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

Connecticut House Democrats held a presser before the session today led by Speaker of the House, State Rep. Matt Ritter, and House Majority Leader, State Rep. Jason Rojas.

Ritter thought that some form of the hotly contested homeschooling legislation would make it to the floor, possibly with revisions. He said that "maybe the focus would be on more notification and maybe more 'how do you do the DCF thing without violating FERPA and those type of things'."

When asked about the "controversial vaccination" bill, Ritter casually responded, "that bill will pass too."

Ritter was pressed on SB 450, which would rewrite the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in order to undermine the only remaining legal challenge seeking to reinstate the religious exemption to vaccination based on RFRA.

He was asked if the vaccination bill that ultimately gets approved would include the language to make Lindy Urso's lawsuit moot.

"Yes," responded Ritter without a moment of hesitation. "This is clarifying exactly what we said in 2021... there's no religious right, there's no Constitutional right to say that my religion allows me to not get a vaccine and send my kids to kindergarten."

Ritter was pushed again on why democrats didn't take this very action in 2021. He said the Attorney General didn't raise it until now. Of course the only reason the AG raised the legislation now is because Urso's lawsuit keeps surviving Tong's challenges. Ritter's attitude was totally dismissive -- "to us it's not going to change anything" -- but to families whose religious rights are being trampled on, the legislation essentially forces parents to homeschool... which would presumably now come under DCF scrutiny.

"What would you say to the lawyers and the families involved in this suit and their supporters who said, 'well the state of Connecticut couldn't beat us in court, so that instead of litigating it, they're going to... beat us in the legislature," asked the persistent journalist.

"The same thing we said in 2021. You're right to not vaccinate your children based solely upon a religious argument is not the law in the state of Connecticut. You can get a medical [exemption] or you can opt not to, but you cannot enroll in public schools," asserted Ritter. "The legislature made that determination in 2021, and that determination is the law of the state and it's going to remain the law of the state."

He's basically saying that they are KINGS and that lowly citizens have no right to challenge their laws. But, if somehow, Urso managed to squeak out a win in court, Ritter laid out what he expected might happen.

"The argument would go that the grandfathering in did not arguably provide equal protection," said Ritter. "The danger you'd run is the legislature would pass a law and get rid of the kids who were grandfathered, so ironically a decision in favor of the plaintiffs in that case would probably mean that kids who are now in school who got grandfathered in would then all have to be removed from school under the equal protection clause."

Another journalist asked the dems to comment on the hundreds and hundreds of medical freedom and homeschooling advocates who feel like their voices are being ignored.

Rojas claimed "they aren't being ignored" and said it's "unfortunate that they feel that way." He went so far as to say he "feels bad" so many people feel ignored but he has to do what he's got to do to "protect" other individuals in the state.

The gaslighting was difficult to stomach. He actually said "we are not" removing people's freedoms while shaking his head in the affirmative.

Ritter added that they are going to make changes to the homeschooling bill, so that's "proof in the pudding" that they are listening to constituents.

He said, "the vaccine's a little different."

"People, I think, in Connecticut believe in science," said Ritter. "And we believe that vaccines are safe and effective and prevented a multitude of awful diseases in this country, and we're not going to go back to a position where we were 10 years ago where we start to see those vaccine rates decline."

"The legislature decided in 2021 and the Governor signed a law saying we're not going to do that," said Ritter.

Ritter and Rojas both said they believed that "homeschoolers and anti-vaxxers weren't overreacting" to the attack on their rights launched by Democrats.

"They're not overreacting," said Rojas. "Certainly there are ways in which actors in this building use language... to perhaps stoke more fear than is otherwise necessary."

"I think sometimes the legislature just doesn't agree, and that happens. The elected legislature just does not agree that you should be allowed to say that my religion forbids vaccines. That's all," said Ritter, matter-of-factly. "I'm not a monster. Jason's not a monster. We hear you but... the legislature votes, and in 2021 that was the vote of the legislature. It's going to be the vote in 2026."

Ritter said, without much care, that you don't have to get your child vaccines but you can't send your child to school if that's what you decide. Translation? Suck it up, buttercup, and get used to being on DCF's radar screen.

"Your medical freedom stops when you have the potential to injure other people," said Ritter, while Rojas added that it's akin to how "you can't scream fire in a theater."

They changed topics after that and at one point brought up rebate checks [to buy democrat votes in an election year], but the gaslighting over vaccines was disturbing to say the least.

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