Testimony of
Deacon David Reynolds
Associate Director of Public Policy
in Opposition to Provisions of S.B. 227
AN ACT CONCERNING PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
AND OVER-THE-COUNTER DIET PILLS AND SUPPLEMENTS
General Law Committee
Public Hearing
February 23, 2026
The Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference urges the committee to remove Sections 2 through 5 of S.B. 227.
Section 2 changes the current shield law by adding a protection from “any federal entity” taking legal action against a Connecticut provider when related to reproductive health and gender-affirming health care services. Sections 3 to 5 seek to remove the requirement that a prescribing practitioner’s name be placed on a prescription bottle for medication related to reproductive health and gender-affirming health care services. The issues raised by this proposed language go beyond the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion and gender-affirming care. They concern the respect of our legal system, our federalist structure, and the recognition of the changing science behind gender-affirming care which affects so many of our young teens.
The existing shield law was designed to protect Connecticut providers from legal actions by other states. This raises serious issues related to the U.S. Constitution’s “Full Faith and Credit” clause and Article III standing, which result in the requirement that states honor laws of other states with some exceptions. The potential problems have been highlighted recently in pending legal actions. A recent federal complaint details a woman who was pressured into two medical abortions by her estranged husband, who acquired the medication via telemedicine. The complaint was filed based on the plaintiff’s Article III standing against an abortion provider in California, which has a shield law. Just this week, the state of Texas filed a related request for permanent and injunctive relief against the same defendant provider. Through legal action taken by the state of Texas and Texas civilian plaintiffs, this issue is expected to be brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Connecticut provider protections deal with licensing and disciplining of medical providers who have been subject to legal actions by other states. The language in section 2 will add the same protections from actions taken by “any federal entity.” This would effectively allow Connecticut-licensed medical providers, who willfully and knowingly disregard lawfully adopted state and federal laws or regulations, to continue their practice in our state. Intentionally disregarding these laws or regulations should bring into question the professional character of these medical providers. At the same time, our state legislators should not encourage unlawful behavior. Does “federal entity” include the U.S. Supreme Court or any federal court?
The proposed language in Sections 3–5 would exempt certain medications from the requirement that a prescribing doctor’s name appear on prescription bottles. This change is requested to supposedly protect the provider from potential legal action by keeping their names secret. The impetus for this change comes from the state of Louisiana, which brought a criminal action in 2025 against Dr. Margaret Carpenter of New York, founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, who provided abortion pills to the mother of a teen, without the teen’s consent. According to the teen’s testimony, she wanted to keep her unborn child, but her mother pressured her to take the medication. The doctor was identified because her name was on the label. A jury found the mother and the doctor guilty of a criminal act. Due to New York’s shield law, the case has run into roadblocks. This case proves the use of telemedicine for the provision of abortion pills or gender-affirming care medications is open to abuse, especially when minors are involved.
Beyond the concerns raised by this case, the proposed language in Sections 3–5 also opens the door for abuse by a facility or medical group that may decide to prescribe the drugs without an actual doctor’s authorization. The question should also be raised as to whether the prescribing doctor’s name is protected under HIPAA. This could impact possible legal investigations. The name of a prescribing physician on medicine bottles has long been standard practice without significant issue and should not be changed by this proposed legislation.
In the area of expanding protections for providers of gender-affirming care for minors, which this bill would do, the legislature would be ignoring the fact that medical research concerning gender-affirming care is rapidly changing. Numerous current studies are now revealing that the use of hormones, puberty blockers and surgeries have failed to aid minors suffering from gender dysphoria. The most current studies from England, Sweden and several other European countries have resulted in new restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors. Just this month, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons issued a policy statement citing this research and issued a guidance that no surgeries should be performed on minors. The statement was quickly endorsed by the American Medical Association.
Although advocates for Sections 2–5 may say the language is needed, due to an attack on abortion rights and gender-affirming care across our nation, the truth is that this language may only create more issues in the future. Telemedicine, which most providers would use to violate laws in other states, has its role in medical care in our country. Using it to violate the laws of other states and the federal government, while opening the door for potential harm, should not be part of that role.