Login
Connecticut lawmakers have introduced two bills that critics said could weaken an ongoing lawsuit challenging the state’s 2021 law that repealed religious exemptions from school vaccination mandates.
In 2022, a group of parents sued Gov. Ned Lamont and state health and education officials, arguing that the 2021 law violated their religious rights under the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
In February, a Superior Court judge allowed the parents’ case to proceed.
However, in a move seen as an attempt to undercut the ongoing lawsuit, Connecticut lawmakers this month introduced “twin bills” — Senate Bill 450 and House Bill 5044.
The bills state that enforcement of the state’s school vaccine requirements “shall not be construed as a violation” of RFRA. If passed, the laws would apply to “any civil action pending on or filed after” the bills become law.
Kate Prokop of Connecticut Residents Against Medical Mandates accused lawmakers of trying to remove religious exemptions by stepping into an active court fight.
State attorney general working to ‘usurp the judicial process’
Connecticut’s Public Health Committee proposed the bills at the request of state Attorney General William Tong, according to state Sen. Saud Anwar (D-South Windsor).
“This legislation comes to us through the attorney general’s office, and this legislation is focused on maintaining the status quo,” Anwar told CT Insider.
The attorney general’s office confirmed it requested the change. It said lawmakers never intended RFRA to serve as “a back door” to restore religious exemptions, and that the proposal would prevent the 2021 repeal law from being undone.
Prokop called the effort “the attorney general’s attempt to usurp the judicial process to pass a law so that he can win the lawsuit.”
She said the timing raises fairness concerns. “Is the law being shaped through due process, or is the process being shaped to produce a preferred legal outcome?” she asked.
House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora wrote that applying the change to pending litigation is “a blatant attempt to tip the scales in favor of the government” and “to kill a pending court case,” Inside Investigator reported.
Lindy Urso, an attorney for the families suing the state, said the move suggests “the state defendants are losing confidence in their ability to justify removal of the religious exemption.” He called it “a cowardly affront to Religious Freedom.”
The legislation has drawn criticism from the public. More than 7,000 pieces of opposition testimony were submitted on each bill, according to Prokop.
Hundreds of people spoke at a lengthy public hearing that stretched until midnight. The bills passed out of the committee on March 18 in a 21-11 party-line vote, according to Inside Investigator.
The Defender is 100% reader-supported. No corporate sponsors. No paywalls. Our writers and editors rely on you to fund stories like this that mainstream media won’t write. 
This article was funded by critical thinkers like you.
Proposed bills would result in ‘coordinated shift in governance’
Beyond the RFRA language, the bills would expand the authority of the state’s public health commissioner, including the power to adjust vaccine standards and consider alternative schedules regardless of guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Critics say the broader effect is to alter how decisions are made.
The changes reflect “a coordinated shift in governance,” Prokop said. “This is no longer about rhetoric. It is about structure. And structure ultimately determines outcome.”
Both bills have cleared the Public Health Committee and are moving through the Connecticut legislature.
Connecticut is among a handful of states that don’t allow religious exemptions.
Last month, a coalition of federal lawmakers led by Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) urged the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate four states whose laws prohibit religious exemptions for school vaccine mandates.
In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, lawmakers warned that vaccine mandate laws in New York, California, Maine and Connecticut violate the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause.
Lawmakers also asked the DOJ to intervene in two New York lawsuits challenging religious exemptions. In both cases, Children’s Health Defense is either a plaintiff or is financing the case.
Also last month, Connecticut was among the 15 states that sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over recent changes to federal vaccine recommendations.
Related articles in The Defender
- ‘Not Going Down Without a Fight’: Hundreds Testify Against Connecticut Bills Expanding State Vaccine Powers
- Two New Wins in Religious Exemption Lawsuits Add to String of Recent Victories
- California, Connecticut ‘Scrambling’ to Sue HHS Over Vaccine Schedule
- Growing Number of States Reject New Childhood Vaccine Schedule
- Florida Lawmaker Urges Trump to Protect Religious Exemptions
