A CT Library Bill

This one good purposed bill AN ACT CONCERNING SCHOOL AND PUBLIC LIBRARIES... its goal is to prevent book from being taken off the library shelves that are LGBTQ+.

221 Sec. 4. (NEW) (Effective July 1, 2025) (a) The board of trustees, or other

222 governing body, of each public library shall adopt, in accordance with

223 the provisions of this section, a (1) collection development and

224 maintenance policy, (2) library program and display policy, and (3)

225 library material review and reconsideration policy. Each such policy

226 shall ensure that all library materials are evaluated and made accessible

227 in accordance with the protections against discrimination set forth in

228 section 46a-64 of the general statutes, including, but not limited to,

229 discrimination based on race, color, sex, gender identity, religion,

230 national origin, sexual orientation or disability. In developing each such

231 policy, the board shall have control over the content of each such policy,

232 provided such policies are in accordance with the provisions of this

233 section. The board of trustees or other governing body shall review, and

234 update as necessary, each such policy every five years.

[...]

Statement of Purpose:

To require public and school libraries to develop a (1) collection

development and maintenance policy, (2) library program and display

policy, and (3) library material review and reconsideration policy.

What this bill does, it prevents books from being yanked from the shelves just because the book is about a protected class.

 

The bill come up before the Committee on Children and we need your support...

 To submit testimony click here.

---

News Times reported that, more than 2,300 people submit testimony in CT over state Constitution proposal!

Skowera was one of the thousands of people who submitted testimony for a legislative proposal before the legislature's Government Administrations and Elections Committee aimed at expanding anti-discrimination protections for gender-affirming care and abortions. 

"Protected from discrimination, I am able to serve my community as both a civil servant and volunteer. I am given the opportunity to see the beauty and wonder of enabling others to be themselves, safe from the fear of employer retaliation or rejection from school systems," Skowera said. "Every day, I strive to make sure that no one feels the pain that I have experienced." 

[...]

Similarly, William Ollayos, administrator for the state's LGBTQ+ Justice & Opportunity Network, said the bill is a "declaration of Connecticut's values" as a leader in protecting civil rights. He said that without clear definitions in the state's constitution, courts and legislatures "must infer whether this protection extends to issues such as reproductive autonomy and LGBTQ plus rights."

Ollayos said other civil rights, like marriage equality, may be challenged on the federal level through the Supreme Court and SJ 35 "preemptively safeguards" residents from such a scenario. 

"If Obergefell were overturned, nearly 30 states could immediately move to reinstate same-sex marriage bans. If Dobbs is any indication, we should not assume that the current court will stop there," he said. "The most effective countermeasure is to embed these rights directly into our state's constitution, where they cannot be easily undone by future legislatures or courts. Beyond its moral and legal significance, this amendment is a practical necessity." 

---

My takeaways from Friday's hearing on the Constitutional amendment.

Many of the people who testified had no idea what the bill says... it is not about late term abortions, there is nothing in the bill that says anything at late term abortions, in Connecticut there is a law that prevents late term abortions except when the mother's life is in danger. And when they were questioned about that nobody knew it. The bill contains nothing about healthcare for trans children, nothing about trans sports but there were dozens and dozens of people testifying about that.

There were people testifying from all over the U.S. which I think is wrong. One woman from an anti-abortion organization testify about late-term abortion which isn't part of the bill and a Connecticut senate ate right up and asked question about. The senator from Sixteenth Senate District came back again to question a person about trans people who detransitioned and was part of a national organization, she sobbed how she transitioned early in life, went on puberty blockers and the detransitioned, how horrible her life was while she was a boy.

I thought, okay you transitioned found out that it wasn't for you so you detransitioned... um.. isn't that what the program supposed to do? Give you time to find out if it is right for you?