Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter

In a world where elected officials are performing their duties to honor the state constitution, it would be very easy to follow and participate in proposed legislation. But that’s not at all how things go in Hartford. To say that the Connecticut Legislature is like a horror show filled with demons and that the session is hell on earth is pretty close to accurate. My apologies to those few who attempt to keep honesty, decency and diplomacy in our government. For the rest of them, you owe us an apology for wasting our time and money on a daily basis, and for the added stress of your legislative sessions for 5-6 months each year. 

The following is a recap of the Government Administration and Elections Committee public hearing from February 7th-8th, 2025, covering 19 (!) proposed bills. Thousands of written testimonies were submitted and nearly 300 people signed up to testify for the meeting that started at noon on Friday which went until the early morning on Saturday. The Legislative Office Building staff seemed to be scrambling to get an overflow room set up for the attendees with minutes to spare at the start of the hearing.

The most popular bill for written and public discussion was SJ 35, “RESOLUTION PROPOSING A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE."

Article twenty-first of the Connecticut Constitution currently states: 

“No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex or physical or mental disability.”

Sounds great, everyone is included, we are all equal. This is an amendment for and in agreement with Article 1 Section 1: "All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community." 

The Government Administration and Elections Committee has proposed to add the following to the text in Article XXI: 

“As used in this section, discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of civil or political rights because of sex includes, but is not limited to, discrimination, in intent or effect, based on pregnancy, including preventing, initiating, continuing or terminating a pregnancy; sexual orientation; gender identity and expression; and related health care.”

Identifying pregnancy and sexual orientation? Terminating pregnancy? Gender Identity and expression? Why? Why would this be brought forward as an amendment to the Connecticut Constitution? 

Is it a distraction to cover the Secretary of State stepping ahead of legislation being passed and taking it upon herself to add “non-binary” as a choice in addition to the two biological genders of male and female on forms that she already ordered? Was it so people would not notice the bill for public college professors not having to comply with FOIA requests? Or perhaps it was a cover to keep attention off SJ 36, another proposed constitutional amendment that gives government control over the land, air, water, flora and fauna?

Connecticut already has laws to protect a woman who terminates the life of her child while he or she is in the womb. The state has laws protecting the doctors, nurses and others who assist in killing babies. Connecticut has laws allowing children to have access to gender mutilation and prescription sterilization. The laws already exist in the multitude of ridiculous rules in the state. 

Throughout the thirteen hours of public testimony, there were several professionals from their field of expertise testifying. The Planned Parenthood representative claimed that the amendment would not change the constitution. This is clearly false: the amendment is amending the constitution and creating a situation where one group is receiving privileges from the community above another group. That is change and it’s one that is completely unconstitutional as it eliminates, at minimum, the rights of women in women's sports and the lives of children in the womb dependent upon another person, their mother, to continue to grow. 

A whistleblower from Missouri flew in to testify about the dangers of gender clinics on children. Some would try to dismiss that she was not from Connecticut, but she was not the only out of state witness; many from other states testified for passing SJ 35. The most disrupting part of the hearing was that her testimony visual feeds (maybe audio, too) mysteriously cut out as she described the horrors of the gender mutilation industry on both children’s lives and on the state’s future legal obligations that will arise. This malfunction in the technology prevented all in the overflow room from her complete testimony which was fortunately preserved through CT-News and can be viewed here: https://x.com/FICAction/status/1888569580081099222. 

About an hour after her testimony, out in the hallway, Representative Matt Blumenthal was heard complaining to a Planned Parenthood lobbyist. He stated that the representative from Planned Parenthood, the organization that stands to benefit the most financially from SJ 35, had done terrible when she testified. He also stated that he was mad that he had granted a favor and let the whistleblower testify earlier than scheduled so she could catch her flight. He said that he would never do any favors (for the opposition) again.  

Listening to his complaining, one has to wonder if this hearing is all just a show? Is it supposed to be like a trial where there is a winner and a loser? Is that what he thinks of this proposal for a constitutional amendment? Connecticut already has laws protecting all citizens, and enshrining these extra protections for specific classes of people into our constitution is both unconstitutional and an extreme overreach of government power. 

The opposition to SJ 35 has one prerogative: to protect life. They came out on very short notice, five days as is the absolute minimum required and typical for the CT State Legislature, to stand up and speak out as taxpaying citizens who fund the government. They show up to express their concern for paying for the murders of unborn children. They fight to protect women's rights including in women’s sports and spaces. They want to stop the sexual mutilation of children who are misguided into a lifetime of pharmaceutical and medical obligations. People in our state are willing to stay up all night for the chance to say something in hopes of the committee hearing a voice of truth and reason. 

Representative Matt Blumenthal is a lawyer, he knows that SJ 35 is unconstitutional. He is fully aware that the federal government will be creating federal laws in alignment to the executive orders already established to protect women and children. He knows that federal funding will be cut and lawsuits will be prevalent in the state of Connecticut. Yet he and co-chair, Senator Mae Flexer, put SJ 35 on the agenda, sent out the word to the gender-confused community and got every person they could to participate. Most who supported SJ 35 had no idea that they already have rights protected by the current existing laws; they testified a false fear of losing rights.

Why would it mean so much to Representative Blumenthal to ammend the constitution enshrining death into our state? Why would he be willing to ignore a whistleblower testifying about the serious dangers to children in our state? Wouldn’t this testimony be important in making the best decision for Connecticut taxpayers? If he is actually working as a public servant for the state, why would he be mad that the truth is revealed?

If this bill, SJ 35, was not a distraction amongst the 19 bills, could it have been pushed forward as a favor to Planned Parenthood? Was there money involved? Many will recall that Planned Parenthood received a $3 million bonus before Christmas by Governor Lamont from taxpayer money. Could there be any ties between the money, the government and the bill? 

Perhaps DOGE can pay Connecticut a visit!

Whether there is grifting or not, co-chairs Senator Flexer and Representative Blumenthal clearly demonstrated their partisan character. They stopped the opposition abruptly while allowing proponents of SJ 35 to talk beyond the 3 minute timer. They were sure to reprimand the crowd cheering over two biological genders yet allow disruptions from the proponents of the bill. They cut off the opposition, the voice of truth, while she testified. She very boldly called them out for not paying attention to her while she testified. Sad but true, these are the people who represent a one-sided, very demonic agenda in Hartford. We are stuck with them until the next election in 2026. Be prepared, Connecticut, and get involved now if you intend to have a future in our state. 

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!‘