there are 19 states which ban gender-affirming care for minors with varying severity. Proponents of gender-affirming care and those who receive the treatment say that living as a gender other than the one assigned at birth – whether through changing clothing, grooming habits, or utilizing hormone therapy or surgical treatment – increases their satisfaction with life.
Opponents claim that minors should not be permitted to make such life altering changes to their body, stating that gender and body dysmorphia are mental health issues which require mental health treatment.
“The bill before is a very technical one. We are not going to debate here today gender-affirming care, whether right, wrong or indifferent. That is not the purpose of this hearing and that’s not the bill before us. The bill before us is a technical one proposed by our non-partisan legislative commissioner staff,” said Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, co-chair of the Judiciary Committee.
Despite Stafstrom’s statement outlining the parameters of the debate, several people offered testimony about their concerns with gender-affirming care more broadly. One common concern that was raised was the potential for harm caused to minors who seek gender-affirming care.
“Shield laws are imperative for care. As threats against bodily autonomy are rising, we need to ensure that individuals can come to Connecticut to receive medically necessary care. As the increased legislation taking away access to bodily autonomy is having a chilling effect on providers, shield laws are imperative to ensure that providers have protections to provide the treatment they have been trained to provide,” said Christy Olezeski, director of the Yale Pediatric Gender Program, said in written testimony.
Olezeski went on to discuss the potential positive impacts that gender-affirming care can have on youth. “Gender-affirming care can be lifesaving for youth, and is a medical decision made between a child, their parent and their medical provider. We need to make sure that we have well-trained providers who are providing the best care according to the most recent research and professional guidelines.”
Chris Healy, the executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference called for the language of the bill to be modified to exempt medical providers who perform gender-affirming care for minors.
“While more and more states review and pass laws relating to the treatment of minors with gender dysphoria, Connecticut blindly follows the proclamations of transgender advocates, which can be misleading. Many of our political leaders prefer to paint this as a partisan.
issue. It is a serious mental health issue and the facts concerning how we treat it should be seriously examined. The states that have examined the issue have chosen to address some serious health concerns by restricting treatment,” he said in submitted testimony.
In one exchange, Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, questioned some of the information that he heard from testifiers.
Dr. Michelle Cretella, the former executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, stated in her testimony that she anticipated a “tsunami” of de-transitions in the future as minors who received gender-affirming care begin to regret their decisions.
“Do you know what the rate of detransition is?” Winfield asked.
“The most recent study we have is that the rate of regret among young people could be as high as 30%,” Cretella said.
“I just wanted to know where you got that figure from, because I’ve done some research on this, as this issue comes before us from time to time, in one way or another, and the numbers I’ve seen are significantly lower than that. I just want to make sure the information we put out there is accurate,” he said.
