Connecticut residents packed the state Capitol Wednesday to largely oppose proposed changes that would expand the state's role with vaccines. Hundreds of parents and advocates warn such a move could expand government authority over medical decisions.
During testimony that stretched for hours, critics argued the legislation — HB 5044, An Act Establishing Connecticut Vaccine Standards — would give Dr. Manisha Juthani, Connecticut’s public health commissioner, sweeping power to set vaccination schedules and define immunization standards for residents.
Currently, the public health commissioner has the power to establish the standard of care for childhood vaccinations, based on recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP). The bill, up for consideration in the state legislature, would expand the commissioner’s authority to establish vaccine schedules for adults as well.
Supporters say the changes would help health officials respond more quickly to disease outbreaks and future health emergencies.
State Sen. Ryan Fazio, a Republican who represents Greenwich and other Fairfield County communities, has been among the most vocal critics in the state legislature.
“Approved vaccines are and should remain widely available for anyone who wants to avail themselves of them,” Fazio said. “And yet, in spite of this, here we sit with a solution in search of a problem entertaining a historic and radical concentration of power over personal medical decisions and vaccine requirements, and removal of religious freedom.”
In testimony at the public hearing, Juthani outlined the science and reasons why she believes the legislature should support the bill.
“Over the past six months, we have seen unusually rapid changes to national vaccine recommendations issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP),” Juthani said. “These changes have not been driven by new research or scientific evidence, but rather by leadership shifts at the federal level. Because of how Connecticut’s statutes are structured, such changes could restrict choice for Connecticut residents unless we act now to maintain stability.”
Connecticut has tightened vaccine policies in recent years. In 2021, the state became one of only a handful in the country to eliminate religious exemptions for required childhood vaccinations. The decision drew strong reactions from parental rights groups.
Fazio said the latest proposals go further by potentially allowing the health commissioner to implement vaccine standards without the traditional regulatory review process.
“There is no good reason whatsoever to empower a single individual, the health commissioner, with broad and unchecked powers to create vaccination schedules and dictate the decisions of so many Connecticut residents,” Fazio said. “Yet these proposals do exactly that, removing the regulatory review process that normally ensures policies are vetted, balanced, and fair.”
Gina Porcello, a Fairfield resident who attended the hearing with her young daughter, said the length of the session forced her to finish her testimony remotely later in the day.
“I was there with my 5-year-old daughter and tried to explain in the simplest terms why we were there,” Porcello said. “'I don’t understand, you’re my mommy, you're in charge.’ Even a 5-year-old can sense that something here just doesn’t feel right.”
Dr. Raul Arguello, chair of pediatrics at Stamford Health, testified at the state capitol, in support of HB 5044.
“On-time immunization for all children and adolescents are the safest, most effective way to prevent diseases, disabilities, and deaths,” Arguello said. “As pediatricians, we are concerned that parents are hearing conflicting and misleading information. The current American Academy of Pediatrics’ immunization schedule is based on science.”
But Diana Way, a Lebanon resident, told lawmakers the proposal conflicts with the country’s historical emphasis on limiting centralized power.
“These bills centralize power to a single unelected authority in direct opposition to the very tendencies this country was founded on,” Way said. “How could Connecticut, a state with such deep roots in the Revolution, turn and serve another king 250 years later?”
Dr. Michael Murphy, who also spoke during the hearing, warned shifting medical policy decisions to administrative authority rather than open legislative debate could erode public trust.
“These bills represent an expansion of government authority over personal medical decisions that should remain between patients, doctors and families,” Murphy said. “When decisions about bodily autonomy and medical treatment are made through administrative rule instead of open legislative debate, the public loses transparency and accountability.”
Murphy said the issue goes beyond a single policy debate and touches core principles of medical ethics.
“Informed consent, patient autonomy and individualized care are principles our healthcare system is supposed to respect,” Murphy said. “Policies that override those principles with one-size-fits-all mandates risk damaging trust between citizens and the public health institutions meant to serve them.”
The proposals remain under legislative review as the 2026 session continues, with lawmakers expected to hold additional hearings and debate possible amendments.
