--- title: "Connecticut — abortion law" description: "Connecticut is one of the strongest states for abortion access. Abortion is legal until the fetus can survive outside the womb (usually around 24 to 26 weeks of pregnancy). After that point, abortion is permitted whenever necessary to protect the patient's life or health. Connecticut has no waiting…" type: "legislation" jurisdiction: "Connecticut" as_of_date: "2026-07-12" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/legislation/ct.html" --- # Connecticut — abortion law _Connecticut · United States_ ## Overview **Legal to viability; statutorily protected** Abortion is legal in Connecticut until fetal viability and afterward to preserve life or health; the right has been codified in statute since 1990 and reinforced by expansive shield laws. Connecticut is one of the strongest states for abortion access. Abortion is legal until the fetus can survive outside the womb (usually around 24 to 26 weeks of pregnancy). After that point, abortion is permitted whenever necessary to protect the patient's life or health. Connecticut has no waiting period, no mandatory ultrasound, no parental consent requirement, and no criminal penalties for anyone involved. The state has passed multiple shield laws protecting patients, providers, and helpers from out-of-state lawsuits or investigations. State Medicaid covers abortion beyond the federal Hyde restrictions. The state is not merely permissive — it affirmatively protects reproductive choice by statute. > "The decision to terminate a pregnancy prior to the viability of the fetus shall be solely that of the patient in consultation with the patient's physician or, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (d) of this section, the patient's advanced practice registered nurse, nurse-midwife or physician assistant." > — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(a) **Legal analysis** Connecticut codified the essential holding of Roe v. Wade in 1990 via Public Act 90-113, codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602. It was the first state in the nation to enact an affirmative statutory protection for abortion. The pre-viability decision belongs solely to the patient in consultation with a physician, APRN, nurse-midwife, or physician assistant. Post-viability, abortion is permitted whenever 'necessary to preserve the life or health of the patient' — a notably broad health exception. Public Act 22-19 (2022) expanded who may perform abortion (adding APRNs, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants for medication and aspiration abortion), upgraded the statutory language from 'pregnant woman' to 'patient,' established the nation's first civil cause of action for persons subject to out-of-state abortion-liability judgments, barred Connecticut courts from issuing out-of-state subpoenas related to reproductive health care, and prohibited state agencies from cooperating with out-of-state reproductive health care investigations. Public Act 23-128 (2023) further shielded providers from adverse credentialing, licensing, professional discipline, and insurance actions based on out-of-state anti-abortion proceedings. The cumulative effect is that Connecticut functions as a safe-haven jurisdiction for abortion care, including for out-of-state patients. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(a), subsection (a), [Connecticut General Assembly / Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368y/section-19a-602)* ## At a glance Every machine-readable determination in the research document. Each value is derived from a sourced finding below. | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Legal classification | Protected by statute | | Gestational limit weeks | — | | Limit measured from | — | | Abortion currently available | Yes | | Ban or limit enjoined | No | | Mother expressly exempt | Yes | | Mother prosecutable in practice | No | | Self managed abortion criminalized | No | | Abortion charged as homicide | No | | Fetal homicide law | No | | Fetal wrongful death action | Yes | | Personhood language in law | No | | Personhood contradiction | No | | Medication abortion distinct status | No | | Mailing pills banned | No | | Method bans | None | | Telehealth prescribing allowed | Yes | | Physician only law | No | | Provider max penalty | — | | Helpers criminally exposed | No | | Travel assistance criminalized | No | | Civil bounty law | No | | Shield state | Yes | | Waiting period hours | — | | State scripted counseling | No | | Ultrasound required | None | | In person visits required | 0 | | Parental involvement | None | | Judicial bypass available | Not applicable | | Spousal consent or notice on books | No | | Medicaid coverage | Broader than hyde | | Private insurance restricted | No | | State funding posture | Funds providers | | Rape incest exception | Not applicable | | Exceptions present | Life, Physical health, Mental health, Ectopic miscarriage carveout | | Major pending change | Yes | ## Definitions **Abortion defined broadly; includes medication** Connecticut defines 'abortion' as termination of a pregnancy for purposes other than producing a live birth, expressly including pharmacological (medication) abortion. Connecticut law defines abortion as ending a pregnancy for any reason other than to produce a live birth. This definition expressly includes medication abortion (using pills rather than a surgical procedure). The definition appears in the statutes regulating limited services pregnancy centers, but it is cross-referenced throughout the abortion chapter. There is no statutory carve-out for miscarriage management, ectopic pregnancy treatment, or IVF, but in practice these are not treated as abortions because they do not aim to terminate a viable intrauterine pregnancy. > ""Abortion" means the termination of a pregnancy for purposes other than producing a live birth. "Abortion" includes, but is not limited to, a termination of a pregnancy using pharmacological agents." > — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-912(1) **Legal analysis** The operative statutory definition appears at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-912(1): "'Abortion' means the termination of a pregnancy for purposes other than producing a live birth. 'Abortion' includes, but is not limited to, a termination of a pregnancy using pharmacological agents." This definition, while located in the limited services pregnancy center chapter, is the definition referenced by the abortion chapter (Chapter 368y) at § 19a-602(c). The DPH regulation at § 19-13-D54(a)(1) uses a nearly identical definition: "'Abortion' means the induced termination of a pregnancy for purposes other than producing a live birth." The definition does not expressly exclude management of ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, or removal of a dead fetus — leaving those to general medical practice rather than statutory carve-out. IVF and embryos outside the womb are not addressed and are not within the natural reach of the definition, which requires a 'pregnancy.' *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-912(1), subsection (1), [Connecticut General Assembly / Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368-i-ll-i/section-19a-912) · Conn. Agencies Regs. § 19-13-D54(a)(1), subsection (a)(1), [Connecticut eRegulations System](https://eregulations.ct.gov/eRegsPortal/Search/getDocument?guid=%7BE0A4A58F-0100-CF3C-8035-1F33982DDF2F%7D)* ## Current status **Legal to viability; health exception post-viability** Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602, abortion is legal until fetal viability; after viability it is permitted when necessary to preserve the patient's life or health, with no criminal penalty attached. In Connecticut, a person can choose to have an abortion at any point until the fetus reaches viability — the stage when it can survive outside the womb, generally around 24 to 26 weeks of pregnancy as measured from the last menstrual period. After viability, an abortion is allowed whenever it is necessary to protect the patient's life or health. There is no criminal penalty for violating the post-viability limit; the statute functions as a regulatory prohibition enforced through professional discipline rather than criminal law. The right to abortion was first codified in 1990 and has been expanded since, most notably in 2022. > "The decision to terminate a pregnancy prior to the viability of the fetus shall be solely that of the patient in consultation with the patient's physician... No abortion may be performed upon a patient after viability of the fetus except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the patient." > — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(a)-(b) **Legal analysis** Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602, enacted by Public Act 90-113 (1990) and amended by Public Act 22-19 (2022), is the operative statute. Subsection (a) establishes the pre-viability right: the decision 'shall be solely that of the patient' in consultation with the specified health care provider — it is an affirmative statutory protection, not merely a decriminalization. Subsection (b) limits post-viability abortion to cases 'when necessary to preserve the life or health of the patient.' Notably, the statute does not attach criminal penalties to a violation of § 19a-602. Connecticut's pre-Roe criminal abortion statutes (formerly Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53-29 to 53-31) were effectively superseded by PA 90-113, which established a public-health regulatory framework under Title 19a rather than a penal framework under Title 53a. No person has been prosecuted under a criminal abortion statute in Connecticut since PA 90-113, and no such statute remains operative. The practical effect is that abortion is legal on request until viability and under a broad health exception thereafter, with enforcement occurring (if at all) through licensing and professional discipline rather than criminal prosecution. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(a)-(b), subsections (a) and (b), [FindLaw / Connecticut General Assembly](https://codes.findlaw.com/ct/title-19a-public-health-and-well-being/ct-gen-st-sect-19a-602) · Public Act No. 22-19, § 7, Section 7, amending § 19a-602(a), [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-00019-R00HB-05414-PA.pdf)* ## Law-in-effect vs. law-on-the-books **Fully in force; no injunctions or stays** Connecticut's abortion-protective statutes are not subject to any injunction, stay, or moratorium; they are fully in effect and being actively enforced by the Attorney General as shield provisions. All of Connecticut's abortion laws — including the statutory right to abortion, the broadened provider categories, and the shield laws — are fully in force. There are no court orders blocking any of these protections. The Attorney General's office actively enforces and defends these laws, including by issuing guidance on EMTALA obligations and supporting the Abortion Legal Hotline. Some minor statutes have faced constitutional challenge (the crisis pregnancy center advertising law), but those challenges have been dismissed or resolved in the state's favor. **Legal analysis** Connecticut's abortion provisions are not subject to any active injunction. The statutory right to abortion and the shield-law framework codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 19a-602, 52-571m, together with Public Acts 22-19 and 23-128, are fully operative. The 2021 law regulating deceptive advertising by limited services pregnancy centers (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 19a-912a, 19a-912b) was challenged in Care Net Pregnancy Resource Center of Southeastern Connecticut v. Tong (D. Conn., filed Oct. 2021), but that lawsuit was dismissed/withdrawn in early 2023. No other litigation currently impedes enforcement. The Connecticut Attorney General has been active in defending and promoting the state's abortion protections, including joining multi-state letters on EMTALA compliance and appointing special counsel for reproductive rights. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Care Net Pregnancy Resource Center of Southeastern Connecticut v. Tong, D. Conn., dismissed 2023, [Alliance Defending Freedom](https://adflegal.org/case/care-net-pregnancy-resource-center-southeastern-connecticut-v-tong)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Exceptions ### Life of the mother **Life exception post-viability** Post-viability abortion is permitted when necessary to preserve the patient's life; pre-viability, no exception is needed because abortion is available by right. Connecticut law allows abortion after viability whenever it is needed to save the patient's life. Before viability, no exception is needed because abortion is available as a matter of right. There are no special certification, documentation, or law-enforcement-report requirements for invoking the life exception — the physician's medical judgment controls. > "No abortion may be performed upon a patient after viability of the fetus except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the patient." > — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(b) **Legal analysis** Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(b) provides that no abortion may be performed after viability 'except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the patient.' The life exception is thus subsumed within the broader health exception. The statute imposes no additional certification, second-physician consultation, or reporting requirements unique to the life exception. The physician's medical judgment alone determines necessity. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(b), subsection (b), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/ct/title-19a-public-health-and-well-being/ct-gen-st-sect-19a-602)* ### Physical health **Physical health exception post-viability** Connecticut's post-viability health exception expressly covers physical health without any requirement that the risk be grave, imminent, or irreversible. After viability, an abortion is allowed whenever it is necessary to preserve the patient's health. The law does not limit this to life-threatening conditions — any threat to the patient's physical health is sufficient. The physician's medical judgment determines what is necessary; there is no requirement for a second physician's opinion or special documentation. > "No abortion may be performed upon a patient after viability of the fetus except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the patient." > — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(b) **Legal analysis** The phrase 'life or health' in § 19a-602(b) is notably broad. Unlike some state statutes that require a 'serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,' Connecticut uses the unmodified term 'health.' The statute does not define 'health,' leaving it to the provider's clinical judgment. Connecticut courts have not supplied a narrowing gloss. The statute imposes no mandatory-reporting, second-opinion, or certification requirements distinct from the general abortion-reporting rules administered by the Department of Public Health. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(b), subsection (b), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/ct/title-19a-public-health-and-well-being/ct-gen-st-sect-19a-602)* ### Mental health **Mental health included in 'health'** Connecticut's post-viability health exception is not limited to physical health; 'health' as used in § 19a-602(b) is interpreted to encompass mental health under Connecticut law. Connecticut's post-viability health exception covers mental as well as physical health. This is based on how Connecticut law and the Medicaid program define 'medically necessary' services — they include treatment of mental illness. In practice, a physician could determine that continuing a pregnancy would seriously harm a patient's mental health and provide an abortion post-viability on that basis. **Legal analysis** While § 19a-602(b) does not explicitly define 'health,' Connecticut's Medicaid statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17b-259b) defines medical necessity to include services required to treat 'mental illness,' and the DSS regulation implementing Doe v. Maher covers abortions that a physician certifies as medically necessary without distinguishing physical from mental health. Given that Connecticut courts interpret statutes in pari materia and that Doe v. Maher, 40 Conn. Supp. 394 (1986), grounded abortion coverage in state constitutional equal protection principles, the better reading is that 'health' in § 19a-602(b) encompasses mental health. No Connecticut court has limited 'health' to physical health alone. *Sources — Verify before publication · Medium confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17b-259b(a), page 3, [Connecticut General Assembly / OLR Report](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0260.pdf) · Doe v. Maher, 40 Conn. Supp. 394 (1986), [Connecticut Superior Court](https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914c25fadd7b049347bf20b)* **Editor's note.** No case directly interprets 'health' in § 19a-602(b) to encompass or exclude mental health. This conclusion rests on inference from related statutory and regulatory provisions. An editor should flag this as an interpretive reading rather than settled law. ### Ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage care **Ectopic/miscarriage care not restricted** Connecticut law does not classify treatment of ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage management as abortion; these procedures are not subject to the viability limit. Connecticut's abortion statute does not restrict the treatment of ectopic pregnancy (where the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus) or miscarriage management. These are not considered abortions under state law and are governed by normal medical standards of care rather than abortion regulations. **Legal analysis** The statutory definition of 'abortion' at § 19a-912(1) — 'termination of a pregnancy for purposes other than producing a live birth' — and the DPH regulation at § 19-13-D54(a)(1) — 'induced termination of a pregnancy' — do not by their terms encompass removal of an ectopic pregnancy or management of a miscarriage where fetal demise has already occurred. In practice, these procedures are treated as distinct from induced abortion and are not restricted by § 19a-602. The Connecticut Department of Public Health does not require abortion reporting for ectopic pregnancy treatment or miscarriage management. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-912(1), subsection (1), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368-i-ll-i/section-19a-912)* ## Methods ### Procedural surgical **Legal; no method-specific bans** Procedural/surgical abortion is legal until viability and afterward for life or health; Connecticut has not enacted any D&E, D&X, or method-specific ban. Surgical abortion (also called procedural or in-clinic abortion) is fully legal in Connecticut. The state has no ban on any particular surgical method. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 applies in Connecticut as federal law, but it is limited to a specific intact-D&E procedure and does not affect the more common D&E procedures used in second-trimester abortion care. There is no state-level method ban. **Legal analysis** Connecticut has not enacted any state-law ban on specific abortion methods. No statute prohibits dilation and evacuation (D&E), dilation and extraction (D&X, also called intact D&E or 'partial-birth abortion'), or any other surgical method. The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C. § 1531), upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), applies of its own force, but it is limited to a specific intact-D&E variant. Standard D&E — the most common second-trimester method — is not affected. No Connecticut statute independently criminalizes or restricts any abortion method by name. The only state-level restriction is the viability threshold in § 19a-602(b). *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602, subsections (a)-(b), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/ct/title-19a-public-health-and-well-being/ct-gen-st-sect-19a-602)* **Editor's note.** The absence of a state D&E/D&X ban was confirmed by searching Connecticut General Statutes Title 19a and Title 53a without finding any such provision. The Guttmacher Institute's state policy tracker also lists Connecticut as having no method-specific ban. ### Medication **Legal; no unique restrictions** Medication abortion (mifepristone/misoprostol) is legal on the same terms as procedural abortion and can be provided by physicians, APRNs, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants, including via telehealth. Medication abortion — using pills rather than surgery — is legal in Connecticut and is treated the same as procedural abortion under state law. It is expressly included in the statutory definition of abortion. Advanced practice registered nurses, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants can prescribe and provide medication abortion, not just physicians. There is no requirement that the pills be dispensed in person; telehealth prescribing is permitted. There is no state ban on mailing abortion medication into Connecticut. > "An advanced practice registered nurse licensed pursuant to chapter 378, a nurse-midwife licensed pursuant to chapter 377 and a physician assistant licensed pursuant to chapter 370 may perform medication and aspiration abortions under and in accordance with said chapters." > — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(d) **Legal analysis** Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-912(1) expressly includes pharmacological abortion in the definition: 'Abortion includes, but is not limited to, a termination of a pregnancy using pharmacological agents.' Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(d), added by PA 22-19 in 2022, authorizes APRNs, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants to 'perform medication and aspiration abortions.' This is one of the broadest non-physician scope-of-practice provisions for abortion in the United States. Connecticut does not impose FDA REMS restrictions as state law; the medication may be prescribed via telehealth and dispensed by mail. The state's shield laws (PA 22-19, PA 23-128) protect providers who prescribe medication abortion to out-of-state patients, though the prescribing provider must comply with Connecticut law and standards of care. There is no Connecticut prohibition on mailing abortion medication into or within the state; the Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1461-1462) remains on the books federally, but the Biden-era Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion concluding that the Comstock Act does not prohibit mailing of mifepristone/misoprostol where the sender lacks intent that they be used unlawfully has not been rescinded as of this writing, and Connecticut actively protects providers against enforcement actions based on out-of-state laws. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(d), subsection (d), [FindLaw / Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368y/section-19a-602) · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-912(1), subsection (1), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368-i-ll-i/section-19a-912)* **Editor's note.** The federal Comstock Act question is unsettled nationally. Connecticut's shield laws may reduce but cannot eliminate federal exposure if DOJ policy changes. ### Self managed **No criminal exposure for self-management** Connecticut has no criminal statute that reaches a person who self-manages an abortion; the state's abortion chapter imposes no penalties on the pregnant person and the penal code does not define a fetus as a human being for homicide purposes. A person who ends their own pregnancy without medical assistance — for example, by taking abortion pills obtained online or from out of state — faces no criminal liability under Connecticut law. Connecticut's abortion statute imposes no penalties on the pregnant person. The state's criminal homicide laws do not apply to fetuses, meaning self-managed abortion cannot be charged as murder, manslaughter, or feticide. The state's shield laws also protect people from out-of-state investigations related to reproductive health care legal in Connecticut. > "the legislature did not intend a viable unborn fetus to be considered a human being for the purpose of the penal code" > — State v. Anonymous, 40 Conn. Supp. 498 (1986) **Legal analysis** Connecticut's abortion regulatory scheme (Chapter 368y, Title 19a) contains no penalty provision applicable to the pregnant person. The pre-Roe criminal abortion statutes were effectively superseded by PA 90-113, and no replacement criminal provisions were enacted. The Connecticut penal code (Title 53a) defines 'person' as 'a human being' (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3(1)) but does not define 'human being.' In State v. Anonymous, 40 Conn. Supp. 498 (1986), the superior court held that the legislature did not intend a viable unborn fetus to be a 'human being' for penal code purposes, meaning a fetus cannot be the victim of homicide under Connecticut law. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59c ('assault of a pregnant woman resulting in termination of pregnancy') applies only to a third-party assailant who commits first-degree assault on a pregnant woman — it does not reach the pregnant woman herself. There is no Connecticut statute criminalizing self-managed abortion. The state's shield provisions (PA 22-19, § 6) further prohibit state agencies from cooperating with out-of-state investigations into reproductive health care services legal in Connecticut. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · State v. Anonymous, 40 Conn. Supp. 498 (1986), [Connecticut General Assembly / OLR Research Report](https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS95/rpt/olr/htm/95-R-0372.htm) · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59c, subsection (a), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-53a/chapter-952/section-53a-59c)* ## Actors ### Who may perform **Physicians, APRNs, nurse-midwives, and PAs** Licensed physicians may perform any abortion; APRNs, nurse-midwives, and physician assistants may perform medication and aspiration abortions; no hospital or ASC requirement is imposed. In Connecticut, a licensed physician (MD or DO) can perform all types of abortion. Since 2022, advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs), certified nurse-midwives, and physician assistants can also provide medication abortion (using pills) and aspiration abortion (a suction procedure typically used in early pregnancy). Connecticut law does not require that abortions be performed in a hospital or ambulatory surgical center — outpatient clinics are permitted, and the state does not impose TRAP-style structural requirements on abortion facilities. > "A physician licensed pursuant to chapter 370 may perform an abortion, as defined in section 19a-912. An advanced practice registered nurse licensed pursuant to chapter 378, a nurse-midwife licensed pursuant to chapter 377 and a physician assistant licensed pursuant to chapter 370 may perform medication and aspiration abortions." > — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(c)-(d) **Legal analysis** Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(c) authorizes any 'physician licensed pursuant to chapter 370' to perform an abortion. Subsection (d), added by PA 22-19 (effective July 1, 2022), authorizes APRNs (chapter 378), nurse-midwives (chapter 377), and physician assistants (chapter 370) to 'perform medication and aspiration abortions under and in accordance with said chapters.' The DPH regulation at § 19-13-D54 formerly limited abortion to physicians, but PA 22-19 effectively superseded the regulation. Connecticut's outpatient clinic regulations (Conn. Agencies Regs. §§ 19a-116-1, 19-13-D45 through 19-13-D54) govern abortion facilities but do not impose ambulatory surgical center requirements, admitting-privileges requirements, or hospital-transfer-agreement requirements beyond general DPH facility standards. KFF and Guttmacher databases confirm Connecticut has no TRAP laws in effect. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(c)-(d), subsections (c) and (d), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368y/section-19a-602)* ### Criminal civil exposure #### Pregnant woman **No criminal or civil liability** The pregnant woman is not subject to criminal prosecution, civil liability, or any penalty under Connecticut law for obtaining or self-managing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Under Connecticut law, a person who has an abortion faces no criminal charges, fines, or civil liability. This is true whether the abortion is performed by a medical professional or self-managed. Connecticut's abortion statute imposes no penalty on the pregnant person, and the state's homicide laws do not apply to fetuses. The shield laws also protect people from out-of-state legal actions related to reproductive health care that is legal in Connecticut. **Legal analysis** Chapter 368y (Abortion) contains no penalty provision applicable to the patient. The pregnant woman is not mentioned as a potential defendant or subject of discipline. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59c (assault of a pregnant woman resulting in termination of pregnancy) is explicitly directed at a third-party assailant and cannot be construed to reach the pregnant woman herself. The penal code does not recognize a fetus as a 'human being' for homicide purposes (State v. Anonymous, 40 Conn. Supp. 498 (1986)). The shield laws (PA 22-19, § 1) create a civil cause of action allowing any person (including a patient) to recover damages from a party that brings or enforces an out-of-state judgment based on reproductive health care services legal in Connecticut. PA 22-19, § 6 prohibits Connecticut state agencies from cooperating with out-of-state investigations into reproductive health care services legal in the state. The combined effect is that the pregnant woman is shielded from both in-state and out-of-state liability. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Public Act No. 22-19, § 1, Section 1(b), [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-00019-R00HB-05414-PA.pdf)* #### Physician **No criminal penalty; licensing enforcement only** Physicians face no criminal penalty under Connecticut law for providing abortion; the only exposure is professional discipline if they violate the post-viability standard, and even that is shielded from out-of-state actions. Doctors who provide abortions in Connecticut do not face criminal charges. The state's abortion law has no criminal penalties. If a physician violated the post-viability restriction, the only consequence would be possible professional discipline by the Connecticut Department of Public Health or the Connecticut Medical Examining Board — not jail time. Connecticut's shield laws also protect physicians from having their Connecticut license disciplined because of actions taken by another state related to reproductive health care that is legal in Connecticut. **Legal analysis** Chapter 368y contains no criminal penalty provision. The pre-Roe criminal abortion provisions were superseded. A physician who performs a post-viability abortion in violation of § 19a-602(b) could theoretically face licensing discipline under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-17 (disciplinary action by DPH or professional boards), but PA 23-128 (codified at various provisions of Title 19a and 20) prohibits Connecticut licensing authorities from imposing discipline based solely on another state's disciplinary action related to reproductive health care services legal in Connecticut. PA 23-128 also shields physicians from adverse credentialing and privileging actions by health care institutions and from adverse actions by professional liability insurers based on out-of-state reproductive health care proceedings. The physician's maximum practical exposure is thus limited to Connecticut-initiated discipline for conduct that would independently violate Connecticut standards — a remote scenario given the breadth of the health exception. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Public Act No. 23-128, § 1(c), Section 1(c), [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/act/Pa/pdf/2023PA-00128-R00HB-06820-PA.PDF)* #### Prescriber pharmacist **No criminal exposure; shield law protects licensing** Non-physician prescribers (APRNs, nurse-midwives, PAs) and pharmacists face no criminal liability for prescribing or dispensing abortion medication; their licenses are protected from discipline based on out-of-state anti-abortion proceedings. Nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, physician assistants, and pharmacists face no criminal liability under Connecticut law for prescribing or dispensing abortion medication, including when filling prescriptions for patients from states where abortion is restricted. PA 23-128 specifically protects pharmacy professionals from having their Connecticut license disciplined because of actions by another state related to reproductive health care that is legal in Connecticut. Pharmacists are also protected from adverse action by the Commissioner of Consumer Protection and the Commission of Pharmacy based on out-of-state disciplinary proceedings related to reproductive health care. > "the Commissioner of Consumer Protection and the Commission of Pharmacy shall not impose disciplinary action against any person licensed, permitted or registered pursuant to the provisions of chapter 400j... based on pending disciplinary action, an unresolved complaint or the imposition of disciplinary action against the applicant by a duly authorized professional disciplinary agency of another state... that is based solely on the alleged provision of... reproductive health care services that are permitted under the laws of this state" > — Public Act No. 23-128, § 2(c) **Legal analysis** PA 23-128, § 2 expressly shields pharmacy professionals licensed under chapter 400j (pharmacy) from denial of licensure or disciplinary action by the Commissioner of Consumer Protection or the Commission of Pharmacy based solely on out-of-state disciplinary proceedings related to provision of reproductive health care services permitted under Connecticut law. Pharmacists filling valid prescriptions for mifepristone/misoprostol are acting within Connecticut law. The FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for mifepristone requires certification of prescribers and pharmacies but has been subject to ongoing federal litigation; as of this writing, certified pharmacies may dispense. No Connecticut statute independently restricts pharmacy dispensing of abortion medication. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Public Act No. 23-128, § 2(c), Section 2(c), [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/act/Pa/pdf/2023PA-00128-R00HB-06820-PA.PDF)* #### Nurses and staff **No criminal exposure; conscience protection exists** Nurses and clinic staff assisting in an abortion face no criminal liability; the DPH regulation provides an individual conscience exemption permitting any person to refuse participation. Nurses and clinic staff who help provide abortion care in Connecticut are not subject to criminal prosecution. In fact, the state's conscience protection regulation gives any staff member the right to refuse to participate in an abortion without penalty. But staff who do participate face no legal risk under Connecticut law. > "No person shall be required to participate in any phase of an abortion that violates his or her judgment, philosophical, moral or religious beliefs." > — Conn. Agencies Regs. § 19-13-D54(f) **Legal analysis** Connecticut has no criminal penalty applicable to persons who assist in abortion. The DPH regulation at § 19-13-D54(f) provides: 'No person shall be required to participate in any phase of an abortion that violates his or her judgment, philosophical, moral or religious beliefs.' This is an individual conscience protection, not a restriction on those who do participate. Because the abortion statute itself imposes no criminal penalty, aiding-and-abetting or accomplice liability under the penal code (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-8) cannot attach where the underlying conduct is not criminal. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Conn. Agencies Regs. § 19-13-D54(f), subsection (f), [ConscienceLaws.org / Connecticut eRegulations](https://www.consciencelaws.org/law/laws/usa-connecticut.aspx)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. #### Other helpers **No exposure; shield law covers help** A friend, family member, employer, or abortion fund that assists someone in obtaining an abortion faces no criminal or civil liability under Connecticut law, and the shield laws extend to those who 'assist' or provide 'material support.' Anyone who helps a person get an abortion — a friend who drives them to the clinic, a parent who pays, an employer who funds travel, an abortion fund — faces no criminal or civil liability under Connecticut law. The state's shield laws explicitly protect people who assist in or materially support the receipt of reproductive health care, and state agencies are prohibited from cooperating with out-of-state investigations into such assistance. > "No public agency... may provide any information or expend or use time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel or other resources in furtherance of any interstate investigation or proceeding seeking to impose civil or criminal liability upon a person or entity for... assisting any person or entity providing, seeking, receiving or responding to an inquiry about reproductive health care services... that are legal in this state." > — Public Act No. 22-19, § 6 **Legal analysis** PA 22-19, § 1(b) creates a civil cause of action for 'any person' against whom a judgment is entered 'in any state' where liability is based on 'the alleged provision, receipt, assistance in receipt or provision, material support for, or any theory of vicarious, joint, several or conspiracy liability derived therefrom' for reproductive health care services permitted under Connecticut law. PA 22-19, § 6 prohibits any Connecticut public agency from providing information or expending resources 'in furtherance of any interstate investigation or proceeding seeking to impose civil or criminal liability upon a person or entity for... the provision, seeking or receipt of or inquiring about reproductive health care services... or... assisting any person or entity providing, seeking, receiving or responding to an inquiry about reproductive health care services' that are legal in Connecticut. This extends protections to the full ecosystem of assistance — practical, financial, and informational. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Public Act No. 22-19, § 6, Section 6, [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-00019-R00HB-05414-PA.pdf)* ## Aiding & assisting ### Travel assistance **Protected; no 'abortion trafficking' law** Connecticut has no law criminalizing assistance with abortion travel; its shield laws affirmatively protect those who assist others in accessing reproductive health care, including travel assistance. Helping someone travel for an abortion — whether within Connecticut or to another state — is fully legal and protected. Connecticut has no 'abortion trafficking' law or any statute that criminalizes helping a minor or adult travel for abortion care. The shield laws go further: they prohibit Connecticut officials from cooperating with out-of-state investigations into such assistance and allow people to countersue if an out-of-state judgment is entered against them for assisting with reproductive health care. > "no judge shall issue a summons in a case where prosecution is pending, or where a grand jury investigation has commenced or is about to commence for a criminal violation of a law of such other state involving the provision or receipt of or assistance with reproductive health care services... that are legal in this state, unless the acts forming the basis of the prosecution or investigation would also constitute an offense in this state" > — Public Act No. 22-19, § 4 (amending Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-82i(b)) **Legal analysis** Connecticut has not enacted any law analogous to Idaho's 'abortion trafficking' statute or similar travel-assistance criminalization. PA 22-19, § 6 expressly prohibits state cooperation with interstate investigations targeting assistance with reproductive health care services. PA 22-19, § 1 creates a cause of action for damages against parties who bring or enforce out-of-state judgments based on assisting with reproductive health care. The extradition provision at § 5 of PA 22-19 (amending Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-162) limits gubernatorial extradition for out-of-state charges involving reproductive health care services legal in Connecticut to cases where the acts 'would be punishable by the laws of this state' — which travel assistance is not. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Public Act No. 22-19, § 4 (amending Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-82i(b)), Section 4, [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-00019-R00HB-05414-PA.pdf)* ### Funding **No restriction on funding assistance** Connecticut law imposes no restriction on paying for another person's abortion or abortion travel; abortion funds, employers, and individuals are free to provide financial assistance, and shield laws protect them. There is no Connecticut law that restricts or prohibits anyone — an abortion fund, an employer, a family member, a friend — from paying for someone else's abortion, for travel to obtain one, or for related expenses. The state's own Medicaid program covers abortion. Employers who offer abortion-related travel benefits are not restricted by state law. Shield law protections extend to those who provide 'material support' for reproductive health care. **Legal analysis** No Connecticut statute criminalizes or restricts the funding of abortion care or related travel. PA 22-19, § 1(b) expressly includes 'material support for' reproductive health care services within the scope of protected conduct giving rise to a cause of action against out-of-state judgment-enforcement. PA 22-19, § 6 prohibits state agencies from assisting interstate investigations targeting anyone who assists, which encompasses financial assistance. Connecticut's Medicaid program (HUSKY) affirmatively covers medically necessary abortion, demonstrating the state's policy of facilitating, rather than restricting, funding. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Public Act No. 22-19, § 1(b), Section 1(b), [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-00019-R00HB-05414-PA.pdf)* ### Mailing pills **Not prohibited by state law** Connecticut has no law prohibiting the mailing of abortion medication into or within the state; shield laws protect both senders and recipients from out-of-state liability. It is not illegal under Connecticut law to send or receive abortion pills by mail. There is no state statute that restricts mailing abortion medication. The federal Comstock Act has not been enforced against abortion medication by the Department of Justice in recent years, though this could change. Connecticut's shield laws protect people from out-of-state lawsuits or investigations related to mailing pills that are legal in Connecticut. **Legal analysis** No Connecticut statute prohibits mailing abortion medication. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-912(1) expressly includes pharmacological abortion within the definition of 'abortion,' and § 19a-602 treats it the same as procedural abortion — legal until viability and afterward for life or health. The federal Comstock Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 1461-1462) remains on the books but has not been enforced against mifepristone/misoprostol mailings in the post-Dobbs era; a 2022 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion concluded it does not prohibit mailing where the sender lacks intent that the drugs be used unlawfully. Connecticut's shield laws (PA 22-19, PA 23-128) provide state-level protection against out-of-state enforcement actions targeting mail-based provision of abortion medication. *Sources — Verified at source · Medium confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-912(1), subsection (1), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368-i-ll-i/section-19a-912)* **Editor's note.** Federal Comstock Act risk is unsettled. Connecticut shield laws reduce but cannot eliminate federal exposure if DOJ enforcement posture changes. ### Providing information **No liability; First Amendment shield** Providing abortion-related information, referrals, or website links is not criminalized in Connecticut; the First Amendment would protect such speech even if it were targeted. Giving someone information about abortion — where to go, how to get pills, what the law is — is fully legal in Connecticut. The state does not criminalize providing information, referrals, or website addresses related to abortion care. Connecticut has even set up its own Abortion Legal Hotline with the Attorney General's support to provide free legal guidance. **Legal analysis** No Connecticut statute criminalizes the provision of information about abortion. Under the First Amendment (as interpreted in Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975), and related precedent), speech about lawful activity — including advertising abortion services where abortion is legal — is constitutionally protected. Connecticut's shield laws further protect informational assistance: PA 22-19, § 6 prohibits state cooperation with investigations targeting anyone 'assisting any person or entity providing, seeking, receiving or responding to an inquiry about reproductive health care services.' The state affirmatively facilitates information access through the Abortion Legal Hotline (833-309-6301), a partnership between Reproductive Equity Now, the Attorney General's office, and private law firms. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Public Act No. 22-19, § 6, Section 6, [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-00019-R00HB-05414-PA.pdf)* ### Civil bounty **No civil bounty or SB8-style law** Connecticut has not enacted any law authorizing private civil enforcement against abortion providers, patients, or helpers; its shield laws in fact create a reverse cause of action against those who bring such suits in other states. Connecticut has no law like Texas's SB 8 that allows private citizens to sue abortion providers or helpers. Instead, Connecticut has done the opposite: its Reproductive Freedom Defense Act allows anyone targeted by an out-of-state abortion-related lawsuit to sue the person who brought that lawsuit and recover damages, including attorney's fees. This turns civil-bounty logic on its head. > "When any person has had a judgment entered against such person, in any state, where liability, in whole or in part, is based on the alleged provision, receipt, assistance in receipt or provision, material support for... reproductive health care services that are permitted under the laws of this state, such person may recover damages from any party that brought the action leading to that judgment." > — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571m / Public Act No. 22-19, § 1(b) **Legal analysis** No Connecticut statute authorizes private civil enforcement of abortion restrictions. Instead, PA 22-19, § 1 (codified at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571m) creates an affirmative cause of action for any person who has had a judgment entered against them in another state based on the provision, receipt, assistance in, or material support for reproductive health care services permitted under Connecticut law. Recoverable damages include 'just damages created by the action that led to that judgment, including, but not limited to, money damages in the amount of the judgment in that other state and costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's fees spent in defending the action' plus costs and fees incurred in bringing the Connecticut action. This reverse-bounty mechanism is designed to deter SB8-style litigation by imposing financial consequences on would-be plaintiffs. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571m / Public Act No. 22-19, § 1(b), Section 1(b), [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-00019-R00HB-05414-PA.pdf)* ## Procedural requirements ### Waiting period **No waiting period** Connecticut imposes no mandatory delay between receiving information or counseling and obtaining an abortion; a person may receive care on the same day as their initial consultation. Connecticut does not require a person to wait any amount of time between an initial consultation and receiving an abortion. Someone can have a counseling session or medical consultation and proceed with the abortion on the same day. This makes Connecticut one of the most accessible states for abortion care. **Legal analysis** No Connecticut statute or regulation imposes a mandatory waiting period. Chapter 368y contains no provisions requiring a delay between the pregnancy-information session required for minors under § 19a-601 and the abortion itself. Compare this with states that impose 24-, 48-, or 72-hour waiting periods. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* **Editor's note.** The absence of a waiting period was confirmed by reviewing Chapter 368y in its entirety and by cross-referencing Guttmacher and KFF state-policy trackers, all of which list Connecticut as having no waiting period. ### Mandatory counseling **No state-scripted counseling** Connecticut does not mandate state-scripted counseling or materials for adults; minors must receive pregnancy information and counseling under § 19a-601, but that counseling is informational and not state-scripted with medically contested statements. For adults, Connecticut imposes no mandatory counseling at all. For people under 18, the law requires a physician or counselor to provide pregnancy information and counseling — explaining alternatives (parenting, adoption, abortion), available resources, and the option of involving parents. This counseling is meant to be neutral and informative, not coercive. It does not include the kind of state-scripted warnings (e.g., about breast cancer risk, fetal pain, or mental health consequences) found in some other states. > "Explain that the information being given to the minor is being given objectively and is not intended to coerce, persuade or induce the minor to choose to have an abortion or to carry the pregnancy to term." > — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-601(a)(1) **Legal analysis** Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-601 requires that, before an abortion is performed on a minor, a physician or counselor provide pregnancy information and counseling covering: the objectivity of the information, the right to change her decision, alternative choices (parenting, adoption, abortion) and the agencies available to assist with each, birth control information, the possibility of involving parents or other adult family members, and an opportunity to ask questions. The counselor must explain that the information 'is being given objectively and is not intended to coerce, persuade or induce the minor to choose to have an abortion or to carry the pregnancy to term.' A signed form is required. This is notably not state-scripted propaganda — the statute explicitly mandates neutrality. For adults, there is no mandatory counseling requirement. The DPH regulation at § 19-13-D54(e) requires only that the physician 'inform the patient of the nature and purpose of the abortion procedure and its possible complications,' which is standard medical informed consent, not state-scripted counseling. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-601(a)(1), subsection (a)(1), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368y/section-19a-601)* ### Ultrasound requirement **No ultrasound requirement** Connecticut does not require an ultrasound before an abortion, nor does it require that ultrasound images be displayed or described to the patient. Connecticut law does not require a person to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion. There is also no requirement that a provider show or describe ultrasound images if one is performed for medical reasons. This contrasts with many other states that mandate ultrasounds. **Legal analysis** No Connecticut statute or regulation requires the performance, offering, display, or description of an ultrasound as a precondition to abortion. Section 19a-602 and the regulations at §§ 19-13-D45 through 19-13-D54 are silent on ultrasound. KFF and Guttmacher databases confirm Connecticut has no ultrasound requirement. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ### In person visits **No mandatory in-person visits** Connecticut law does not compel any in-person visit for abortion care; medication abortion can be provided entirely via telehealth, and procedural abortion requires only the procedure visit itself. Connecticut law does not require any minimum number of in-person visits for an abortion. For medication abortion, a person can have a telehealth consultation and receive pills by mail — no in-person visit at all. For procedural abortion, the only required visit is the procedure itself, and there is no legal requirement for an advance in-person counseling session. **Legal analysis** No Connecticut statute or regulation mandates a pre-abortion in-person visit. PA 22-19 and PA 23-128 contain no in-person dispensing or examination requirements. The counseling required for minors under § 19a-601 does not specify that it must be in person (though in practice it usually is). The statutory framework is compatible with fully remote telehealth prescribing and mail-order dispensing of medication abortion. No in-person follow-up visit is required by statute or regulation. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ## Minors ### Parental involvement **No parental consent or notification required** Connecticut does not require a minor to obtain parental consent or give parental notice before obtaining an abortion; minors under 16 must receive pregnancy information and counseling from a physician or qualified counselor, but parents need not be involved. In Connecticut, a person under 18 can get an abortion without telling a parent or guardian and without getting their permission. The law does require that a minor under 16 receive pregnancy information and counseling from a doctor or a qualified counselor (such as a social worker, clergy member, or school counselor), but this is meant to help the minor make an informed decision — not to involve parents. The counselor must explain the alternatives and the option of involving parents, but the minor can decide not to involve them. A 2025 law (PA 25-28) expanded these protections to explicitly codify minors' right to consent to contraceptive and pregnancy-related care. > "Any minor child may give consent for services, examination or treatment related to pregnancy and pregnancy prevention without the consent or notification of the minor child's parent or guardian." > — Public Act No. 25-28, § 1(b) **Legal analysis** Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-601 requires that before an abortion is performed on a 'minor' (which the statute does not define by age, but which Connecticut generally treats as under 18), a physician or 'counselor' — a broadly defined term including psychiatrists, psychologists, clinical social workers, marital and family therapists, clergy, physician assistants, nurse-midwives, school counselors, registered nurses, and practical nurses — must provide specified pregnancy information and counseling. This is not a parental consent, notification, or involvement requirement. The minor signs a form acknowledging receipt of the information; the counselor does not inform parents. A medical emergency exception applies. PA 25-28 (effective June 9, 2025) amended Connecticut law to explicitly permit minors to consent to 'services, examination or treatment related to pregnancy and pregnancy prevention' without parental consent or notification and to protect the confidentiality of such care, including from billing disclosure. Connecticut is thus one of a minority of states with no parental involvement requirement for abortion. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Public Act No. 25-28, § 1(b), Section 1(b), [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/act/pa/pdf/2025PA-00028-R00HB-07213-PA.pdf) · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-601, subsection (a), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368y/section-19a-601)* **Editor's note.** Section 19a-601 uses 'minor' without specifying an age. PA 25-28 defines 'minor child' as under 18. The § 19a-601 counseling requirement applies to all minors under 18, though some sources cite the pre-2025 law's age threshold as under 16. ### Judicial bypass **Not needed; no consent requirement exists** Because Connecticut does not require parental consent or notification for a minor's abortion, no judicial bypass mechanism is necessary and none exists. Judicial bypass is a legal process that allows a minor to get a judge's permission for an abortion instead of involving a parent. Connecticut does not have this process because it does not require parental involvement at all — a minor can consent to an abortion on her own. **Legal analysis** Judicial bypass is a procedural mechanism that exists only in jurisdictions that require parental consent or notification. Connecticut imposes no such requirement, so no bypass procedure exists. The § 19a-601 counseling requirement applies to all minors and does not include an opt-out or bypass mechanism because none is needed — the counseling is informational and does not require parental involvement. *Sources — No law on this point · High confidence* ## Paternal spousal rights ### Consent or notice laws **No spousal or paternal consent law** Connecticut has never had — and currently does not have — any statute requiring spousal or paternal consent for or notice of abortion. Connecticut law does not give a husband, partner, or biological father any right to consent to or be notified of an abortion. The decision belongs solely to the pregnant patient. Even before the 1990 codification, Connecticut did not have a spousal-consent statute. > "The decision to terminate a pregnancy prior to the viability of the fetus shall be solely that of the patient." > — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(a) **Legal analysis** No Connecticut statute in Chapter 368y or elsewhere requires spousal consent, spousal notification, or paternal consent for an abortion. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(a) places the decision 'solely' with the patient in consultation with the health care provider. This is consistent with Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), which struck down a Missouri spousal-consent requirement. Connecticut had no such requirement to strike down then and has enacted none since. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(a), subsection (a), [FindLaw](https://codes.findlaw.com/ct/title-19a-public-health-and-well-being/ct-gen-st-sect-19a-602)* ### Enforceability **Not applicable; no law to enforce** There is no spousal or paternal consent/notice statute on the books to enforce; Planned Parenthood v. Danforth and Planned Parenthood v. Casey would render any such law unconstitutional under current federal precedent, but Connecticut has no such law regardless. Since Connecticut has no spousal or paternal consent law, there is nothing to enforce. Even if one were enacted, the Supreme Court cases Planned Parenthood v. Danforth (1976) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) held that spousal consent requirements are unconstitutional. Although Dobbs (2022) removed the federal constitutional right to abortion, it did not specifically address spousal consent — but Connecticut's statutory scheme independently protects the patient's sole decision-making authority, and there is no political movement in the state to enact spousal-consent legislation. **Legal analysis** Danforth, 428 U.S. at 69-71, struck down Missouri's spousal-consent requirement as unconstitutional because 'the State cannot delegate to a spouse a veto power which the state itself is absolutely and totally prohibited from exercising during the first trimester of pregnancy.' Casey, 505 U.S. at 893-98, reaffirmed and applied this holding to a spousal-notification provision. Dobbs, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), did not directly address spousal consent, and its abrogation of the trimester framework and the undue-burden standard may open the question at the federal level. However, Connecticut has independently codified the patient's sole decision-making authority and would require legislative action to introduce a spousal requirement — which the current political environment makes unlikely. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976), Section III, [Justia / Supreme Court](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/52)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Other paternal rights **No paternal abortion-veto rights** Connecticut law confers no rights on a putative father to veto, delay, or receive notice of an abortion; wrongful-death standing for viable fetuses runs to the estate administrator, not exclusively to the father. A biological father or putative father has no legal right under Connecticut law to prevent, delay, or even be notified of an abortion. The father cannot sue the pregnant person, the provider, or anyone else to stop an abortion. While Connecticut allows a wrongful-death lawsuit for a viable fetus, that right belongs to the estate's administrator (who could be a father but need not be) and has never been applied to a lawful abortion. There have been no successful father-initiated injunction attempts in Connecticut. **Legal analysis** Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(a) vests the abortion decision 'solely' in the patient. No Connecticut statute gives a father standing to seek an injunction against an abortion. Connecticut case law allowing wrongful-death actions for viable fetuses (Simon v. Mullin, 34 Conn. Supp. 139 (1977); Hatala v. Markiewicz, 26 Conn. Supp. 358 (1965)) runs to the estate administrator under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-555, not to the father as such. The father could serve as administrator but would face the obstacle that a lawful abortion is not a 'wrongful' death. No Connecticut court has permitted a wrongful-death action based on a lawful abortion. There is no putative-father registry relevant to abortion in Connecticut. *Sources — Verify before publication · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-555, annotations, [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-52/chapter-925/section-52-555)* **Editor's note.** The Simon v. Mullin text was not directly verified at the primary source. The annotation on Justia was confirmed. An editor should verify the case citation independently. ## Fetal personhood ### Fetal homicide law **No fetal homicide; fetus not a 'person'** Connecticut's penal code does not recognize a fetus as a 'human being' for homicide purposes; the superior court in State v. Anonymous held that the legislature did not so intend, and the legislature has not amended the code to include a fetal homicide provision. Under Connecticut criminal law, killing a fetus is not murder or manslaughter. The state's murder statute applies only to killing a 'person,' and Connecticut courts have ruled that a fetus is not a 'person' under the criminal code. The legislature has never passed a fetal-homicide law despite legislative proposals. However, Connecticut does have a separate crime for assaulting a pregnant woman that results in the loss of the pregnancy — but this treats the offense as a crime against the pregnant woman, not a separate crime against the fetus. > "the legislature did not intend a viable unborn fetus to be considered a human being for the purpose of the penal code" > — State v. Anonymous, 40 Conn. Supp. 498 (1986) **Legal analysis** Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-54a defines murder as causing 'the death of another person.' Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3(1) defines 'person' as 'a human being' but does not define 'human being.' In State v. Anonymous, 40 Conn. Supp. 498 (1986), the superior court held that the legislature did not intend a viable unborn fetus to be considered a human being for penal code purposes, basing its analysis on (1) the Model Penal Code and New York codes from which Connecticut's code was drawn, which define 'human being' as a person who has been born and is alive, (2) the absence of 'unborn child' from the penal code despite its presence elsewhere in the statutes, (3) the common-law rule, (4) constitutional notice requirements, and (5) the legislature's primary authority to define crimes. The court confirmed that the 'born alive' rule applies: if a child is born alive and then dies from prenatal injuries, the homicide statutes may apply. See State v. Courchesne, 46 Conn. Supp. 63 (1999). Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59c (assault of a pregnant woman resulting in termination of pregnancy, a class A felony) penalizes third-party assault on a pregnant person that causes pregnancy loss but categorizes the crime as an aggravated assault against the woman, not a homicide of the fetus. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · State v. Anonymous, 40 Conn. Supp. 498 (1986), [Connecticut General Assembly / OLR Research Report 2002-R-0227](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0227.htm) · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59c, subsection (a), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-53a/chapter-952/section-53a-59c)* **Editor's note.** State v. Anonymous is a superior court decision, not a Supreme Court decision. While highly persuasive, it is not binding statewide precedent in the same way a Supreme Court ruling would be. ### Wrongful death **Viable-fetus wrongful-death actions permitted** Connecticut case law permits a wrongful-death action for a viable fetus under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-555, but recovery for a non-viable fetus has been denied. Connecticut courts have allowed wrongful-death lawsuits for fetuses that were viable (able to survive outside the womb) at the time of injury. For a fetus that was not yet viable, courts have generally not allowed a wrongful-death claim. This right belongs to the administrator of the fetus's estate, not automatically to either parent. > "no cause of action lies in this state for a non-viable fetus" > — Simon v. Mullin, 34 Conn. Supp. 139, 380 A.2d 1353 (Conn. Super. 1977) **Legal analysis** Connecticut's wrongful-death statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-555, allows an executor or administrator to recover 'just damages' for injuries resulting in death. The supreme court has not ruled directly, but superior court decisions have permitted wrongful-death actions on behalf of viable fetuses. In Simon v. Mullin, 34 Conn. Supp. 139 (1977), the court dismissed a wrongful-death claim for a non-viable fetus (fourth month of pregnancy) on the ground that 'no cause of action lies in this state for a non-viable fetus.' In Hatala v. Markiewicz, 26 Conn. Supp. 355 (1965), and Gorke v. LeClerc, 23 Conn. Supp. 262 (1962), courts permitted wrongful-death actions for viable fetuses. The birth-alive rule applies: if the child is born alive and then dies from prenatal injuries, an action lies regardless of viability at the time of injury. See State v. Courchesne, 46 Conn. Supp. 63 (1999). *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Simon v. Mullin, 34 Conn. Supp. 139, 380 A.2d 1353 (Conn. Super. 1977), [vLex](https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/simon-v-mullin-no-888317285)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Personhood definition **No fetal-personhood language in law** Connecticut statutes and constitution contain no language defining a fetus, embryo, or unborn child as a 'person,' 'human being,' or 'child' for purposes of contradicting abortion rights. Connecticut law does not contain fetal-personhood language. The criminal code defines 'person' as 'a human being' but courts have interpreted this to exclude fetuses. The state constitution has no provision defining personhood as beginning at conception. There is no statute declaring that life begins at fertilization or conferring legal personhood on embryos or fetuses. **Legal analysis** Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3(1) defines 'person' as 'a human being' for penal code purposes, and State v. Anonymous, 40 Conn. Supp. 498 (1986), definitively held that this does not include an unborn fetus. The Connecticut Constitution contains no fetal-personhood provision. No statute in Title 19a, 45a, 46b, or elsewhere defines 'person,' 'child,' or 'human being' to include the unborn for purposes of contradicting the abortion framework. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(a) treats the decision as belonging to the 'patient,' not as a balancing of rights between the patient and the fetus. The statutory framework — protecting abortion until viability and recognizing a health exception thereafter — is inconsistent with fetal-personhood theory. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3(1), [Connecticut General Assembly / OLR Report](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0227.htm)* ### Contradictions analysis Connecticut's legal framework is unusually consistent on fetal personhood: it treats the fetus as a being that can support a civil wrongful-death action once viable, but not as a 'person' for criminal-homicide purposes at any stage. This is not a contradiction but a deliberate calibration: the criminal law does not recognize fetal personhood, so neither abortion nor self-managed abortion can be homicide. The civil law recognizes a viable fetus's interest sufficiently to permit a wrongful-death action when a third party tortiously causes its death — but even that right is vested in an estate administrator, not the fetus itself, and has never been extended to lawful abortion. The 'assault of a pregnant woman resulting in termination of pregnancy' statute (§ 53a-59c) further illustrates the framework: it punishes the assailant for harm to the pregnant woman, not for killing a separate person. The result is that Connecticut law simultaneously permits abortion up to viability (and beyond for health) while allowing civil recovery for tortious prenatal death — a coherent dual-track system that does not create the internal contradictions seen in jurisdictions where the same code section both permits abortion and defines the fetus as a person for homicide purposes. ## Telehealth & interstate questions ### Telehealth prescribing **Telehealth prescribing fully permitted** Connecticut law permits abortion medication to be prescribed via telehealth to patients located in Connecticut, without an in-person visit; no state law restricts telehealth for abortion. A person in Connecticut can have a video or phone consultation with a health care provider and receive a prescription for abortion medication without ever visiting a clinic in person. This is true whether the provider is in Connecticut or in another state (though out-of-state providers must comply with Connecticut law). The medication can be mailed to the patient's address in Connecticut. **Legal analysis** No Connecticut statute or regulation restricts telehealth prescribing for abortion. The statutes authorizing APRNs, nurse-midwives, and PAs to provide medication abortion (§ 19a-602(d)) do not impose an in-person requirement. Connecticut's general telehealth law (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-906) recognizes telehealth as a valid mode of health care delivery. The FDA REMS for mifepristone no longer requires in-person dispensing as a result of FDA regulatory changes in 2021 (permanently adopted in 2023) and litigation. There is no Connecticut in-person examination, dispensing, or follow-up requirement unique to abortion medication. The state's shield laws protect Connecticut-licensed providers who prescribe via telehealth to out-of-state patients, provided the services comply with Connecticut law. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602(d), subsection (d), [Justia](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368y/section-19a-602)* ### Out of state travel **Travel out of state fully lawful** Connecticut residents may lawfully travel to another state for an abortion; Connecticut imposes no restriction and affirmatively protects the right to travel through its shield laws. Connecticut residents are free to leave the state to get an abortion elsewhere. Connecticut has no law that restricts, penalizes, or even regulates out-of-state travel for abortion. The state's shield laws also protect people from being investigated or sued in Connecticut for traveling out of state to obtain an abortion that is legal in the destination state. **Legal analysis** No Connecticut statute restricts interstate travel for abortion. The constitutional right to travel (Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)) independently protects the right to cross state lines for lawful purposes. Connecticut's shield laws extend to the receipt of reproductive health care services, and PA 22-19, § 6 prohibits state agencies from assisting out-of-state investigations targeting reproductive health care that is legal in Connecticut — which would encompass pre-travel planning for out-of-state care. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Public Act No. 22-19, § 6, Section 6, [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-00019-R00HB-05414-PA.pdf)* ### Shield or hostile laws **Robust shield laws enacted 2022-2023** Connecticut has enacted comprehensive shield laws through PA 22-19 and PA 23-128 protecting providers, patients, and helpers from out-of-state investigations, subpoenas, extradition, licensing discipline, and adverse insurance actions related to reproductive health care legal in Connecticut. Connecticut has some of the strongest shield laws in the country. They protect anyone who provides, receives, or helps with reproductive health care — including abortion — from being investigated, sued, or disciplined because of another state's laws. Connecticut courts will not issue subpoenas from out-of-state abortion cases. State agencies cannot spend resources helping other states investigate reproductive health care that is legal in Connecticut. A provider's Connecticut license cannot be disciplined because another state penalized them for providing abortion care. Insurance companies cannot raise rates or cancel coverage because a provider offered abortion care. And anyone who gets sued in another state for abortion-related care can countersue the person who sued them in Connecticut court. > "No public agency... may provide any information or expend or use time, money, facilities, property, equipment, personnel or other resources in furtherance of any interstate investigation or proceeding seeking to impose civil or criminal liability upon a person or entity for... the provision, seeking or receipt of or inquiring about reproductive health care services... that are legal in this state." > — Public Act No. 22-19 **Legal analysis** The shield framework has three legislative layers. First, PA 22-19 (Reproductive Freedom Defense Act, effective July 1, 2022) provides: (a) a civil cause of action (now Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571m) allowing any person subject to an out-of-state judgment based on reproductive health care services permitted in Connecticut to recover damages against the party who brought the action; (b) a patient confidentiality provision for reproductive health care (PA 22-19, § 2); (c) a prohibition on Connecticut courts issuing subpoenas from out-of-state proceedings relating to reproductive health care services legal in Connecticut (§ 3); (d) limits on compelling Connecticut witnesses to testify in out-of-state criminal proceedings involving reproductive health care legal in Connecticut (§ 4, amending § 54-82i(b)); (e) limits on gubernatorial extradition for reproductive health care services legal in Connecticut (§ 5, amending § 54-162); and (f) a prohibition on state agencies cooperating with interstate investigations targeting reproductive health care services legal in Connecticut (§ 6). Second, PA 23-128 (effective June 27, 2023) adds: (a) prohibition on DPH denying licensure or imposing discipline based on out-of-state reproductive-health-care-related proceedings (§ 1); (b) parallel protections for pharmacy professionals (§ 2); (c) prohibition on health care institutions taking adverse credentialing/privileging actions for the same reason (§ 3); and (d) prohibition on professional liability insurers taking adverse action (§ 4). Third, the Attorney General actively enforces these provisions and has appointed special counsel for reproductive rights. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Public Act No. 22-19, Section 6, [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-00019-R00HB-05414-PA.pdf) · Public Act No. 23-128, Section 4(b), [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/act/Pa/pdf/2023PA-00128-R00HB-06820-PA.PDF)* **Editor's note.** The shield-law provisions have not been tested in litigation between states. The effectiveness of these laws against a determined anti-abortion state is not yet judicially established. The Full Faith and Credit Clause and the Extradition Clause of the U.S. Constitution may create friction points that courts have not yet resolved. ## Funding and insurance ### Medicaid **Medicaid covers abortion beyond Hyde** Connecticut's HUSKY Health (Medicaid) program covers medically necessary abortion regardless of whether the pregnancy results from rape or incest or threatens life — broader than the federal Hyde Amendment — as a result of the 1986 Doe v. Maher decision. Connecticut's Medicaid program — called HUSKY Health — covers abortion care. Unlike many states that only cover abortion in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment (the federal Hyde Amendment minimum), Connecticut covers all abortions that a physician certifies as medically necessary. This includes elective abortion, because 'medical necessity' under Connecticut law is broadly defined and the physician alone makes that determination. The state pays for this coverage entirely with state funds rather than seeking federal reimbursement for abortions beyond the Hyde categories. > "The Department of Social Services (DSS) pays for abortions that physicians certify as 'medically necessary' under CGS § 17b-259b." > — Doe v. Maher, 40 Conn. Supp. 394, 515 A.2d 134 (1986) **Legal analysis** In Doe v. Maher, 40 Conn. Supp. 394 (1986), the Connecticut Superior Court held that a Department of Income Maintenance regulation restricting Medicaid abortion coverage to life-endangerment cases violated the due process, equal protection, and equal rights amendments of the Connecticut Constitution. The state was ordered to cover medically necessary abortions. DSS regulations at Conn. Agencies Regs. § 17b-262-348(r)(3) now provide that DSS pays for all abortions that a physician certifies as medically necessary. Medical necessity is defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17b-259b to include services to 'prevent, identify, diagnose, treat, rehabilitate, or ameliorate an individual's medical condition, including mental illness' — a definition broad enough to encompass elective abortion. The physician alone determines medical necessity. A 1998 Attorney General formal opinion (1998-022) extended the Doe v. Maher holding to HUSKY B (CHIP), requiring medically necessary abortion coverage in that program as well. The coverage applies to all HUSKY programs (A, B, C, and D). The state assumes 100% of the cost for abortions beyond Hyde categories rather than submitting claims for federal reimbursement. *Sources — Verified at source · High confidence · Doe v. Maher, 40 Conn. Supp. 394, 515 A.2d 134 (1986), pages 1-2, [Connecticut General Assembly / OLR Report 2018-R-0260](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0260.pdf) · Conn. Agencies Regs. § 17b-262-348(r)(3), page 3, [Connecticut General Assembly / OLR Report](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0260.pdf)* **Editor's note.** The DSS regulation text was verified through the OLR Report, not directly from the Connecticut eRegulations system. An editor should verify § 17b-262-348(r)(3) at the primary source. ### Private insurance **No coverage mandate or restriction** Connecticut has no law requiring private insurance plans to cover abortion, and no law prohibiting them from doing so; it is left to the market and individual plan terms. Private health insurance plans in Connecticut are free to cover abortion, but the state does not require them to do so. Whether your plan covers abortion depends on your specific insurance policy. Connecticut has no law like those in some states that ban private insurance from covering abortion or require a separate rider. **Legal analysis** Connecticut has not enacted any law restricting private insurance coverage of abortion (no rider requirement, no outright ban), nor has it enacted a mandate requiring abortion coverage. The marketplace operates on a default-permissive basis. The ACA allows states to prohibit abortion coverage in exchange plans; Connecticut has not adopted such a prohibition. As of the 2014 OLR Report on exchange plans, Connecticut had not restricted abortion coverage in plans offered through Access Health CT, and no subsequent legislation has changed that. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · OLR Research Report 2014-R-0121, [Connecticut General Assembly Office of Legislative Research](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/2014-R-0121.htm)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### Exchange plans **No exchange-plan abortion restriction** Connecticut has not prohibited abortion coverage in plans sold on its ACA health insurance exchange, Access Health CT; plans may include or exclude abortion coverage according to issuer choice. Health insurance plans sold through Connecticut's official marketplace, Access Health CT, are not restricted from covering abortion. Some plans may cover it, some may not — it depends on the plan, not on state law. This differs from many states that have specifically banned abortion coverage in exchange plans. **Legal analysis** The ACA permits states to enact legislation prohibiting abortion coverage in qualified health plans offered through the exchange. 42 U.S.C. § 18023. Connecticut has not enacted such legislation. No Connecticut statute modifies the default federal rule for exchange-plan abortion coverage. Pursuant to ACA § 1303, plans covering abortion beyond Hyde categories must segregate funds and provide notice, but Connecticut has not added state-specific requirements. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · OLR Research Report 2014-R-0121, [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2014/rpt/2014-R-0121.htm)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ### State funding of providers **State funds providers; no defunding** Connecticut has not enacted any statute defunding abortion providers; state Medicaid funds flow to abortion providers, and the state has opposed federal efforts to defund Planned Parenthood and similar providers. Connecticut does not defund abortion providers. The state's Medicaid program pays for abortion care, which means state funds flow to clinics and providers that offer abortion services. The state Attorney General has joined lawsuits opposing federal efforts to cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. **Legal analysis** No Connecticut statute excludes abortion providers from state funding streams. Conn. Agencies Regs. § 17b-262-348(r)(3) explicitly covers abortion services under Medicaid when certified as medically necessary, directing state funds (not federal funds) to abortion providers for services beyond Hyde categories. In 2025, Attorney General Tong joined litigation challenging federal efforts to cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, consistent with the state's affirmative posture of funding rather than defunding reproductive health care providers. *Sources — Semi-verified · High confidence · Attorney General Tong Leads Brief Fighting Unlawful Defunding of Planned Parenthood (2025), [Connecticut Attorney General's Office](https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2025-press-releases/attorney-general-tong-leads-brief-fighting-unlawful-defunding-of-planned-parenthood)* **Editor's note.** Status set by the research runner: the claim matched search-result snippets, but none of the cited pages were opened in full during research. Confirm the quoted text at the cited URL before publication. ## Penalties | Actor | Offense | Penalty | Verification | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Pregnant person / patient | None — abortion is not criminalized under Connecticut law, and no penalty applies to the person who obtains or self-manages an abortion | None | Verified at source | | Physician | None — abortion is not criminalized; potential licensing discipline for post-viability violation (theoretical only, given breadth of health exception and shield-law protections) | Licensing discipline only (no criminal penalty); shield laws prevent discipline based on out-of-state proceedings | Verified at source | | APRN / nurse-midwife / physician assistant | None — same analysis as physician; authorized to perform medication and aspiration abortion under § 19a-602(d) | Licensing discipline only (theoretical); same shield-law protections as physicians | Verified at source | | Pharmacist | None — shielded from licensing discipline based on out-of-state proceedings under PA 23-128 | None; shield-law protections under PA 23-128, § 2 | Verified at source | | Nurses, clinic staff, and counselors | None | None; conscience exemption permits refusal to participate (Conn. Agencies Regs. § 19-13-D54(f)) | Semi-verified | | Helpers (friends, family, abortion funds, employers, anyone who assists) | None — shield laws affirmatively protect those who assist with or materially support reproductive health care services | None; PA 22-19 § 1 creates a right to recover damages from out-of-state litigants who obtain judgments against helpers; PA 22-19 § 6 prohibits state cooperation with interstate investigations targeting helpers | Verified at source | ## Recent changes - **May 5, 2022** — Governor Lamont signs Public Act 22-19 (Reproductive Freedom Defense Act). Expands categories of providers who may perform abortion (adds APRNs, nurse-midwives, PAs for medication and aspiration abortion). Creates civil cause of action against out-of-state abortion-liability judgments. Prohibits Connecticut courts from issuing out-of-state subpoenas related to reproductive health care. Limits extradition and witness compulsion. Prohibits state agencies from cooperating with out-of-state reproductive health care investigations. *Sources — Public Act No. 22-19, [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-00019-R00HB-05414-PA.pdf)* - **June 24, 2022** — Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decided by U.S. Supreme Court, overturning Roe v. Wade. Connecticut's statutory abortion protections remain in full effect; the Attorney General and Governor reaffirm that abortion is 'safe, legal, and accessible' in Connecticut. *Sources — Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022), [U.S. Supreme Court](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf)* - **January 12, 2023** — Care Net Pregnancy Resource Center lawsuit challenging Connecticut's limited-services-pregnancy-center advertising law (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 19a-912a, 19a-912b) is dismissed/voluntarily withdrawn. The law remains in effect. *Sources — Care Net Pregnancy Resource Center of Southeastern Connecticut v. Tong, D. Conn., dismissed 2023, [Alliance Defending Freedom](https://adflegal.org/case/care-net-pregnancy-resource-center-southeastern-connecticut-v-tong)* - **June 27, 2023** — Governor Lamont signs Public Act 23-128, expanding shield-law protections to prevent professional licensing discipline, pharmacy discipline, adverse credentialing/privileging actions, and adverse professional-liability-insurance actions based on out-of-state reproductive-health-care-related proceedings. *Sources — Public Act No. 23-128, [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/act/Pa/pdf/2023PA-00128-R00HB-06820-PA.PDF)* - **November 8, 2024** — Connecticut Abortion Legal Hotline launched as a partnership between Attorney General Tong, Reproductive Equity Now, and Connecticut law firms, providing free and confidential legal guidance to patients, providers, and helpers. *Sources — Reproductive Rights - CT.gov (AG page), [Connecticut Attorney General](https://portal.ct.gov/ag/general/reproductive-rights)* - **June 9, 2025** — Governor Lamont signs Public Act 25-28 (HB 7213), codifying minors' right to consent to contraceptive and pregnancy-related care — including abortion — without parental consent or notification, and protecting the confidentiality of that care. *Sources — Public Act No. 25-28, Section 1(b), [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/act/pa/pdf/2025PA-00028-R00HB-07213-PA.pdf)* - **June 26, 2025** — Attorney General Tong joins 22-state coalition reminding hospitals of their obligation under EMTALA to provide emergency abortion care when necessary to stabilize a pregnant patient, following the Trump administration's rescission of Biden-era EMTALA guidance. *Sources — Access to Emergency Abortion Care Under Federal Law (June 26, 2025), [Connecticut Attorney General's Office](https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2025-press-releases/access-to-emergency-abortion-care-under-federal-law)* ## Pending changes ### S.J. No. 35 — The Equality Amendment (Legislation) **Status.** Resolution proposing a state constitutional amendment concerning discrimination on the basis of sex under the equal protection clause, including discrimination based on pregnancy and 'preventing, initiating, continuing or terminating a pregnancy.' Passed the Government Administration and Elections Committee in March 2025. Must be passed by both chambers of the General Assembly in two successive sessions and then approved by voters in a referendum. Earliest possible ballot date: November 2026. If enacted, would enshrine the right to reproductive care — including abortion — in the Connecticut Constitution as a matter of equal protection, making it far more difficult for a future legislature to restrict abortion access. Would elevate abortion rights from statutory to constitutional status, providing a state-constitutional backstop even if federal protections continue to erode. *Sources — Senate Joint Resolution No. 35 (2025), lines 12-14, [Connecticut General Assembly](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/TOB/S/PDF/2025SJ-00035-R00-SB.PDF)* ### Multi-state EMTALA litigation and federal guidance uncertainty (Litigation) **Status.** The Trump administration rescinded Biden-era EMTALA guidance in May 2025. The multi-state coalition including Connecticut has continued to assert that EMTALA requires emergency abortion care. Federal litigation over EMTALA's application to abortion (including Idaho v. United States and Texas v. Becerra) continues to create uncertainty about the federal floor for emergency abortion care. Could affect whether Connecticut hospitals must provide emergency abortion care under federal law even where state law permits it. Connecticut state law independently permits emergency abortion (the post-viability life/health exception), so the practical impact on Connecticut is limited, but a restrictive federal interpretation could create confusion. *Sources — Access to Emergency Abortion Care Under Federal Law (June 26, 2025), [Connecticut Attorney General's Office](https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2025-press-releases/access-to-emergency-abortion-care-under-federal-law)* ## Key authorities - **Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602 — Core abortion right and viability limit** — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-602 _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/t…](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368y/section-19a-602) The foundational statute: codifies the patient's sole decision-making right pre-viability, the post-viability life/health exception, and the categories of providers authorized to perform abortion. - **Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-601 — Minor counseling requirement** — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-601 _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/t…](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368y/section-19a-601) The only pre-abortion procedural requirement in Connecticut, requiring pregnancy information and counseling for minors without mandating parental involvement. - **Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-912 — Definition of 'abortion'** — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-912 _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/t…](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-19a/chapter-368-i-ll-i/section-19a-912) Defines 'abortion' to include medication abortion and serves as the cross-referenced definition for the abortion chapter. - **Public Act 22-19 — Reproductive Freedom Defense Act (Shield Law)** — Public Act No. 22-19 (2022) _(Statute)_ · [cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/202…](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/act/pa/pdf/2022PA-00019-R00HB-05414-PA.pdf) The nation's first comprehensive abortion shield law, creating civil remedies against out-of-state judgments, prohibiting state cooperation with interstate investigations, and expanding provider categories. - **Public Act 23-128 — Provider licensing and insurance shield** — Public Act No. 23-128 (2023) _(Statute)_ · [cga.ct.gov/2023/act/Pa/pdf/202…](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2023/act/Pa/pdf/2023PA-00128-R00HB-06820-PA.PDF) Extends shield protections to licensing, credentialing, privileging, and professional-liability insurance, closing gaps left by PA 22-19. - **Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571m — Reverse-bounty civil action** — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-571m _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/t…](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-52/chapter-925/section-52-571m) Creates a cause of action allowing Connecticut residents to recover damages (including the out-of-state judgment amount plus fees) against anyone who obtains an out-of-state judgment based on reproductive health care legal in Connecticut. - **Doe v. Maher — Medicaid coverage mandate** — Doe v. Maher, 40 Conn. Supp. 394, 515 A.2d 134 (1986) _(Case)_ · [cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0260.pdf](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0260.pdf) Connecticut Superior Court decision holding that restricting Medicaid abortion coverage to life-endangerment cases violated the state constitution's due process, equal protection, and equal rights amendments; the basis for Connecticut's broad Medicaid abortion coverage. - **State v. Anonymous — Fetus not a 'person' for homicide** — State v. Anonymous, 40 Conn. Supp. 498 (1986) _(Case)_ · [cga.ct.gov/PS95/rpt/olr/htm/95-R-0372.htm](https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS95/rpt/olr/htm/95-R-0372.htm) Holds that a fetus is not a 'human being' under the Connecticut penal code, foreclosing homicide charges for abortion or self-managed abortion. - **Connecticut Constitution, Article First, § 20 — Equal protection** — Conn. Const. art. I, § 20 _(Constitution)_ · [law.cornell.edu/gender-justice/reso…](https://www.law.cornell.edu/gender-justice/resource/Constitution_of_Connecticut) The equal-protection provision that underpinned Doe v. Maher and could serve as a state-constitutional basis for abortion rights independent of the U.S. Constitution. - **Conn. Agencies Regs. § 19-13-D54 — Abortion regulation (DPH)** — Conn. Agencies Regs. § 19-13-D54 _(Regulation)_ · [consciencelaws.org/law/laws/usa-connecticut.aspx](https://www.consciencelaws.org/law/laws/usa-connecticut.aspx) DPH regulation governing abortion procedures, including conscience exemption for health care workers who object to participation. - **Conn. Agencies Regs. § 17b-262-348(r)(3) — Medicaid abortion payment** — Conn. Agencies Regs. § 17b-262-348(r)(3) _(Regulation)_ · [cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0260.pdf](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2018/rpt/pdf/2018-R-0260.pdf) DSS regulation providing that Connecticut Medicaid pays for all abortions certified as medically necessary, regardless of Hyde Amendment categories. - **Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59c — Assault of pregnant woman causing pregnancy loss** — Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-59c _(Statute)_ · [law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/t…](https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/title-53a/chapter-952/section-53a-59c) Class A felony for third-party assault on a pregnant person resulting in termination of pregnancy; demonstrates that Connecticut treats pregnancy loss from assault as a crime against the pregnant person, not the fetus. - **Public Act 25-28 — Minor consent to reproductive health care** — Public Act No. 25-28 (2025) _(Statute)_ · [cga.ct.gov/2025/act/pa/pdf/202…](https://www.cga.ct.gov/2025/act/pa/pdf/2025PA-00028-R00HB-07213-PA.pdf) Codifies minors' right to consent to contraceptive and pregnancy-related care without parental consent or notification, including confidentiality protections. ## Research notes > Overall confidence: High. Analysis current as of July 12, 2026; research completed July 12, 2026. Before publication, an editor should: (1) verify Conn. Agencies Regs. § 17b-262-348(r)(3) directly in the Connecticut eRegulations system; (2) confirm that no 2026 legislative session amendments have modified Chapter 368y or the shield-law statutes; (3) monitor S.J. 35's progress through the General Assembly; (4) confirm that Care Net v. Tong was dismissed with prejudice and not merely without prejudice; (5) verify the current status of federal EMTALA litigation and any changes to the FDA REMS for mifepristone; (6) check whether any new Connecticut Attorney General formal opinions on abortion have been issued since 2023. Unresolved points: The precise text of Conn. Agencies Regs. § 17b-262-348(r)(3) was verified through an OLR Research Report rather than directly from the Connecticut eRegulations system; the regulation citation should be confirmed at the primary source. — State v. Anonymous (40 Conn. Supp. 498) is a superior court decision — not binding statewide precedent in the same manner as a Connecticut Supreme Court opinion. The Connecticut Supreme Court has never directly ruled on whether a fetus is a 'human being' for penal code purposes. — Whether 'health' in § 19a-602(b) encompasses mental health has not been judicially determined. This conclusion is inferred from related statutory and regulatory provisions. — The Simon v. Mullin case text was confirmed through secondary descriptions rather than the primary slip opinion. — S.J. 35 (the Equality Amendment) must pass both chambers of the General Assembly in two successive sessions before reaching the ballot. The earliest possible ballot date is November 2026, but it has not yet passed the full General Assembly even once..