PA 15-132 An Act Concerning Birth Certificates (Part 3 of 6 – Public Health Committee)

Our strategy was basically the same as the defense against the insurance bill but in reverse. We only wanted a few people to testify on behalf of the bill, we wanted healthcare providers, a lawyer, and members of the trans community speak for the bill. We knew that the bill had the support of the governor’s office and the Democrat leadership in the legislature. What we didn’t know was what the opposition would do, we want to keep everything low key and not have a lobby day or anything like that, we figured the less talk about the bill the easier it would sail through the legislature. Because there are many ways to defeat a bill besides voting, like talking it to death like they did in the House for the gender inclusive non-discrimination bill in 2007.

We also feared some might happen like it did in Colorado, according to the Colorado Independent,

When it was Norton’s turn to testify, he explained that he was representing a group called Colorado Family Action, one of 38 family groups across the nation tied to Colorado Springs-based evangelical empire Focus on the Family.
[…]
“The testimony here today doesn’t justify a wholesale change to the law,” he said. “The members of the General Assembly [may] make it more likely that [the people of Colorado] will be subject to fraudulent activity.” He referred to an estate case in Texas in which Thomas Araguz claimed to have never been told that his wife had been born a boy. After Araguz died, his mother sued to have the marriage declared void.

The case is ongoing.

“It is not just fraudulent inducements to marry that may be more likely to occur,” he explained.

The day of the committee hearing on the bill I was at home waiting for a call to testify and when I got the call I must have set a record to drive from my home to Hartford. There were only about six of us to testify for the bill and no one testified against it and the committee received about eighteen written testimonies for the bill, all of them favorable.

The committee vote amazed me, the vote didn't go anyway I expected...

Total voting: 25, Yea: 23, Nay: 2, Abstain: 0, Absent/Not voting: 3

What that meant was that the bill has strong bipartisan support because eleven of the committee members are Republican. Before the vote we heard that the Republicans were going to introduce an amendment and to get the word out to our organizations to have people call or email the committee members to vote for the bill.

The minutes from the committee shows that there was only a positive discussion about the bill,

Senator Gerratana asked for a motion to JFS* to the Floor H.B. No. 7006 (RAISED) An Act Concerning Birth Certificate Amendments.

A motion was made by Representative Ritter and seconded by Representative Riley.

Representative Ritter explained that current law prohibits sex designation to be changed on birth certificates unless the individual undergoes a gender reassignment surgery. This bill will allow a sex designation to be changed on birth certificates with a notarized affidavit from a licensed physician, APRN, or psychologist stating that the person has undergone surgical, hormonal, or other appropriate treatment.

Representative Perillo asked if this legislation provides any advantages given to an individual.

Representative Ritter referred to testimony submitted to the committee which addressed the awkwardness for individuals who apply for employment whereas birth certificates are required for the application process.

Representative Srinivasan asked for clarification of other clinically approved treatments as written in the bill.

Representative Ritter acknowledged that there have been questions on this term from both sides of the aisle and a definition may be beneficial as the bill moves forward in the House.

Representative Srinivasan asked if this bill restricts a person who changes their gender and then decides to change back.

Representative Ritter pointed to line 40 in the bill which identifies the required written statement that an applicant's gender differs from the sex designated on the original birth certificate.
Representative Zoni asked if there are age restrictions for gender change.

Representative Ritter explained that there are no major restrictions under Title VII.

The next stop is the House.

PA 15-132 An Act Concerning Birth Certificates (Part 6 of 6 – Thoughts)
PA 15-132 An Act Concerning Birth Certificates (Part 5 of 6 – The Senate)
PA 15-132 An Act Concerning Birth Certificates (Part 4 of 6 – The House)
PA 15-132 An Act Concerning Birth Certificates (Part 3 of 6 – Public Health Committee)
PA 15-132 An Act Concerning Birth Certificates (Part 2 of 6 – Side Tracked)
PA 15-132 An Act Concerning Birth Certificates (Part 1 of 6 – The Beginning)