Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gab TV, GETTR, Truth Social
Are you familiar with The Handmaid’s Tale series on cable TV? A fantasy genre wherein women are forced or coerced to become pregnant and birth babies for the upper crust of society. It is a bedtime story for pro-abortion liberals who fall peacefully to sleep assured that rotten Christians and conservatives only want to force women to birth children with their pro-life laws. We’ve had people dress up in the red robes at our pro-life rallies. No joke. That is fantasy, but in Connecticut, the fantasy is about to come closer to reality with HB6617.
Are you entitled to a baby if you don’t engage in intercourse? That is what HB6617, the “Handmaid’s Tale” of Connecticut Bill calls for. Single individuals who have any “condition” such as asexuality, autosexuality or homosexuality, are considered “infertile” and will be entitled to surrogacy services under their state or private insurance. Sections 1(a)(7), 1(a)(3), 1(c)(4). Sponsors of the bill make it clear that coverage includes couples who simply do not have the eggs or sperm necessary – i.e. transgender couples or same-sex couples. Section 1(a)(3). Setting aside your feelings about transgender or same-sex couples, should the state be facilitating surrogacy for any couples or individuals with taxpayer funds?
Abortion is foundational to surrogacy because it is routinely used to “reduce” the number of implanted embryos or to destroy an unwanted embryo or unborn child. This practice should not be expanded and funded by Connecticut laws.
Not to be outdone, HB6617 also entitles a baby to individuals who “age out” of being able to “achieve pregnancy”. Their genetic material must be preserved and the insurer must facilitate a baby through surrogacy, using donated eggs and sperm if necessary. So, everyone would be entitled to a baby in Connecticut and it is the predicted outcome of a culture that separates the idea of sex from reproduction and the idea of children from the concept of nuclear families.
Pharmacists will be forced to be complicit with “dispensing drugs for the termination of a pregnancy” against their moral or ethical judgement, by providing a referral. This is a violation of conscious rights and may violate federal laws.
In the “skirt the rules for abortion” category, pharmacists who take it upon themselves to break the law in another state, are no longer automatically subject to reciprocal discipline in Connecticut if they were punished for terminating a pregnancy. Why, when women are involved, does out-of-state lawlessness not matter to some Connecticut legislators? (Sec. 4)
Again, in the category of “women don’t need the same protections as men”, abortionists who break the law in another state and want to be licensed in Connecticut will be protected and given a license to practice . . so long as the crime was facilitating an illegal abortion. Not to be outdone, this bill similarly protects those providers who illegally perform gender mutilation surgery on children in other states.
The drafters of HB6638 – An Act Revising the State’s Antidiscrimination Statutes drafted the changes to avoid drawing attention to the old definition of “sexual orientation”, CGS sec. 46a-81a which referred to sex crimes (part VI of chapter 952). The old definition will still exist (to be deleted at a later time) but the sexual orientation non-discrimination provisions of the law, sections 48a-81b to 81p, will rely on the new definition of “sexual orientation” in section 56a-51(26).
Part VI of chapter 952 of the Connecticut General Statutes includes section 53a-73a sex crimes such as: sex with children, minors, animals, babies and vulnerable persons. These are behaviors associated with many “identities” that want a place in the “Q” and “+” of LGBTQ+.
The new definition (as amended) of “sexual orientation” changes in 2 big ways. It becomes untethered from “heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality” and instead ties to “identity”. Second, it now includes identities whose underlying behavior would be a sex crime.
Untied from the orientations of “heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality” the law will be changed to prevent discrimination of any “identity”. Identities related to any romantic, emotional or sexual attraction towards a gender.
Even people with sexual attractions like pedophilia and nepiophilia would be protected from discrimination. Protected even though the associated behavior would be criminal per CGS 53a-73a. HB6638 would not legalize those crimes. But Connecticut citizens and businesses could not deny persons with those professed sexual attractions and identities from working or volunteering in our homes, hospitals, and schools, or otherwise “discriminate” based on those professed attractions. And that is nuts.
Instead, YOU may be prosecuted for refusing a professed pedophile’s application to be a daycare worker, teacher or bus driver. YOU may be brought before the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) for removing a professed nepiophile from working in a baby nursery.
Are all of these people with unconventional sexual orientations predators and lawbreakers? Absolutely not. But we should also not abandon common sense. When legislators punish parents for not hiring a professed “devotee” to care for their disabled daughter, they are imposing THIER morality on YOU.
Advocates will argue that HB6638 only protects sexual orientations “in relation to genders.” But recall that even a baby or an animal has a “gender”. We can hope, but it isn’t entirely clear how “sexual attractions” directed toward animals, inanimate and dead objects would be treated under this bill. Believe us when we say we don’t want to have to talk about this, but it is true. Advocates will also assert that the sexual attractions they don’t want to talk about are not included in the bill. But those are only assertions and not the language of the bill which will be used by judges, lawyers and the CHRO to assess fines and punishments.
The rest of Connecticut should not be prosecuted for taking common sense measures, such as removing a professed pedophile from a school. Parents should not be hauled before the CHRO for turning away a professed nepiophile as a babysitter. Hospitals and churches should not be persecuted for discerning they don’t want to employ a professed gerontophile to work with the elderly.
Some Connecticut legislators seem to have lost the ability to make rational distinctions.
