HARTFORD, CT – The Appropriations Committee got heated Thursday over the absence of the word “mother” in a bill aimed at maximizing federal resources for mental health services for young children, their caregivers, and pregnant persons.
Rep. Robyn Porter, D-New Haven, proposed an amendment to House Bill 5454, which was introduced in and advanced by the Human Services Committee before arriving in Appropriations, to add the phrase “expectant mothers” to lines 5 and 6 of the bill.
The lines originally read “…shall create a strategic plan to maximize federal and state resources for mental health services for children six years old and younger, their caregivers and pregnant persons.”
Porter, whose motion was seconded by Rep. Minnie Gonzalez, D-Hartford, requested a friendly amendment to change the lines to read “…caregivers, expectant mothers and pregnant persons.”
Porter said that as a mother she did not feel represented by the previous language, that she identifies as a mother, and that “women with wombs” should not be left out of the bill. The term “pregnant persons,” she said, was not inclusive enough.
“I do understand why we are using the term ‘pregnant persons,’ and I’m totally fine with that,” Porter said. “But I, as a woman with a womb, identify as an expectant mother – and so will other women.”
The legislation’s purpose is to allocate federal funding for mental health services for children and their caregivers.
Porter said that members of the urban caucus are often asked to compromise on bills, and that she would like to see that same air of compromise brought to her amendment.
But the proposed amendment set off a terse debate in the committee with Republicans supporting the change and Democrats arguing with each other. The two chairs of Human Services, Sen. Matt Lesser, D-Middletown, and Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, D-West Hartford, both voiced their opposition to the amendment.
Gilchrest said that she herself is a mother, and that the term “pregnant persons” is meant as inclusive, gender-neutral language.
“As we talk about DEI, this is the direction we are hoping to move in in this state, and ideally across the country, and so the term ‘pregnant persons’ is the more inclusive term,” Gilchrest said. “So I do ask that my colleagues oppose the amendment.”
She later said, “The term ‘pregnant person’ is supposed to acknowledge the fact that people with the capacity to get pregnant, including women, fall under the umbrella of pregnant persons. No one is taking away from an individual’s ability to identify the way they want to identify. I, myself, am a mother. And at the end of the day children will continue to call me mother, regardless of the language that we put in this statute.”
Lesser said that the specific language that was used in the bill is inclusive language that is commonly utilized in legislation.
Rep. Greg Haddad, D-Mansfield, said that he opposed the amendment because it opens the door for more discussion about all the possible terms that could be added, as opposed to just using the previously written inclusive language.
“It seems to me like we’re heading down a slippery slope here,” Haddad said. “What we should be aiming to do in legislation is coming up with inclusive terms that encompass every way that people identify.”
Rep. Peter Tercyak, D-New Britain, echoed Haddad’s remarks and said a big part of the country’s cultural divide is from cutting people out of what should be available to everybody. He said that if we say “mother” then they should list “every single other thing that comes under that heading of whatever the heck is pregnant people.”
Several Republicans on the committee thanked Porter for proposing the amendment, citing different motivations for supporting it, and said that the idea of adding more specific language does not make the bill less inclusive.
Rep. Geraldo Reyes, D-Waterbury, said that last year there were issues with the elimination of the word “mother” in policy.
“Culturally, as a Puerto Rican person, I have to tell you in my mind, there’s nothing more sacred than the mother,” Reyes said. “And I wouldn’t change that title for anybody for no one. There’s only one mother and I can’t understand belaboring this. I think Senator Lesser hit the nail on the head – this is a bigger topic than what we’re allowing right now, but I’m in full support of the amendment and just the way I staunchly opposed the word ‘latinx,’ I certainly also oppose the word expecting person.”
Gonzalez said that she “very proudly” proposed the amendment with Porter, and that “it’s nothing against the LGBTQ community. It’s nothing about them.”
She said that while her fellow Democrats say they need the bill, she said “we also need this amendment. So what is the problem to add this amendment? We have the same right. I think nothing against them. But it’s like year by year by year, in this building, people they are not part of the LGBTQ, we losing rights. And I don’t think it’s fair.”
Gonzalez said that she supports her fellow Democrats in anything that they want to pass, but “I think that we have to be fair and we have to work together. This is the only way that maybe we can be successful. But yes, we recognize that they have rights. But where are my rights? Where are my rights?”
Rep. Jeff Currey, D-East Hartford, spoke after Gonzalez, saying that “in the Education Committee we often pause for a moment to remind folks that words matter and that when we were using our words that we use them very carefully and we use them very clearly.”
Currey continued, “I’m not going to speak to the amendment itself as I communicated with the proponent that we would have conversations post this meeting. But I would just make very clear that no one is doing anything to remove the rights of anyone else over the last couple of years as was just insinuated by the last speaker and so I just want to make sure again that when we use our words that they matter and that they are accurate.”
Other Democrats who supported the amendment said that adding “expectant mothers” to the language would not change the bill’s intent.
Committee co-chairs Cathy Osten and Toni Walker called a recess to discuss the amendment and how to proceed. When the committee returned, Osten expedited the process, calling for votes on both the amendment, which passed 32-16 with five absent, and the bill, which passed 50-1 with two absent.
