Connecticut Democrats Poised to Use ‘Privacy’ to Enshrine Abortion in State Constitution

N ever underestimate the creativity of people who cherish abortion.

The Connecticut state legislature is considering adopting an amendment, proposed under the guise of a “right to privacy,” that is predominantly focused on enshrining “reproductive rights” in the state constitution.

At first glance, this Trojan horse measure may appear innocuous, even agreeable to proponents of conservative, limited government. Yet embedded within the “right to privacy” umbrella is the “fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including, but not limited to, the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue or end one’s own pregnancy.” The resolution prefaces this passage by stating that this right shall not be infringed “without the showing of a compelling state interest.”

This isn’t the only attempt to codify abortion in the state constitution. Indeed, the privacy amendment would have almost the same effect as the more directly titled, “Constitutional Amendment to Protect the Right to an Abortion.” However, the latter has yet to receive a hearing, perhaps because its title is too on the nose.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, however, pro-choice legislators have decided to try and try again, relentlessly pursuing this so-called right. Thankfully, pro-life organizations recognized the ploy and criticized the “right to privacy” resolution during the Government Administration and Elections Committee public hearing on March 20.

Peter Wolfgang, president of the Family Institute of Connecticut Action, opposed the resolution and stated that, if passed, the amendment’s intent could extend to a variety of appalling activities. Worst of all from its supporters’ point of view, he noted that a “Connecticut court could easily find that protecting human life by restricting abortion is a compelling state interest.”

“By making ‘individual privacy’ a pre-eminent right, subject to only the highest standard of review, other mutually agreed to activities, done in private, may also be subject to the highest ‘compelling state interest’ standard,” Wolfgang testified. “These might include prostitution, euthanasia, assisted suicide, necrophilia, voluntary slavery, incest, and bigamy. These are all activities that may be conducted in private between consenting adults.”

He added, “We believe a court may find a ‘compelling state interest’ in protecting nascent human life and regulating abortion even before they’ll be able to find reasons to protect the litany of horrible but private activities listed above.”

Meanwhile, the Connecticut Catholic Conference — represented by its Associate Director Ann LaMonica — outright called the resolution “extreme, vague, and misleading.” She also asked the committee how the government and courts will interpret privacy and compelling state interest.

“S.J. 42, as it is drafted, puts the issue of abortion back in the courts and away from the legislature and the people that you represent,” LaMonica testified. “This resolution qualifies abortion as a right by subjecting it to a compelling state interest. The right to life is not qualified by a vague, subjective compelling state interest in the U.S. or State of Connecticut Constitution.”

LaMonica also asked if the amendment’s intent would supersede existing state statutes. For example, would it “override conscience rights” of medical professionals to perform abortions? Would children 13-year-olds or younger be allowed to receive abortions without parental knowledge? Would state laws regulating inspections of abortion clinics be overturned?

Committee chairman, Representative Matt Blumenthal (D., 147th) tried to temper these questions — which were discussed by multiple lawmakers during a March 27 meeting — affirming that while the amendment would supersede some state statutes, it would not “overrule existing state statutes with regard to abortion or the regulation of it.” To be sure, Blumenthal — much like his father, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal — is a champion of abortion access, and his assurances about what existing law this new amendment would affect aren’t exactly impartial.

Nonetheless, the resolution on the amendment was voted out of the committee 12–6 and has been filed with the Legislative Commissioners’ Office. It now awaits approval by the General Assembly. Before the vote takes place, however, Senator Rob Sampson (R., 16th) has pointed out that — if approved by the General Assembly — the question voters will be asked on the ballot is “dishonest and disingenuous.”

And he’s right. As currently drafted, the amendment is misleading at best. It reads: “Shall the Constitution of the State be amended to recognize a right to individual privacy and to prohibit the state from infringing such right without showing a compelling state interest?”

This confusing language could be fixed easily. It would only take a few words to clarify to Connecticut voters that the amendment is about abortion. But progressive lawmakers simply don’t care. Indeed, their urgency to enshrine abortion in the state Constitution is as intense as it is curious.

After all, abortion rights have been secured by state law in Connecticut since 1990. Last July, the state became a “safe harbor” for abortion seekers, with lawmakers enacting sweeping legislation to protect the practice following the Dobbs decision. And Connecticut is one of a dozen states to allow abortion until the “fetus can live independently outside the womb.” Now, the state is even debating whether to require taxpayers to fund non-state residents seeking an abortion by upwards of $2 million.

Regardless of these victories, however, progressive lawmakers are determined to enshrine abortion in the state Constitution, even if that means deceiving their constituents, who are generally mixed on this issue. With that in mind, putting such a confusing measure on the ballot is, as Sampson described, disingenuous. The people of Connecticut deserve better. At the very least, they deserve to know what they are voting for.

Hopefully, residents will see they’re being duped and send this Trojan horse straight out of town. If not, other states who’ve failed to pass amendments forthrightly enshrining a “right to an abortion” may follow Connecticut’s lead.