Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve certainly heard by now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe V. Wade, the historic court ruling that made abortion legal throughout the United States in 1973. The implications of overturning Roe are far-reaching, and do not solely affect women. The direct and indirect effects of this ruling will be felt by all.

Many people feel that making abortion illegal, or very restricted, is about saving babies. However, what they aren’t considering is children who are already born who will be affected by this ruling in states where pregnant people are unable to access abortion.

Already-struggling parents will be faced with the choice of supporting a new child, or having an illegal abortion. “They can just travel to a state where abortion is legal,” you may say. However, for some families, this can mean lost wages, expensive flights, hotel stays, and more. This is made worse in states where abortion is completely illegal that bans abortion after six weeks (a point at which some women are not even aware they are pregnant), people whose pregnancy puts their lives at risk may be unable to abort. This could potentially leave children without their parent.

I’ve often heard the argument that if people would only use birth control, they wouldn’t have to get an abortion. This is patently false. Birth control is not perfect, and according to the Guttmacher Institute, about half of abortions occur after a reported birth control failure.

I am not even going to entertain the idea that people who don’t want a child shouldn’t be having sex, because it is in my opinion so absurd. Even most married couples these days choose to limit how many children they have, and the idea that when they’re done having children they should be done having sex is preposterous. 

It’s also important to note that other rights may now be on the chopping block. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas states that “we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” referring rulings that guaranteed the right to contraception and same-sex marriage rights. This means the Supreme Court could, potentially, allow some states to outlaw contraception and marriage equality.

Even if you identify yourself as pro-life, you must consider the potential indirect consequences of the Roe decision. Your very right to self-determination may depend on it.

Kimberly Adamski is a Sex Educator in West Hartford.

 In a moment where over 28% of Connecticut’s adults report symptoms of anxiety or depression —up from 19% just two years earlier— the country’s largest insurer is threatening to hinder access to much-needed mental health care.

The present ruling in the Wit v. United Behavioral Health (UBH) case emboldens insurers to cherry pick coverage for acute treatment rather than determining coverage based on the generally accepted standards of care, further denying individuals access to the long-term care that they need.

Our state and our nation are amid a dire mental health crisis, exacerbated further by the pandemic, which has driven individuals to seek care in record numbers. At Mental Health Connecticut (MHC), we advocate and educate Connecticut residents and their communities on the importance of mental health, connect individuals to support services, and resource communities with the tools they need to care for their loved ones.

In our work, we frequently meet individuals who struggle to access the mental health care they need. We hear story after story of individuals who are denied care because their insurers determine medical necessity through their own standards, rather than evidence-based standards developed by medical professionals. This dynamic further inhibits access to mental healthcare within a system that is difficult to navigate for many other reasons.

A court ruling on March 5, 2019, found that United Behavioral Health, violated the 2008 Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). This Federal Parity Law requires equal treatment by insurance companies of individuals who suffer from mental illnesses and addiction. However, in March of 2022, a three-judge panel at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s order with a seven-page ruling, arguing that it is “not unreasonable” for insurers to determine coverage inconsistently with generally accepted standards of care.

The disconnect between the robust and comprehensive 100-page plus District Court decision and the cursory 7-page reversal in Wit v. United Behavioral Health is unconscionable. The current ruling will embolden insurers to make decisions out of step with clinical standards. The ripple effects of this case will be felt not only in Connecticut – but nationwide.

As of May, Connecticut is one of four states (along with Rhode Island, Illinois, and California) who have filed amicus briefs urging for this reversal to be overturned. Leading the charge in Connecticut is Attorney General William Tong, who stated: “It makes no sense, when facing the worst public health crisis in America, for insurance companies to prioritize profits over people and to stand in the way of treatment and prevention.”

In March of this year, MHC joined 12 other Connecticut-based organizations in a letter supporting Attorney General Tong’s amicus brief. MHC and our allies are grateful for AG Tong’s support, and are eager to raise awareness regarding the devastating consequences of the present Wit ruling.

The present Wit ruling stands in contrast to the mission of Mental Health Connecticut and further complicates the work of our network of partners. Connecticut residents deserve consistent, reliable access to the care that they need in order to thrive and heal—and insurance coverage should be the last of their obstacles in seeking services to feel healthy and well.

The real-life implications of Wit v. UBH impacts far more than the 50,000 plaintiffs and thousands of Connecticut residents with mental health conditions. The present Wit ruling sets a nationwide precedent that insurers, rather than medical experts, can dictate what level of care should be covered for mental health patients.

We implore the Ninth Circuit Board of Appeals to defend patients’ right to access safe, consistent care, and grant en banc review of this case.

Luis Perez is President and CEO of Mental Health Connecticut.

President Joe Biden’s health secretary came to Waterbury Tuesday to offer reassurances that the federal government would continue to fight for reproductive rights in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn of Roe v. Wade.

Xavier Becerra, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, told a crowd of reporters outside the Planned Parenthood – Waterbury Health Center that the Biden administration will use all of the powers within the executive branch to assist abortion providers and their patients.

The Supreme Court’s decision to abandon the 50-year-old legal precedent that granted women a constitutional right to an abortion didn’t alter anything in Connecticut. The right to an abortion is still ensconced in Connecticut law.

But in many other states, the court’s opinion has changed the lives and rights of millions of women in just a few short days.

Twenty six states were certain or likely to ban abortion following the Supreme Court ruling, according to the Guttmacher Institute, and others could join that list depending on the outcome of future legislation.

“To everybody in Connecticut, I hope you understand how fortunate you are to have rights, to have freedom, to have that autonomy,” Becerra said. “Unfortunately, as of a week or so ago, not every American can say that.”

“This decision goes beyond abortion. It’s really about who has control: who has control over your life, your body, your future, and who can make decisions for you,” said Amanda Skinner, the CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, who joined Becerra, Gov. Ned Lamont, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, U.S. Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-5th District, and others at the podium. Becerra was there at the invitation of Hayes, whose district includes Waterbury.

With a conservative majority in control of the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Senate in a stalemate because of its rules surrounding the filibuster, there is little that Democrats can do in Washington to immediately counter or reverse the court’s decision.

Even so, Becerra and members of Connecticut’s congressional delegation said the Biden administration is doing all it can to boost abortion services in states where access is no longer a guaranteed right.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Becerra said, intends to use its authority via the Food and Drug Administration to make sure that people can continue to access abortion medication through telemedicine services. Those abortion medications, which can be accessed with a prescription and shipped through the mail, are capable of safely terminating a pregnancy up to 10 weeks.

The federal agency is also being pressured by Democratic lawmakers and governors to open up reproductive health care centers on federal lands throughout the country.

That may offer a short term option for some, but Becerra recognized that it might not be a permanent fix, considering the Supreme Court majority’s posture toward abortions and other reproductive rights.

“As you can see from what the Supreme Court did, it took a 50-year-old right and flushed it down the toilet,” Becerra said.

Blumenthal agreed. He called the Supreme Court’s recent rulings “devastating and despicable” and he argued that the long term solution to reinstituting people’s right to an abortion was to elect more pro-life lawmakers to Congress — specifically the U.S. Senate.

President Biden recently voiced support for suspending the Senate’s filibuster rules in order to break the deadlock in Congress and allow abortion rights to be codified into federal law.

But some Democratic senators, including U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, remain opposed to that plan, making it very unlikely to succeed before the mid term elections.

“We need more pro-choice senators,” Blumenthal said Tuesday. “We need to make this issue a ballot box issue this November.”

The Office of State Ethics fined a New York-based consulting firm $10,000 Tuesday for providing more than $3,000 in food and gifts — including hockey tickets and an overnight stay at a Greenwich club — to Connecticut Port Authority officials in 2017 and 2019.

Seabury Maritime, a subsidiary of Seabury Capital Group, provided some of those gifts while pursuing a business relationship with the authority, and others after securing a contract to help find an operator for state pier in New London, according to the consent order signed by Seabury and the state ethics office.

Seabury also has come under fire this year from another state agency. The State Contracting Standards Board concluded in February that a $523,000 “success” fee the port authority paid to Seabury in May 2018 is eerily similar to the “finder’s fees” scandal that sent a former state treasurer to prison in 2001.

“Private companies that seek to engage state and quasi-public agencies for contracts must understand that fostering good will with state officials and employees cannot involve provision of impermissible gifts,” said Peter Lewandowski, executive director of the ethics office. “Violation of the Code’s gift laws will be forcefully prosecuted by the Office of State Ethics.”

Between May and August 2017, Seabury provided gifts totaling around $800, the ethics office wrote in a statement. This included “food, drinks and a leather personal accessory to a CPA employee and the employee’s spouse at a charity event” in May of that year, and more food and drinks and an overnight stay at a Greenwich club to the same couple in August. Food and drinks also went to a member of the authority’s governing board in August, according to the state ethics office.

The Office of State Ethics does not identify people mentioned in a consent order who are not the focus of that order. The office also does not comment on whether other mentioned people are themselves the focus of another investigation.

In 2019, after securing a contract to advise the authority, Seabury Capitol provided another $2,300 in gifts, according to the report. These included food, drinks and a leather handbag to an authority employee and that employee’s spouse in April, and food, drinks and National Hockey League tickets to two authority employees in May, 2019.

The ethics office added that “prior to the initiation of this ethics matter, Seabury received reimbursement from the recipients for the cost of the hockey tickets and the May 9, 2019 food and drinks.”

But because these items weren’t reimbursed within 30 days of receipt, as required by state law, the gifts still were a violation. The other gifts from Seabury in 2017 and 2019 were not reimbursed by the recipients.

State law “prohibits any person from knowingly giving, directly or indirectly, gifts to a public official or state employee when that person is doing business or seeking to do business with that public official or state employee’s agency or department.”

The authority hired Seabury in May 2018 to help with the search for an operator of the state pier in New London. The new operator would help transform the pier into the staging area for a major, offshore wind-to-energy project.

The authority issued a $700,000 payment to Seabury that included a $523,000 “success” or reward fee — and that happened three months after Henry Juan III of Greenwich, who was a managing director with Seabury, had resigned from the authority board.

The state’s contracting board adopted a report in February that compared this success fee with the “finder’s fees” the General Assembly banned more than two decades ago. That ban followed a scandal in the late 1990s that sent then-state Treasurer Paul Silvester to prison.

Silvester, a West Hartford Republican, was sentenced to 21 months in prison after admitting he had accepted kickbacks, often referred to as “finder’s fees,” in exchange for steering investment of state-controlled pension funds.

Jeffrey Erickson, who signed Tuesday’s ethics consent order as acting chief financial officer for Seabury, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Scott Bates of Stonington, who chaired the port authority’s Board of Directors from 2017 through May 2019, also could not be reached.

Lamont appointed one of his chief economic development officials, David Kooris, in July 2019 to chair the authority board and to overhaul operations.

“This is an unfortunate reminder of issues that occurred under prior leadership,” Kooris wrote in a statement. “ … Under new leadership, beginning in late 2019, the authority performed a complete overhaul of its policies and procedures. With the assistance of the Office of Policy and Management and outside auditors, the authority updated its ethics policies and all employees and board members now receive annual ethics training and certifications. Contractors are similarly made aware of the proper protocols.”

Kooris added that “authority stakeholders should be reassured that matters from the past will be thoroughly and transparently investigated.”

Besides the state, other major “stakeholders” in this matter include Gateway Terminal — the firm hired to develop state pier — and Eversource and Ørsted North America, which will develop the wind farm.

The pier project, priced three years ago at $93 million, also has been criticized for several cost hikes which now place the price tag at more than $255 million. Connecticut’s share now stands at $178 million, with $77.5 million coming from private partners.

A man in his 40s has contracted Connecticut’s first recorded case of Monkeypox, state health officials said Tuesday.

The patient is a resident of New Haven County. He is isolating and has not been hospitalized.

The state’s Public Health Department “believes that the risk to Connecticut residents from this case is low,” said Dr. Manisha Juthani, the health commissioner. “The United States is currently experiencing a monkeypox outbreak, and there will likely be additional cases in Connecticut in the weeks ahead.”

Monkeypox can spread through prolonged close contact with an infected person. This might include contact with skin lesions or body fluids, sharing clothes or other materials that have been used by an infected person, or inhaling respiratory droplets during prolonged face-to-face contact, Juthani said.

Symptoms include fever, headache, chills, exhaustion, muscle ache and back ache, swollen lymph nodes, and a rash that can look like pimples or blisters and shows up on the face, hands, feet, chest, genitals or inside of the mouth.

The health department has alerted medical professionals in Connecticut about the disease and informed local health districts to monitor for cases.

A week ago, cities nationwide began offering vaccinations against Monkeypox to people who may have been exposed to the virus, The New York Times reported. Prior to that, the shots were only made available to those with a known exposure.

Supply of the vaccines has been limited, however. The Department of Health and Human services said it would provide 56,000 doses of the Jynneos vaccine immediately and an additional 240,000 doses in the coming weeks. Another 750,000 doses are expected to become available over the summer, and a total of 1.6 million doses by the end of this year, the Times reported.

As of Friday, 30 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, had recorded at least one case of Moneypox. States with the highest number of cases include Florida, New York, Illinois and California, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nationwide, 457 cases of Monkeypox have been recorded. The data from Friday do not include Connecticut’s case.

Connecticut residents who are concerned about fever, swollen glands or a new rash should contact their health care provider for an evaluation. Medical providers can request orthopoxvirus testing for patients at the state public health laboratory by calling 860-509-7994.

In the fledgling cannabis industry, large companies have quickly risen to dominate the market in states where pot is now legal. 

But as regulators begin awarding licenses to select adult-use operators and businesses scramble to build out capacity, cannabis entrepreneurs, customers and communities are increasingly concerned about equity — whether there really is room for everyone.

Massachusetts is ahead of Connecticut — retail sales began in 2018. CT Mirror’s economic development reporter Erica Phillips tells host Ebong Udoma what we can learn from the Bay State’s experience. You can read her story here.

Six months after her bout with COVID-19, Jannell Roberts still doesn’t feel like herself.

She gets winded walking short distances. She launches into frequent coughing fits and feels her nose running. She can’t focus while reading a book, a frustrating ordeal for an avid reader.

“I’m tired all the time. I have trouble concentrating,” said Roberts, who lives in West Haven. “I try to keep myself awake, but there are a lot of times in the afternoon or early evening where I’ll just start nodding off. I can’t really focus or I won’t be able to sit still.

“I could be just walking down the hall and all of a sudden, I’ll be out of breath and think, where the heck did that come from? I shouldn’t be out of breath.”

Nicole Bongiovanni caught the coronavirus early in 2021. More than a year later, the Madison resident is still without her sense of taste and smell. She has a cough that comes and goes, and gone are the nights when she can stay up until midnight watching television. Her new bedtime is 8 p.m.

Bongiovanni, an aide who cares for people in their homes, went from three clients to two as her exhaustion set in.

“My energy went down. I get tired really easily,” she said. “I begin to cough. I feel like I’m sick when I’m not really sick.” When she finishes work for the day, “all I want is to do is go to sleep.”

Both women have a condition known as long COVID, or post-COVID syndrome, a growing problem in Connecticut and elsewhere. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that one in five people under 65 who have had the coronavirus experienced at least one health issue that could be deemed long COVID. For people 65 and older, that figure is higher — one in four.

Other studies have estimated that anywhere from 10% to 30% of coronavirus cases result in long COVID, while a few — including one from the Penn State College of Medicine — say more than half of people who had the disease develop the condition.

In Connecticut, providers say 5% to 30% of cases here lead to long COVID. A CDC analysis of Census data show 29.3% — nearly a third — of adult COVID survivors in Connecticut have experienced lingering symptoms.

Even on the lower end of estimates nationally, the numbers are staggering. CDC data through February 2022 show that nearly 60% of Americans have been infected with the virus, including three in four children and adolescents. That means millions of people in the U.S. could be suffering with symptoms of long COVID.

For some, it is debilitating. Patients can experience shortness of breath, fatigue, brain fog, headaches, cardiac and central nervous system problems, cognitive dysfunction and musculoskeletal issues, among other symptoms, for weeks or months. Some have chronic pain.

Although there is currently no cure, treatment programs have emerged with the aim of managing symptoms and helping people to recover as much as possible. And research is underway to better understand the condition and what interventions might prove effective.

At the same time, medical providers and advocates are trying to raise awareness about long COVID as public health mandates are rolled back and people resume pre-pandemic activities.

“We all have to think about long COVID,” said Dr. Kathleen Mueller, head of the COVID Care Recovery Center at Trinity Health of New England. “I see people who were in excellent health with no complicating conditions before they had COVID, and a number are in a wheelchair. Some people are not able to focus at work and are on disability because of long COVID. It’s unsettling. I do not want this.

“We’re all tired of masks and we’re all tired of social isolation. We’re tired of all of this. And yet, COVID is not gone.”

A growing problem

Long COVID occurs in people with a confirmed or probable case of the virus who develop lingering symptoms and for whom no other diagnosis can explain the symptoms. Those symptoms can last a minimum of four weeks but often go on far longer.

Health officials say the condition can grow out of severe or mild cases of the virus. It can even affect some who initially had no COVID symptoms.

For some people, the symptoms come and go without explanation. Others have suffered consistently since their diagnosis. And still others have seen symptoms stop abruptly, either because of a vaccination, a booster shot or another reason.

The symptoms are wide ranging. The CDC lists 19 conditions most commonly reported, including fatigue that interferes with daily life, fever, cough, chest pain, anxiety, depression, headache, dizziness, change in taste or smell, stomach pain, diarrhea, joint pain and changes in menstrual cycles — but providers say there are far more. They can be respiratory, neurological, digestive, musculoskeletal and beyond.

“If you could find one symptom that is not under the banner of long COVID, you’re doing a good job, because the list is enormous,” Mueller said. “The breadth and the depth is just humbling.”

Women who survive COVID are more likely than men to have lingering symptoms, according to a CDC analysis of Census data. Hispanic and Black adults were more likely to experience the condition (39.6% and 37.8%, respectively) than white adults (33.8%) and Asian adults (25.4%) who have had the coronavirus, the data show.

Bisexual and transgender adults were more likely to have experienced long COVID symptoms than people of other sexual orientations and gender identities. And 58% of adults with disabilities have suffered from ongoing symptoms, the study found.

The CDC analyzed Census Household Pulse Survey data from June 1 to 13.

Long COVID can exacerbate existing health problems. A person with asthma who already has breathing difficulty may find breathing to be even more challenging, and someone who already has heart issues can see those problems worsen.

But it can also trigger new issues. A person who has never experienced brain fog or breathing problems can suddenly have those challenges, providers say.

Anyone can develop long COVID, but in a study published in the journal Cell, researchers found four conditions that appear to be correlated with an increased risk of lingering symptoms: the amount of coronavirus RNA in a person’s blood early in the infection (an indicator of viral load), the presence of certain autoantibodies (antibodies that mistakenly attack tissues in the body), the reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus, and having Type 2 Diabetes, the New York Times reported.

With a growing number of people getting long COVID, treatment programs have launched in Connecticut and elsewhere to help people manage the symptoms. Health systems such as Trinity Health of New England, Hartford HealthCare, Yale New Haven Health and Bristol Health now have treatment initiatives.

In many programs, a patient will be assessed and then paired with doctors in a range of specialties. The programs include cardiologists, pulmonologists, neurologists and physical and speech therapists, among others. They also involve practitioners outside of traditional medicine. For example, acupuncturists have been enlisted to help patients with fatigue.

“The best thing we found for fatigue is acupuncture,” Mueller said. “Within three to six visits, some people start to get their energy back. Then we touch base again and see how they’re doing, and we gradually increase movement.”

Medication may be prescribed if appropriate. Sometimes physical therapy plays a role.

A big part of the initial appointment for long COVID patients is validating the person’s condition. Because evidence of lingering symptoms doesn’t always show up on medical testing and not all physicians are familiar with long COVID, patients have reported being told by doctors that the symptoms are all in their head.

“In our conversations with patients, we find there’s a cathartic release of someone recognizing and validating that their symptoms aren’t just anxiety, or that it’s not just going to go away on its own,” said Dr. Andaleeb Shariff, primary care clinical lead for Hartford HealthCare’s COVID Recovery Center. “That can be half of their healing process.”

“Just having somebody listen to your story and understand that you’re not making it up, that you’re not just looking to avoid going back to work, is important,” Mueller added. “You can’t go back to work because you’re so debilitated from this illness. That’s been one of the great gifts we’ve been able to do in the recovery center is help people understand these are long-term effects of an infection, and it’s not all in their heads.”

As more people seek treatment for the condition, advocates say it’s important for doctors not to be dismissive of patients’ symptoms and to understand how long COVID works.

“Studies have found long COVID is more prevalent in women, and research shows that women are often less believed about health issues that aren’t really obvious,” said Lisa Freeman, executive director of the Connecticut Center for Patient Safety. “I’m concerned that they’re not being taken as seriously when they present with long COVID symptoms. It has to do with a lot of societal and preconceived notions. But I think we need to make sure that all patients are given the respect and the regard for what they’re saying.”

Advocates also called for a more robust public education campaign around long COVID, something state officials said could happen in the fall before an expected winter surge.

“This is one of the risks of what is happening as our society is opening. For some people, because they’ve heard anecdotes of COVID being relatively mild or not as severe, it is safe in many people’s minds to take calculated risks and go on with life. But for some people, I do think they feel they were unaware of what the potential consequences could be,” said Manisha Juthani, Connecticut’s public health commissioner. “COVID is not new. In fact, we heard about long COVID within the first several months of the pandemic, and people have known about it. But I do think many people are not aware that it may still be a possibility at this point.”

Long COVID doesn’t have a precise definition, and research into the condition is still underway. Juthani said she would continue to watch for new information and could envision broader messaging on the topic in the fall.

“There is information out there that the CDC and others have provided, but I’m looking for a little bit more to really try to help people understand what that risk is. The more I can understand that and qualify that, the better we can explain it to people,” she said. “The risks of long COVID are something I would want to really make people aware of as we go into another wave, when risks will be higher again.”

An issue for children, too

Adults aren’t the only ones experiencing long COVID. In Connecticut, pediatricians and health care systems are devoting more resources to kids with lingering coronavirus symptoms.

Connecticut Children’s Medical Center had a “soft” launch of its long COVID program six months ago. Since then, physicians have seen about 50 kids believed to have the condition, although not all turned out to have it, said Dr. Juan Salazar, physician-in-chief at Connecticut Children’s.

Symptoms in children include fatigue, poor physical endurance, difficulty concentrating, trouble breathing, muscle pain, chronic headaches, heart palpitations, gastrointestinal issues, sleep disorders, changes in smell or taste, and lightheadedness upon standing.

Estimates on how many children are developing long COVID vary widely. One study released in March says that one in four children and teens who contract the coronavirus and have symptoms develop lingering problems. In 2021, the New York Times quoted an official from the National Institutes of Health who said 11% to 15% of infected youths could end up with the condition.

Pediatricians say long COVID appears to be less common in children than adults.

“For kids, it’s been a smaller number,” said Dr. Jody Terranova, a pediatrician with UConn Health and president-elect of the Connecticut chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “But kids aren’t necessarily going to verbalize some of their symptoms. The adults and the doctors have to be paying attention and recognize that when a kid is having trouble in school, maybe it’s not ADHD, maybe it’s not something else. Maybe it is related to their COVID. So making that connection, I think, is going to be the hardest part. 

“Where adults may be more able to advocate for themselves or recognize that they had COVID and now they aren’t thinking as clearly and have that brain fog, kids might not know what’s happening. It’s going to be a little bit of a challenge, and we have to be proactive in asking about that.”

If children aren’t able to play as long as they typically would, have shortness of breath or are having difficulty focusing in school, those could be signs of long COVID, Terranova said.

“Some kids are having prolonged headaches, some are having trouble concentrating in school,” she said. For others, “while playing outside with their friends, you could see they weren’t keeping up with their peers.”

Long COVID programs for children are similar to those for adults. At Connecticut Children’s, for example, specialists are brought in to treat a constellation of symptoms in kids.

“Specialists who treat these patients could include a psychologist, developmental pediatricians, a cardiologist, a physical therapist or a rheumatologist,” Salazar said. “This is where we put our entire children’s hospital to work to try to solve a situation that could be attributed to COVID.”

Connecticut Children’s will soon be part of a large study, funded by the National Institutes of Health and run through New York University, that tracks trends and identifies treatment for people with long COVID. The hospital plans to enroll as many as 200 children over the next two years who are willing to participate in the study and also receive treatment for their lingering symptoms.

“We’re gearing up to do a far more robust launch of the program,” Salazar said. “We’ll be enrolling kids who have COVID-19 and their parents and doing long-term follow-up to see who develops complications, what are the complications, and how do we best treat them. … That will give us a much better chance of identifying patterns.”

The broader program is expected to launch at Connecticut Children’s in the next month or two.

Searching for answers

Researchers at Yale are seeking to put a more formal definition to long COVID, study the way it affects people and learn what interventions might be most effective.

Akiko Iwasaki, professor of immunobiology and molecular, cellular and developmental biology at the Yale School of Medicine, and Dr. Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist at Yale, recently began a wide ranging study of the condition with the hope of enrolling people across the country.

“The ignorance about long COVID is profound still, and there’s a need for us to rapidly try to develop some evidence so we can begin to understand what this is,” Krumholz said. 

“What we’re trying to do is accumulate a large number of people who believe they have long COVID and also people who are just interested in research to serve as controls so we have a comparison group, and characterize them by their symptoms, their medical histories and, essentially, their experience.”

The study will involve participants filling out surveys, sharing medical history and, in some cases, giving samples of blood and saliva.

“Part of what we’re trying to learn is how many different clusters or groupings of people are out there with common symptoms,” Krumholz said. “There’s a whole group of people who describe feeling internal vibrations or tremors; it’s kind of an unusual thing, but it turns out there are a lot of people who describe having that. And so we’re trying to understand what might be different from that group and a group that mostly has fatigue, or another group that mostly has brain fog.”

Krumholz said he and others are in discussions to also explore treatments and interventions. Some key questions they are hoping to answer with the study: Who is most susceptible? What put them at risk? What’s the underlying cause or causes? Who gets better, and who gets worse? What things are people trying that seem to make a difference? 

“We want to collect information about the challenges people are facing, but we also want to be able to help people feel less alone,” Krumholz said. “People are going to doctors and doctors have never seen this pattern before, or they’ve never heard of that series of symptoms, and some people feel very alone and isolated.

“We can show that if you look at the big picture, there are various groupings of people with very similar circumstances. Let’s try to understand what those people have tried, what they’re doing. Let’s try to understand the biology so we can begin to get to diagnostics and therapeutics.”

Physicians say there is hope for patients with long COVID. In Trinity Health’s program, Mueller said many of her patients have achieved some recovery.

“We certainly have people who we see in this clinic who are still struggling from 2020. Those patients have gotten better, but some of them are not back to their baseline,” she said. “The majority, though, end up doing fine. They get some help, they do a variety of different techniques that we use and they get better. But the jury is still out when we have someone who’s only been diagnosed six months ago. What’s the one-year data? I don’t know yet.”

One study, published in The Lancet, found that the omicron variant is less likely than the delta variant to cause long COVID. But almost 5% of people who get omicron still report having difficulty concentrating, heart conditions, headaches and other health problems at least a month after their infection, the study found.

Mueller said she has seen fewer people in the last few months than during the first two years of the pandemic, though she is unsure if that’s due to the variants or uptake of the COVID vaccine. Physicians have reported anecdotally seeing fewer cases of lingering symptoms in people who are vaccinated.

For now, doctors and researchers familiar with long COVID are urging people to continue taking precautions, even as many seek to reclaim a sense of normalcy.

“Because we don’t have any concrete evidence to confirm there is a reduced risk with the current variant, the same concern you have for getting COVID should be your concern for getting long COVID,” said Shariff, the Hartford HealthCare physician. “There are still very much things you can do to reduce your risk, and I would continue to encourage people to do those cardinal safety protocols.”

“It’s so frustrating to me to hear people say, ‘I’m just not going to wear my mask anymore. Because why bother? I already had COVID.’ It makes me heartsick,” added Mueller. “We see people who are suffering from those decisions. I don’t know what else we can do except to put the science out there. I really would like to emphasize that this is serious business. We’re still losing people to COVID-19.”

Krumholz hopes the Yale study will illuminate some of the risks and long-term consequences of COVID.

“I think part of our research needs to show how big of a deal this is — what are the consequences, how much does it linger and who’s at risk — maybe for people to take it seriously,” he said. “Right now, it’s just not something people want to hear.”

CT Mirror reporter Katy Golvala contributed to this story.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg made an interesting observation some time ago. Roe v. Wade is an odd ruling because it does not fall under Constitutional law.

Roe v. Wade was about doctor/patient confidentiality. The decision between doctor and patient concerning procedures, including abortion, was protected by confidentiality.

Over the years, all kinds of “rights,” claimed to be hiding within “confidentiality,” became omnipresent and “impregnable,” even though the “rights” are nowhere present in Constitutional law, much less confidentiality itself. Where is it written?

In a sense, the Supreme Court created a law. In the U.S., Congress creates laws. The Supreme Court upholds therm. It’s only been the incendiary nature of the topic that’s allowed fury to keep the kite flying, tethered by a thread.

According to Ginsburg, a more rock-solid case, which almost made it to the Supreme Court, was Struck vs. Secretary of Defense.

Susan R. Struck entered on active duty in the U.S. Air Force on April 8, 1967, as a commissioned officer, and served continuously on active duty from that date. As a captain on active duty in Vietnam, she became pregnant. As a practicing Catholic, she carried the baby to term and gave it up for adoption to retain her active status. Nonetheless, the Air Force discharged her because of a regulation that held that pregnant officers on active duty was punishable by automatic (honorable) discharge. In other words, Air Force regulations forced abortion in order to avoid discharge.

Captain Struck sued to keep her status on active duty on the basis that her religion did not allow abortion, that her pregnancy made no difference to her performance, and that the discharge was discriminatory because male officers were not held to the same standard. The discrimination violated of her civil rights.

It should be noted that Captain Struck had a pretty good attorney: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The case went back and forth. Remanded and discharged seven times, Captain Struck’s refusal to give up, and Ginsburg’s brilliance, pushed the case closer and closer to the Supreme Court. At the eleventh hour, the Air Force struck the regulation from their books, thereby preventing the case from being heard by the Supreme Court. Captain Struck won her position on active duty, although she received vindictive treatment for the remainder of her tenure.

The lesson for those seeking “pro-choice:” until Congress passes a law on abortion rights, civil rights is the right track. Better to go after the fathers than the babies from a legal perspective.

In fact, going a step further, the Lysistrata Offense would promise to make fathers beg for equal parenting responsibilities and liabilities (financial and social, including child support, fines, and jail time), even to demand the alternative of abortion as the only palatable solutions to abstinence, including fathers on the Supreme Court.

 Robert Orr lives in New Haven.

Ned Lamont has taken the tragedy of abortion and turned it into a business development opportunity. Can our governor, who only a month ago tacitly approved of a country & western song touting our marijuana and gambling laws, sink any lower in his quest for revenue?  He is clearly not a serious chief executive for the state of Connecticut.

Connecticut, once the wealthiest state in the union, sits at the bottom of nearly every economic metric from cost of living to business creation to business friendliness. Regardless of one’s opinion of abortion, trying to use a social issue to showcase business opportunity is an incredibly cynical and narrow view of how or why businesses are created. Worse, it is an insult to the creative, industrious citizens of this state who drive the economy.

Lamont has missed a huge opportunity to identify the obvious flaws in our economy – heavy taxes, oppressive business regulations and the high cost of living – and correct those flaws to create a robust, attractive business environment.  Instead, he dilly-dallied with tolls – no, yes, maybe, only on trucks – and let the legislature run roughshod over the citizens.  Four years later, our economy languishes. Why?  Lamont will tell us Covid.  A total lack of leadership and ignorance of how the free market system works best to create jobs and wealth for citizens seem more likely reasons.

The number of jobs in Connecticut still has not caught up to its pre-2008 recession level. The state lost over a thousand manufacturing and construction jobs in May alone. That’s inexcusable.  If not for the defense industry, Connecticut’s economy would be on life-support.

Lamont’s cozy relationship with Biden and the Washington establishment has kept Connecticut’s finances afloat via Federal tax dollars. But ominous signs loom, with 8.6% inflation; $5-per-gallon gasoline, a litany of federal and state unfunded mandates, and a forecasted recession.  We’ve seen this scenario before: revenues dry up, state pensions go unfunded, legislators raid the State Transportation Fund, our debt diet goes on a binge, more companies relocate, and taxes rise for all of us that remain.

One would hope we’ll some-day reclaim our self-respect and hire lawmakers who sell Connecticut on its real merits, not with some cheap cynical pitch that exploits a woman’s soul-wrenching decisions

Robert Ham lives in Cheshire. 

Catherine Roraback would likely be furious at today’s Supreme Court. But she wouldn’t be surprised.

The fiery civil rights lawyer, who made Canaan her home and fought for women’s rights throughout her long life, argued Griswold v. Connecticut all the way to the Supreme Court in 1965, establishing women’s right to use contraceptives.

The decision, based on the right to marital privacy, became the foundation in 1973 for Roe v. Wade, which ensured abortion rights. The conservative majority on the current Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade on June 24, leaving in doubt the future of other liberal rulings based on the right to privacy.

Roraback, who died in 2007, was never sanguine about the permanency of a woman’s right to decide her reproductive future.

“We’re still fighting and we have to keep on fighting,” she said in 2002 during a Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut event honoring her.

On that afternoon, she shuffled through a long list of George H. W. Bush appointees who had been opposed to reproductive rights, including a doctor who headed an FDA advisory committee on reproductive rights. She told the 2002 gathering that conservative Republican administrations have long been dedicated to reversing “the rights we have fought so hard to get,” noting that funding for reproductive care is always under threat.

That the reversal of Roe v. Wade has been a long-term strategy for conservative Republicans is evidenced by the fact that it was overturned by two judges nominated by Bush father and son, as well as three Trump appointees, who reasoned that there is no specific reference to privacy in the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts split hairs, saying he would have supported the Mississippi law that triggered the judicial review but believes that overturning Roe v. Wade went too far.

Roraback exhibited no such equivocation when it came to women’s rights. Her involvement in the battle over reproductive rights began when she was tapped by Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut to argue the 1961 case of Estelle Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxton.

Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Buxton, a doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, opened a Planned Parenthood clinic, were arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception. Each was fined $100 and appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, which upheld the conviction. Roraback said in a 2002 interview with this writer that the defendants willfully defied the 1879 Barnum Act (drafted by circus owner and huckster, Sen. P.T. Barnum) to create a test case. At that time, only Connecticut had an absolute contraception ban, even for women whose lives would be imperiled by pregnancy. Under the Barnum Act, married couples faced arrest and imprisonment for using birth control.

Despite a 50-year battle to overturn the law, by 1940 all Planned Parenthood clinics in the state were closed and two doctors and a nurse had been convicted of violating the statute.

“It was not that women couldn’t get this advice,” Roraback said in 2002. “It was that poor women couldn’t. If you had enough money, you could go where contraceptives or abortions were available, but poor women didn’t have that option. … I have always felt that being a woman is a radicalizing experience and the Planned Parenthood women were radical on this point. It was not poor women who brought it about, it was an upper-middle-class WASP organization.”

But even with a lawyer at the helm who relished civil rights cases—she had already defended Communists at the height of the Red Scare of the 1950s—Planned Parenthood knew the limits of the arguments it could make. “We always argued in the name of married women,” Roraback related. “We knew it was the only way we could win.”

In the closing chapters of the judicial fight, work was conducted at a fever pitch. “Especially in the last years, briefs were being filed every day,” she said. “There was always something happening, and we were changing briefs and making additions all the time. Things were changing so rapidly.”

Eventually, on June 7, 1965, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a state’s ban on the use of contraceptives violated marital privacy. Justice William O. Douglas contended that the Bill of Rights’ specific guarantees have “penumbras,” emanating from the “spirit” of the first, third, fourth, fifth and ninth amendments that create a general “right to privacy” that cannot be unduly infringed.

Concurring Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that the Ninth Amendment, which states that the Bill of Rights does not cover all of people’s rights, allows the Court to find the “fundamental right to marital privacy” without having to ground it in a specific constitutional amendment.

“It was a wonderful day for me when we heard the Griswold decision,” Roraback said in the 2001 appearance before Planned Parenthood. “It was a unique experience.”

But not her last. In 1972, she litigated Women v. Connecticut, Connecticut’s counterpart to Roe v. Wade, eliminating Connecticut’s anti-abortion statutes. That case may now have renewed importance as the most recent Supreme Court ruling returns abortion rights to the states.

Roraback’s radicalism never faded, even as her health did. Her former law partner, Michael Avery, related an anecdote at her memorial service. He stopped to see her about a month before her death and found she had advance sheets from the Supreme Court by her bed. “I said, ‘Katie, you can’t be reading those to cheer yourself up,’” he said. “She said she thought it was important that she stay in touch with what they are doing to the Constitution,” he reported.

Most assuredly, she would not be pleased today. But others are ready to pick up the mantle. Both Gov. Ned Lamont and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong issued statements pledging their support of women’s rights.

Lamont said the Supreme Court’s decision “oversteps the constitutional right for Americans to make their own reproductive health care decisions without government interference,” and asserted, “As long as I am governor, reproductive rights will be protected in Connecticut and I will do everything in my power to block laws from being passed that restrict those rights.”

In anticipation of the Supreme Court decision, the Connecticut legislature passed, and Lamont signed, Public Act 22-19, a first-in-the-nation law that protects medical providers and patients traveling from other states that have outlawed abortion. Additionally, the law expands abortion access in Connecticut by expanding the types of practitioners eligible to perform certain abortion-related care.

Tong worried that the decision will have consequences beyond access to abortion. “We need to be clear-eyed and realistic about just how dangerous this decision is for women, patients and doctors, and what it signals for every single major decision before the Court,” he said. “Make no mistake — this is just the beginning of a systematic right-wing effort to rewrite decades of bedrock legal precedent, the foundation of which is our long-recognized right to privacy in making our most personal decisions.”

He predicted “a tsunami of radical litigation and legislation aimed at further eroding rights we have taken for granted,” such as marriage equality, inter-racial marriage and access to birth control.

“We know already there are plans to push for a nationwide abortion ban should Republicans gain control of both houses of Congress,” he said. “If that happens, I will be the first to sue. … Connecticut is a safe state, but we will need to be vigilant, aggressive and proactive to defend our rights.”

Kathryn Boughton is a former managing editor of The Lakeville Journal and Canaan Town Historian, whose office is located in the Canaan History Center, formerly Catherine Roraback’s law office.

WORCESTER, Mass. — In the industrial kitchen at Major Bloom, staff are assembling joints using a gadget that turns out nearly 200 so-called “pre-rolls” in one go. A large bag of multi-colored fruit cereal sits ready to be baked into marijuana-infused treats. And owner Ulysses Youngblood is explaining the business philosophy he subscribes to, a “blue ocean” strategy.

“Blue ocean is basically like saying that there’s enough space for everybody to have their own lane, essentially,” he says. “There’s enough water in the sea for us to kind of sail and do our own thing.”

The concept comes from Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, best-selling authors of several books on “red ocean” and “blue ocean” theory. Red oceans are existing markets, where competition is cutthroat, or bloody; Blue oceans are niches in the market, where innovative businesses can carve out new demand.

In the fledgling cannabis industry, large companies have quickly risen to dominate the market in states where pot is now legal. But Youngblood says he believes there’s room for everyone, if they think about cannabis as a blue ocean, like he does. “That’s what’s important, you know. You don’t look at anyone as direct competition.”

Retail sales of recreational weed got going in Massachusetts in 2018. Here in Connecticut, they’re slated to begin by the end of this year.

But as state regulators begin awarding licenses to select adult-use operators and businesses scramble to build out capacity, cannabis entrepreneurs, customers and communities around the state are increasingly concerned about equity — whether there really is room for everyone.

Some are already raising questions about the licensing process in Connecticut. The application to enter a lottery for the limited number of available licenses was cumbersome and the paperwork requirements extensive. Fees to enter the lottery varied by business type, but some applicants argued the process favored those who could afford to apply more than once. Already to some, the odds seem stacked against those without significant financial resources.

And that’s only the first step. Those lucky enough to win the lottery have to formally apply for a license. Then the real work begins: raising capital to start a business and trying to turn a profit in a highly regulated and complex industry.

Massachusetts adult-use operators like Youngblood offer a case study for upstarts here in Connecticut, and a theme emerges when they talk about the experience thus far:

It’s wicked expensive.

Setting sail

In Connecticut, as in Massachusetts and several other states that have legalized recreational pot, lawmakers designed “social equity” programs to create opportunities in cannabis for those who’d experienced the negative effects of its prohibition.

Connecticut intends to award half of the few dozen newly available licenses to entrepreneurs with lower incomes, who have resided in areas with high unemployment or a high historical conviction rate for drug-related offenses. The state has also been offering workshops for applicants, and it plans to provide technical assistance for recipients of social equity licenses.

Massachusetts also has a social equity program, providing technical assistance and waiving some fees for applicants that meet similar criteria. So far, only a few of the program’s participants have gotten cannabis businesses off the ground.

“A lot of the people who qualify for social equity and who are from these communities do not have the background and the resources that it takes to get into this industry,” said Julia Agron, project coordinator for the Cannabis Education Center at Holyoke Community College in Massachusetts. “So when they, in good faith, come to these classes or participate, the gap between what they think is being offered them and what it really means to enter this industry can be huge.”

As of June, the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission had approved 1,399 applications for licenses. Of those, 235 were social equity program participants and 94 qualified for “economic empowerment” priority status; fewer than three dozen of those have commenced operations.

All licensees in Massachusetts have to include plans for how their businesses will have a positive impact on the community and promote diversity in the industry. Aside from the social equity program, the state cannabis commission also gives priority status to businesses owned by women, minorities and veterans.

But equitable licensing programs alone likely won’t fix decades of social disparities and injustice. Agron said she’s seen many people looking to start up a cannabis business get discouraged — or, worse, lose everything. Since few traditional banks will lend to marijuana entrepreneurs as long as pot remains illegal at the federal level, business startups have to find financing elsewhere. That makes them vulnerable to predatory lenders. 

“Part of the problem is that people don’t see what their other options are,” Agron said. “They see that something may not be the best deal, but they’re not sure what else to do.”

Frank Dailey, co-owner of Boston Bud Factory in Holyoke, recalls being turned away by at least eight different financial institutions when the business was starting out. A handful of locally based banks in Massachusetts do provide depository services to cannabis businesses, Dailey said, but the fees are high, and it’s difficult to get loans or lines of credit at affordable rates.

Dailey sought out a lender when Boston Bud Factory wanted to purchase an extractor to make cannabis concentrates (used in vapes and a range of other products), but the only rates available were over 50%, he said. Another financial institution offered Dailey similar terms on a $30,000 line of credit, which the businesses had planned to put toward purchasing inventory and materials. Dailey decided against it.

“The rates are just ridiculous,” Dailey said. “We’re just two small guys trying to survive.” Ultimately, Dailey and his partner Carlo Sarno resigned themselves to self-funding most of the business. But he knows that’s not an option for many budding entrepreneurs.

Youngblood said he met with angel investors, venture capital and private equity firms and banks, “you name it, most of those fell through.” Major Bloom is a certified “economic empowerment” business within the state’s social equity program, but Youngblood and his business partner Valentin Faybushevich ended up raising the capital they needed primarily through friends and family. That included $50,000 of Youngblood’s own money.

Bruce Stebbins, a commissioner with the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission, said in light of the financial issues social equity applicants have faced, state lawmakers are considering legislation that would establish a “Social Equity Trust Fund” to provide funding support for those entrepreneurs.

“We’re hoping that if that gets signed into law, and the fund is created, that we’ll be able to see more social equity applicants get to the finish line,” Stebbins said. The deadline for the legislature is July 31.

The red ocean

As small businesses struggle to find a toehold, cannabis conglomerates known as multi-state operators appear to be clearing many of the same obstacles with ease. 

There are now several large publicly traded cannabis companies that, relative to small startups, have access to far more capital they can use to grow. Multi-state operators, or MSOs as they’re known, also have lawyers and accountants to gather and file the intricate paperwork many states require. Deeper pockets means it’s less burdensome to endure the inevitable delays in license processing and zoning — common issues in this new industry.

Once they’re up and running, MSOs’ scale can allow them to purchase larger quantities of raw product, often at discounted prices, and to occupy more expensive retail locations in upscale areas. Their brands are recognizable to many cannabis users, another advantage in new markets. 

With each new state that legalizes recreational marijuana, those advantages could multiply, exacerbating inequality rather than alleviating it — as many legalization policies have attempted to do. 

In the coming year, retail sales of adult-use cannabis are slated to begin in Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, expanding the region’s market beyond Massachusetts and Maine and raising the prospect of fierce competition.

Still, the CCC’s Stebbins says he gets the sense Massachusetts’ “microbusiness” operators are confident they can take on the industry’s heavyweights.

“They don’t seem to shy away from the competition,” Stebbins said. “I think they really are focused on, ‘I want to establish my brand, I want to build my customer base.'”

Dave Cichocki, co-founder of Pioneer Valley Extracts in Northampton, believes in carving out a niche. By establishing a name, building trust and making good products, he says it’s possible for plenty of smaller operators to turn a profit.

“It’s like every other business, and it takes a while,” he said. “Just don’t think you’re going to make a million dollars tomorrow.” 

Pioneer Valley Extracts manufactures vapes and pre-rolled joints, and it holds a local license to produce California-based Kanha brand’s edible gummies. Cichocki and his sister self-funded the business — they were not participants in the state’s social equity programs — and today they distribute their products to about 60 dispensaries around Massachusetts. Cichocki expects the company will do about $7 million in sales this year — nowhere close to a multi-state operation, but a steady and successful endeavor. 

Both Dailey and Youngblood are borrowing a page from the conglomerates: vertical integration. Major Bloom’s operations include manufacturing, retail, wholesale and home delivery. Youngblood and his team also record and produce a radio show and a podcast at Major Bloom’s Worcester shop. 

The state has established limits on the number of licenses that each business can own and made some license types — for delivery and social consumption — available only to Massachusetts residents. The goal of those policies is to even the playing field, Stebbins said, by not allowing the larger operators to fully vertically integrate.

Boston Bud Factory is licensed as both a product manufacturer and a retailer. Dailey said profit margins on the manufacturing side are higher than they are for retail, which helps the overall business stay afloat. 

He also saves money by doing a lot of the administrative work himself. Before entering the cannabis field, Dailey worked in chemical engineering and manufacturing operations, and he has tapped that expertise in setting up the manufacturing side of Boston Bud Factory’s business and in handling all of the company’s license filings and legal documentation.

“We haven’t yet utilized a lawyer or a consultant,” Dailey said. “I’ve done our special permits, I’ve done our compliance, I’ve done all of that. And that’s basically just learning the regs inside and out. Anybody can do that.”

Toward equity

Inside Boston Bud Factory’s three-story brick building on a quiet street in industrial South Holyoke, Dailey has set up an alcove where he offers “educational demonstrations,” teaching anyone who’s interested how to make rosin — a cannabis concentrate — from the plants they grow at home.

Behind the retail counter, and through a set of security doors, a staff member monitors the extractor. A vast factory floor beyond will soon house more processing and packaging operations, but for the moment it’s the site of a food truck refurbishing project. Dailey plans to periodically park the truck out front, inviting local restaurants to take turns serving up their fare to the shop’s patrons and the community.

As a social equity program participant, Dailey says it’s important to him to be a presence in the community and to teach and support cannabis customers and growers. Boston Bud Factory is working to open a second location in Springfield’s East Forest Park neighborhood, where Dailey lives. 

“It’s supposed to be community businesses — isn’t that what everybody says? But if you look at this, all of the money, everything is being sent out of state,” Dailey said. “The profits aren’t going to equity, the profits aren’t going to residents … those corporations are taking their money and sending it back to Chicago or Colorado or wherever they’re based out of.”

On their websites, top MSOs such as Curaleaf, Trulieve and Green Thumb highlight a range of corporate social responsibility and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. 

Youngblood finds much of it inauthentic.

He stresses how critical it is for Major Bloom to maintain the trust and respect of its customers and the cannabis community, which is why he lends his own voice to the weekly radio show and uses original artwork on the company’s packaging.

Youngblood’s focus on “the legacy market,” long-time cannabis lovers still adjusting to buying pot from a legal dispensary, means he’s attuned to their skepticism toward the standardized image marketed by multi-state conglomerates.

This is Youngblood’s “blue ocean” niche.

On Major Bloom’s website, they avoid using stock photos, favoring images of real cannabis users. 

“You’d be surprised how much people catch on to that shit,” he said.

Major Bloom’s stone-and-frosted-glass storefront sits nestled between a spa and a package store, just down the street from a handful of Polish delis and markets. A smiling attendant with a calm demeanor buzzes patrons through a door from the sunny lobby to the main room, where the retail counter sits. Customers, for the most part, pay with debit cards, not cash.

Years ago, before Major Bloom moved in, the property was vacant and often hosted illicit drug pushers and users. The neighborhood still has its challenges, but Youngblood believes the presence of the shop — the foot traffic it generates, the cameras and security — has made the block safer.

Stebbins says that’s happening across the state: “We’re seeing buildings that might have been delinquent or underutilized or even an eyesore in the local community that are now being brought back to life.” Cannabis businesses are now becoming “part of the economic development of each small community,” he said.

Every licensed business has to track its progress on the community and diversity plans they submitted, providing an annual update when they apply to renew their licenses.

HCC’s Agron says legalization has had many positive effects in Massachusetts communities. Older customers and many women, who previously weren’t able to access cannabis legally in a way that felt safe to them, no longer have to worry. And the social equity programs, for all their challenges, have helped create a number of businesses that are fiercely dedicated to helping their neighborhoods recover from the war on drugs.

“I’ve seen people get discouraged. I’ve seen people get angry,” Agron said. “I’ve also seen people push through and, with more determination and raw willpower than any other resource available to them, pull it together and make it happen.”

“The mythical ‘green rush’ is over, if there ever was such a thing, and it’s a real industry now,” she said.

When we get on an airplane we buckle up, read the safety card and are given a demonstration on the oxygen masks and emergency exits.  Those things can save lives should something go wrong.

But when we get on a train, either Metro-North or Amtrak, we settle into our seat and zone out.  We assume we’re safe. 

That’s what passengers on an Amtrak train in Missouri thought this past week… until their train’s locomotive hit a dump truck on an unguarded private grade crossing and derailed.  Four passengers were killed and 150 injured, many seriously.

That accident gave Geralyn Ritter a flashback to her near death experience on a far worse, high speed crash on Amtrak in 2015.  Her new book ”Bone by Bone”, recounts her years of surgery and recovery, donating all proceeds to the American Trauma Society.

Ritter, then an executive at Merck,  was heading home from Philly to New Jersey when her train, Amtrak 188, hit a 50-mph-curve at 102 mph and literally came off the tracks.  Ritter was in the first car, which hit the ground with such impact that it was demolished.

Ritter happened to be standing in the aisle when the train hit the curve.

“I noticed the train seemed to be moving faster than usual. For a fleeting moment, I was pleased. Maybe we’ll arrive early,” she thought. Then the speed got more violent.

“I was clutching the (overhead baggage) rail with both hands to keep from falling. Then the train tilted. I braced myself, both arms straining to hold onto the bar above my head. “What the—?” I yelled. I remember the overwhelming force pulling my body. I remember my confusion, trying to make sense of it. The whole train can’t actually be tipping over. In a flash, I realized it was true—we were crashing. The sound of my own scream is the last thing I remember.”

When rescue workers found her, unconscious, she’d been thrown from the train.  Others were crushed inside the cars. Eight were killed and 200 injured, 11 critically.  Ironically the engineer, later charged in the crash, walked away with just a few bumps and bruises.

Amtrak assumed full responsibility and paid $200 million in settlements; an amount capped at the time under law.

Amtrak’s liability came, in part, from its lack of installation of PTC, positive train control, a technology that would have stopped the train from speeding and avoided the crash.

Had it been installed on Metro-North, PTC would have prevented the deadly Spuyten Duyvil derailment in 2013 that killed four and injured 61 when an engineer spaced out and entered that notoriously sharp curve at three times the speed limit.

After years of surgery and therapy, Ritter is recovered now but still in pain.  She told me she wrote “Bone by Bone” to inspire others fighting to recover from traumatic injuries.

She’s back on the road for business, yes even on Amtrak.  Today she’s always aware of her surroundings, looking for emergency exits when taking a seat.  She never sits by a window nor in the front car on a train. 

When Ritter’s Amtrak train passes the scene of her accident near Philadelphia, she says a prayer for her fellow passengers on that night… and gratitude for her survival and for the medical community that made that possible.

If a tad self-consciously, Republican Bob Stefanowski used puns and free “diesel donuts” at Donut Crazy shops on Friday to remind voters that Gov. Ned Lamont did nothing to stop a diesel fuel tax increase from taking effect.

“OK, so here’s the phrase: What’s happening in Connecticut today is crazy. And Gov. Lamont is leaving the people of Connecticut with just the crumbs,” Stefanowski said, recording a campaign social-media spot in West Hartford. “I know it’s a bit of a goofy saying, but there is some truth to it.”

While much of the political world is still talking about the legal and political ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court upending nearly a half-century of abortion law, the Republican candidate for governor is betting that inflation ultimately will drive more voters to the polls than social issues.

“These social issues are important — don’t get me wrong,” Stefanowski said. “But when I go out to people, they’re talking about inflation, government spending, gas prices, and this governor right now is ignoring it.”

Lamont was one of the governors scheduled to participate in a virtual meeting Friday afternoon with President Joe Biden to talk about how to protect access to abortions after the court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade a week ago, freeing states to restrict or ban abortion.

Earlier, the governor and Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz posted an open letter to business owners who may be interested in relocating to a state where reproductive rights are protected by state law.

And on Monday, Lamont began airing a television commercial underlining his unqualified support for abortion rights.

Stefanowski, meanwhile, has downplayed abortion as an issue in Connecticut, using the same rationale behind Lamont’s pitching the state as a safe harbor: The state codified the tenets of Roe years ago with a law affirming the unrestricted legality of abortion through fetal viability, about 23 weeks.

While declaring support for the state’s decades-old abortion law, Stefanowski has called for one change opposed by Lamont: a parental notification rule for minors under 16, as opposed the state’s current counseling law that encourages but does not require consultation with a parent.

Stefanowski also has refused to say if he would have signed Connecticut’s first-in-the-nation law offering legal protections to abortion providers and patients against “civil bounty” lawsuits. Texas has empowered its citizens to sue anyone involved in an abortion in violation of that state’s law.

His running mate, Rep. Laura Devlin, R-Fairfield, voted for the law.

For the time being, at least, the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court is generating news and headlines unhelpful to New England Republicans who prefer to keep voters focused on inflation, the cost of living and taxes.

On Thursday, the court struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to curb carbon emissions from electric power plants, a ruling that calls into question regulatory rules not explicitly endorsed by Congress — and reinforces that states play a role in combating climate change. 

“I’ll continue to do everything I can to ensure Connecticut continues to lead the way, and I’ll keep working collaboratively with governors across the nation to ensure we’re doing everything we can as states to reduce carbon pollution,” Lamont said. “The climate crisis requires a national strategy, and federal inaction is unacceptable. I urge Congress to enact meaningful legislation to avert this crisis.”

Stefanowski has spoken carefully about climate change, suggesting opposition to any policy that could increase the cost of fuel or electricity.

On Friday, Stefanowski and Devlin traveled separately to Donut Crazy shops, where the campaign was providing Boston cream donuts decorated with an edible message: Stop the diesel tax.” The chain’s owner contributed $120 to his 2018 campaign.

Stefanowski began his day with a 7 a.m. stop outside the West Hartford shop. Foot traffic was light, but Stefanowski held a donut and recorded a video message for the campaign’s social media.

“Why in the world, when you got a three and a half billion dollar budget surplus in Hartford, and people are struggling to decide whether to pay for rent, whether to pay for food, whether to pay for gas, whether to pay for prescription medicines, why in the world would you be raising taxes today?” he said.

Technically, Lamont did not raise the tax, which is adjusted every July 1 under a formula set by state law. The tax increased by 9.1 cents to 49.2 cents on every gallon of diesel, which has been selling for around $6.

But the governor did not ask the General Assembly to change the formula, suspend the increase or the whole tax, as Stefanowski has suggested. Lamont and the legislature did suspend the 25-cents-per-gallon excise tax on gasoline, which has produced the lowest average gasoline price in the northeast.

AAA’s daily gas tracker showed that the average cost of regular gasoline in Connecticut was $4.814, a few pennies lower than the national average of $4.842. The average cost of diesel in the state was $6.069 a gallon, compared to $5.760 nationally.

“So anyway, I do empathize for what people are going through right now,” Stefanowski said to his Twitter and Facebook followers. “Try to keep things in perspective. Have a free donut today, free coffee. I hope everybody has a great holiday weekend. Hang on. Help is on the way. We’re gonna win this election in November.”

If so, how would a Gov. Stefanowski tame inflation that is raging through the U.S., in red and blue states, and most of the world?

“Control spending, zero based budgeting. Let’s take a hard look at that budget. Let’s start with a blank piece of paper. It goes up by two to three billion a year,” replied Stefanowski, a former accountant and corporate executive.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade last week ended the constitutional right to abortion, handing the regulation of reproductive rights to the states. In Connecticut, which has some of the nation’s strongest abortion protections — and a former businessman at the helm — those rights have quickly become a recruiting tool.

On Friday, just a week after the Supreme Court’s decision came out, Gov. Ned Lamont and Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz published an open letter, addressed, “Dear business owners,” with a timely reminder of where Connecticut stands on reproductive health.

“We are writing to any business owner that is disappointed in the stance of their current state,” the letter reads. “If you are looking to relocate to a state that supports the rights of women and whose actions and laws are unwavering in support of tolerance and inclusivity, Connecticut is for you.”

The governor’s office concurrently released a video of Lamont speaking directly to the camera, noting that many states will be rolling back abortion rights as a result of the ruling.

“Not here in Connecticut,” Lamont says. “Not as long as I’m governor.”

As of noon on Friday, the video, posted to the governor’s Twitter account, had more than 16,000 views.

Lamont spokesman Max Reiss said the letter and video were circulated to “members of the press in myriad states,” with the idea that business owners elsewhere might hear the Connecticut governor’s message on their local news.

“If this elicits a conversation in places like Texas or Florida or Missouri, we think that’s a good thing for Connecticut,” Reiss said.

Both Lamont and his predecessor, former Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, have touted the state’s business climate by highlighting its progressive social policies. In the video, Lamont called Connecticut “the most family-friendly state in the country,” citing paid family leave, support for early childhood education and daycare, and the state’s highly-ranked education system.

But some businesses say those costs can add up. In its most recent survey of members, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association found that 14% of the state’s business owners say workplace mandates and compliance costs were the main factor hampering their growth; 18% cited high business taxes as the top thing holding them back.

On Friday, Lamont’s Republican opponent, Bob Stefanowski, said he was doubtful Connecticut’s abortion laws would be much of an enticement for businesses, which consider many factors when making location decisions.

“I don’t think there’s that much of a relationship there,” Stefanowski said. “I don’t see the direct connection the governor does. It’s a nice stump speech point. But I don’t think that’s a reason companies are going to come to Connecticut.”

Bruce McGuire, president of the Connecticut Hedge Fund Association in Greenwich, said, “If Connecticut was stuck between a bunch of red states, that argument would be much stronger.” The alternative investment sector, which includes hedge funds and private equity, are largely located in the vicinity of Wall Street, he said, and Connecticut’s neighboring states are already essentially in “lockstep” on the issue of abortion.

“We’re not competing with South Dakota for talent,” McGuire said.

Fran Pastore, founder and chief executive of the Women’s Business Development Council in Stamford, said she has observed an influx of interest from female entrepreneurs looking for support to launch their businesses in Connecticut. Of roughly 1,000 applicants for a WBDC small business grant program this year, half were from outside the state, she said.

Progressive economic policies supporting working women — from small business grants to paid family and medical leave, funding for child care and increasing the minimum wage (which rose to $14 an hour on July 1 in Connecticut) — have the combined effect of getting more women “a seat at the table,” Pastore said. And she believes that’s a good thing, regardless of one’s politics.

“Let’s be honest, five men and one woman just made a decision about more than 52% of the population,” she said. “It doesn’t matter if you are pro-choice or not, women need to be looking at who is making the decisions across the board — in corporate America, in Washington, D.C., and in Hartford, Connecticut.”

Staff writer Mark Pazniokas contributed to this report.

New Haven’s mayor and assistant police chief say they want to improve the police department after a man was severely injured while in police custody.

Richard “Randy” Cox was handcuffed and left unsecured in the back of a police van that lacked seatbelts. The officer driving says he stopped abruptly to avoid a car crash, injuring Cox. Video shows police later dragged Cox into a holding cell.

The five officers have since been placed on paid leave. Cox’s family said he’s paralyzed.

New Haven Mayor Justin Elicker said he saw “extreme callousness” on the part of the officers involved in the incident when he watched police body camera footage. Such a culture must change, he said.

“I also think that it’s important for us to foster a culture of intervention of officers having the tools and the support that they need to stop other officers when they have questions about following procedure,” Elicker told Connecticut Public Radio’s “Where We Live.”

New Haven Assistant Police Chief Karl Jacobson emphasized the need to train officers on the duty to intervene.

“Our leadership needs to push down to all our officers that it’s all right to question and say, ‘Hey, this doesn’t look right. Hey, why are we doing this?’” Jacobson said. “Just one of those officers saying something like that would have stopped the whole process, and they would have gotten him medical attention.”

Jacobson noted that in the past the department would address problem officers with discipline. Instead, he wants to pair up officers with model officers.

“We need to identify problems, fix them, have mentorship,” Jacobson said. “And if they’re not fixing them, then we need to get rid of these officers.”

He said that New Haven police are revisiting their policies and that one thing they’re looking into is an early warning system in internal affairs for officers with rudeness complaints. Jacobson added that this is not the way the department should be treating people.

“If officers treat people the way they treated Mr. Cox, we don’t want them to be police officers,” he stated.

Connecticut state police are investigating the case. Jacobson also notes that his department will respond “swiftly” in an internal affairs investigation.

The police video below shows the interaction between New Haven police and Richard Cox.

This video contains graphic content that may be disturbing to some viewers.

This story was originally published June 30, 2022, by Connecticut Public.

Several new laws take effect in Connecticut as of Friday. They include:

Increase in minimum wage

The minimum wage in Connecticut will increase to $14 an hour, from $13. The bump is part of a gradual, phased-in increase passed in 2019 that is taking Connecticut’s minimum wage from $10.10 at the beginning of 2019 up to $15 an hour on July 1, 2023.

Abortion safe harbor law

The General Assembly in April passed legislation that strengthens Connecticut’s existing abortion protection laws. Gov. Ned Lamont signed it into law after the May leak of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling reversing Roe vs. Wade. The new laws also officially authorize advanced practice registered nurses, nurse midwives and physician assistants to perform aspiration abortions — the most common type of in-clinic abortion.

The abortion safe harbor laws that go into effect are designed to protect people seeking abortions in Connecticut from other states and Connecticut providers from legal action in patients’ home states. The law is in part a reaction to a Texas law that creates a private right of action for anyone to sue patients or providers involved in abortions performed after about six weeks of pregnancy.

Police body and dashboard cameras

A piece of the Police Accountability Act, passed in 2020, goes into effect on July 1.

All sworn members of law enforcement and members who perform police duties will be required to wear body cameras starting Friday. Dashboard cameras in each police patrol vehicle will also be required.

Law enforcement also is prohibited from editing, erasing, sharing, altering or distributing camera recordings or data except when required by certain other laws.

New requirements for the Department of Education around children’s mental health

The Connecticut Department of Education will provide grants to local boards of education to hire and retain school social workers, school psychologists, school counselors, marriage and family therapists and nurses over the next three years under House Bill No. 5001, which was signed by Lamont on May 23.

The Department of Education must also develop a truancy intervention model that takes into account mental and behavioral health by September 2023 and begin to share it with local school districts. The Department of Education and Connecticut Department of Children and Families are required to issue guidelines to districts on intervention for certain behavioral health situations and when to contact 2-1-1 for alternative interventions.

Protections for employees

A new law aims to protect employees if they refuse to attend employers’ meetings when unions — or political or religious topics — are expected to be addressed. Employers can still make meetings mandatory when related to job performance.

Connecticut’s paid Family and Medical Leave Act laws also will be strengthened, requiring employers to tell new employees of their state FMLA benefits when they are hired. Current employees will need to be made aware of FMLA options annually. Employees also need to be told that Connecticut FMLA includes family violence leave and that they may file an FMLA complaint with the Department of Labor if they believe an employer is denying their benefits or retaliating for an FMLA claim.

Catalytic converters

Public Act 22-43, which Gov. Ned Lamont signed into law on May 17, takes aim at the recent rise in catalytic converter thefts by establishing new requirements for businesses that purchase these parts.

The legislation bans motor vehicle recyclers from accepting any catalytic converters that are not attached to a car. Scrap metal processors and junk dealers may still purchase converters taken off cars, but they must maintain detailed records of where, when and from whom the part was purchased — including the seller’s name, address and driver’s license number.

Solitary confinement

For the second year in a row, Connecticut lawmakers passed a bill to limit the Department of Correction’s use of solitary confinement on those in the state’s prisons and jails.

The new law will prevent the Department of Correction from placing minors in solitary confinement. The law also requires that solitary confinement be the least restrictive environment necessary for the safety of incarcerated individuals, staff and facility security.

The law also increases the amount of time outside of a cell an incarcerated person in solitary confinement must be granted each day. Those in solitary confinement must be allowed four hours outside their cell starting July 1. The amount of time required increases to four and a half hours on Oct. 1 and up to five hours on April 1, 2023.

Money to improve school air quality

Local school officials will now be required to conduct inspections of HVAC systems in each public school every five years. To help make improvements in school air quality, towns and cities will be able to apply for part of $150 million in grants through the Department of Administrative Services.

Connecticut Public’s Accountability Project found that one-third of school districts don’t have the money to upgrade their own HVAC systems, in a report published in January shortly before the start of the legislative session.

Diesel tax to increase

The state’s diesel fuel tax will rise July 1 to 49.2 cents per gallon, a nearly 23% increase from the current 40.1-cent rate, the Department of Revenue Services announced in early June.

The annual adjustment in the diesel fuel tax is calculated by a formula that factors in the average wholesale price of diesel fuel over the prior year. This year saw a larger than normal increase from last year. The way the tax is calculated has been the same since 2007, but critics this year raise concerns about contributing to inflation and price hikes on everything carried by trucks.

No credit and debit transaction fees at state agencies

The Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Consumer Protection, Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the Department of Public Health are among the state agencies that will wave credit and debit transaction fees at least for the fiscal year starting July 1.

Prior to this legislation, some state agencies passed service fee costs on to customers, according to the governor’s office,

Reminder: Apply for the Connecticut child tax rebate by July 31

Connecticut families may be eligible to receive a $250-per-child rebate, with a maximum payment of $750 per household for three or more children, through the Connecticut child tax rebate program this year. But families must apply by July 31.

The rebate is available to single parents who earned less than $100,000 in 2021 and to two-parent families that earned less than $200,000.

As a super PAC attacks Gov. Ned Lamont on television, the Democratic Governors Association registered its own PAC in Connecticut this week, a necessary first step if the DGA is to defend the Democratic incumbent.

The DGA declined Thursday to discuss its plans or budget for Stronger CT, a super PAC registered Wednesday with no mention of its affiliation. But it is chaired by Andrew Whalen, who oversees independent expenditures for the DGA.

The treasurer, Bernadette Hennessy, is the chief financial officer of Mission Control Inc., a Democratic consulting firm that specializes in direct mail. Past clients include Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016.

Four years ago, the DGA played only a modest role in Connecticut, where there was no incumbent to defend and the Democratic nominee was Lamont, a wealthy self-funder with a $15 million budget and little need of outside support.

Now, Republican Bob Stefanowski has deposited $10 million into his own campaign account, and two independent-expenditure groups are assisting the GOP with digital and television ads opposing Lamont.

One of those groups, CT Truth PAC, is airing a commercial that blames high gas prices on Lamont and closes with an off-color tag line: “Tired of getting bleeped at the pump? Fire Ned Lamont.”

The ad suggests that the passage of a law legalizing recreational cannabis in 2021, which was supported by the public, was more of a priority than gas prices in 2022.

CT Truth has spent nearly $1.3 million since April 1, including nearly $400,000 paid last week for television time in the last week of June. Another PAC opposed to Lamont, Parents Against Stupid Stuff, has pledged spending at least $1 million, though its output so far has been modest.

The campaigns of Stefanowski and Lamont have been airing their own ads for months. Lamont’s put up a new one Monday underlining his support for a woman’s right to abortion.

State law prohibits direct contributions of more than $3,500 to a gubernatorial campaign and $10,000 to a state party in Connecticut, but there is no limit on contributions to independent groups known as super PACs.

The Democratic Governors Association, the Republican Governors Association, their affiliated PACs and other super PACS provide conduits around contribution limits to donors who can afford to give more.

In 2018, Reverge Anselmo, a donor who then lived in Greenwich, was able to contribute $2 million in support of Stefanowski’s first campaign by writing checks to super PACs.

This year, CT Truth is primarily funded by three businessmen. David Kelsey of Old Lyme and Thomas E. McInerney of Westport each gave $750,000; Raymond Debbane of Greenwich, an investor and chairman of Weight Watchers, gave $100,000.

The DGA and RGA played major roles in 2014, when Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and his Republican opponent, Thomas Foley, each participated in the voluntary public financing program. In return for public funds, they pledged to abide by restrictions on spending.

A committee established by the DGA in Connecticut spent $6 million on Malloy’s behalf — $4 million raised by the DGA and $2 million by unions.

The RGA spent $5.5 million to help Foley.

Neither Lamont nor Stefanowski are participating in the public financing program, allowing them to spend as much of their personal funds as they wish.

CT Truth PAC was formed to back Stefanowski. It is advised by Chris LaCivita, who was a consultant to Stefanowski’s 2018 campaign. 

Super PACs cannot coordinate advertising with the campaigns they are supporting, and shared vendors or consultants constitute a presumption of illegal coordination under state law. But LaCivita’s work for CT Truth PAC is well outside an 18-month cooling off period.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling requires us all to reexamine alternatives to using abortion as a state’s primary response to unintended pregnancy. A comprehensive social compact solution is such an alternative.

There are two underlying premises to this approach: 1. all human life is precious and, 2. the state has a responsibility to pass laws that reasonably preserve and protect all human life.

In recognition of that responsibility, a state’s laws must address the circumstance when a woman becomes pregnant but is unwilling or unable to be a parent to her child. In this regard the following services should be made available:

• Upon learning that she is pregnant, a woman wishing to access social, mental and/or physical health counseling, should be provided access to same, at no cost to her, to help her decide if she is able or willing to be a parent for her
• Should a pregnant woman decide she does not want to assume parenting responsibilities, she should apply to the state to enter into the following social compact. In exchange for responsibly carrying and giving birth to her child, the state shall assume all responsibility for medical costs related to the pregnancy, for both her and the child. This responsibility includes providing any post- partum medically related needs. At an appropriate time following childbirth, the state shall assume full responsibility for caring for the child.  Furthermore, as part of the compact, the state shall ensure a continuity of income for the mother during her pregnancy in the event her pregnancy makes her unable to work.

After the child is born, the state’s laws should establish free adoption services to transfer care for the child to a responsible parent or parents. In the event this approach is not successful, the state shall provide continuing child care through its existing, or improved, foster care and orphan care programs.

A responsible legislature, in addition to resolving the unintended pregnancy circumstance, will adopt laws designed to reduce the likelihood of that circumstance arising. In this regard, at an appropriate age, all citizens, at no cost, will be educated about human reproduction. This duty to educate includes all people seeking citizenship, as well.

Any state resident who intends to engage in sexual intercourse, but not for the purpose of reproduction, shall be provided with free access to medical counseling regarding contraception and shall be provided with the chosen method(s) of contraception, at no cost.

Finally, a complete and comprehensive legislative solution requires us to address two special circumstances of unintended pregnancy. When a mother’s life would be in jeopardy if her pregnant condition continued, appropriate medical intervention to preserve the mother’s life shall be provided, at no cost. Also, consistent with the obligation to protect and preserve, when a pregnancy is caused by rape, including incest, immediate medical intervention to terminate the pregnancy shall be provided to the victim, as well as the provision of all remedial medical and therapeutic services, at no cost.

Rationale: By way of further explanation, I suggest we avoid categorization of the dialogue concerning unintended pregnancy using political groupings of “pro-life” or “pro- choice.”  Identifying and focusing upon the underlying premises involved may allow us to think more clearly about the issue.

As an alternative to the two social compact premises: that all human life is precious, and the state is obligated to adopt laws that reasonably preserve and protect it, let’s examine the premises involved that permit an individual to extinguish human life.

We all can agree that a mother cannot end her baby’s life -after delivery. Because life is precious and valued by society, a civilized society is obligated to enact reasonable laws that prohibit an individual from claiming an individual right to extinguish human life – after delivery.

Even among abortion rights advocates, there is no consensus when the perceived individual right to abort ceases prior to delivery.  Arbitrary pregnancy time lines that define human life as viable and protected according to a calendar one day, but extinguishable at will prior to that calendar date are, at best, misguided attempts to deal with the premise that all human life is precious.

The substitute underlying premise in support of abortion, as a right, is that human life can be extinguished if it was unintended, up to a point. This confuses the solution with the problem. Because life was created unintentionally it, therefore, justifies ending it intentionally?  In some societies, viewed as less advanced than our own, vengeance and revenge have conferred upon an individual the right to end another person’s life. In the United States today, such a right is not recognized or tolerated anywhere. 

In its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the U.S. Constitution does not confer upon an individual the right to an abortion. Societies evolve. Laws that allow abortion in dire circumstances concerning the mother’s health, and in cases of rape and incest, are consistent with both underlying premises of the social compact solution.

The premise that an individual is entitled to end human life, up to a point, because it was unintended, combined with a state’s obligation to enact laws that attempt to define the point when that right ends, using a calendar, should not continue to be the basis of an enlightened governmental solution.

All human life is precious. The social compact approach based upon that premise, comprehensively addresses the entire problem of unintended pregnancy and, as part of its second premise, replaces an imperfect, arbitrary, man-made time line with an irrefutable law of nature – life begins at conception and ends at death.  Societies evolve.

Bill Connon lives in Canton.

In a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to address the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, a decision aimed at those power plants running on coal.

But the 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and issued on the last day of the session, is also likely to have far broader impacts, not only on environmental regulation but also on actions by other federal agencies.

“I read it as having significant effects on statutory interpretation and administrative law going forward,” said Katrina Kuh, Haub Distinguished Professor of Environmental Law at Pace University School of Law.

But she said it will likely have particular impacts on environmental law.

“It is a significant blow to efforts to use the Clean Air Act to control greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.

While New England is down to a few highly polluting coal power plants, Connecticut still faces the effects of pollution from such plants to our west and the effects from climate change more broadly.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who has joined dozens of lawsuits and other actions aimed at fighting climate change, called the court action a major blow to federal efforts to fight it.

“This is a serious setback, but we cannot lose sight of what is at stake and what is urgently needed to fight the climate crisis,” he said in a statement. “Outdated and expensive coal plants are causing enormous damage to our environment and economy, and we cannot let this decision stall our transition to clean, renewable, and truly affordable power. This is a radical opinion that signals a dramatic shift in the Court’s approach to long-settled precedent. I expect today’s decision is just the beginning of this Court’s efforts to undermine agency authority, not just within the EPA but across the executive branch.”

While the decision only ruled on the issue of regulating greenhouse gas emissions in existing fossil fuel power plants, its reasoning drew on something known as the “major questions doctrine,” which essentially says if an agency wants to regulate something that is not already in statute and that has a major economic or political impact, it needs to get specific authority from Congress.

“Its judgment, I think, is guided by what it thinks is a major political or economic controversy,” Kuh said. “I think the vast majority of Americans maybe aren’t too concerned about loss of profits by coal companies and are really concerned about climate change.”

The Clean Air Act does not cite climate change or greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA and other agencies have long relied on what’s called the Chevron deference — a ruling from the court in 1984, considered a bedrock of administrative law, that gives agencies, not courts, the leeway to address certain issues that are not specifically cited in law as long as the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.

It has been especially useful for the EPA, using the rationale that its matters are so complex, detailed, technical, time-consuming and changeable due to the evolution of scientific knowledge that they should be left to the experts within the agency.

But the court’s ruling would essentially put the responsibility on Congress, which, among its many gridlocked areas, has been particularly gridlocked on matters relating to climate change.

“Bottom line is federal environmental law is dead. Honestly, we’ve reached the end of the road on federal environmental law, because we’re not going to get brand new environmental statutes in the foreseeable future,” said Patrick Parenteau, professor emeritus of environmental law at Vermont Law School. “The only thing you can hope is that the agencies can rely on their existing authority to deal with these new threats, like forever chemicals and other things.

“So we are really stuck in a terrible, terrible place in terms of federal environmental law.”

In a statement, Bradley Campbell, president of the New England-based Conservation Law Foundation, said the decision had hobbled EPA’s ability to reduce power plant pollution.  

“By arbitrarily limiting EPA’s explicit and broad authority under the Clean Air Act to require the use of less-polluting systems, the Court has consigned millions of Americans to more illness, shorter lives, and greater poverty in an overheated climate, while giving itself nearly unlimited authority to invalidate protections and safeguards intended by Congress.”

The case, known as West Virginia v. EPA, stems from two carbon-reducing power plans that were never implemented. The first was the Clean Power Plan, devised in the Obama administration, which targeted emissions from coal plants. Courts had prevented that from going into effect.

The second was the Affordable Clean Energy Rule the Trump administration devised after repealing the Obama plan, though its greenhouse gas emission reductions were far less. That rule also was stopped by the courts, and it was surprising the court took up the West Virginia case at all, since effectively there was no plan and the Biden administration had indicated it was going to come up with its own plan, not go back to Obama’s.

But the coal industry and more than a dozen states, including West Virginia, were already in court in support of the Trump plan at the time it was thrown out.

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Roberts wrote. “But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.”

In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time.’” She cited the 2007 decision that established greenhouse gas emissions as pollutants that can endanger public health and therefore had to be regulated by EPA.

The political response to the decision in Connecticut was sparse Thursday afternoon, with only Tong and Gov. Ned Lamont issuing statements about the ruling.

Lamont, who reiterated his commitment to reducing carbon pollution, called on federal lawmakers to act.

“The climate crisis requires a national strategy and federal inaction is unacceptable,” Lamont said. “I urge Congress to enact meaningful legislation to avert this crisis.”

In a lengthy statement, President Joe Biden called the court ruling “another devastating decision that aims to take our country backwards.” He said he had already instructed his legal team to find ways to continue dealing with the climate crisis. “We cannot and will not ignore the danger to public health and existential threat the climate crisis poses.”

Connecticut cancer patients soon will have new treatment options. Hartford HealthCare and Yale New Haven Health received regulatory approval on April 12 for the state’s first proton therapy center in Wallingford.

What the partners fail to mention in their news release is that a competitor could beat them to market with a similar facility 45 miles west in Danbury —except the state is running interference. Danbury Proton, the rival project, already has the necessary medical expertise, financing, zoning and community support lined up to offer proton therapy, which uses laser beams as a safer and more effective alternative to chemotherapy.

“This project is, as they say, shovel ready to go,” David Hardy, an attorney representing the startup, said during public testimony.

What Danbury Proton lacks is a “certificate of need” (CON), a government permission slip to launch, expand or terminate any health care venture in the state. The group has tried to get a CON for two years, but the oversight agency with veto power issued a preliminary denial on Feb. 28, 2022. Shortly afterward, the same agency approved the Hartford-Yale joint venture.

The protectionism is not lost on Hardy. “Having a monopoly on proton therapy controlled by the state’s two largest healthcare networks without any competitive pressure is simply a prescription for high costs,” he told the CON overseers during an appeal hearing on April 22.

Unfortunately for Connecticut cancer patients, a monopoly is precisely what the agency recommends. Two applicants submitted viable proposals. But rather than letting them compete on a level playing field —or coexist in separate cities serving separate clients— state regulators picked one winner and one loser.

The home team with centuries of combined Connecticut history can move forward. The team of relative newcomers must sit on the sidelines while the CON office weighs its appeal. If Andy Salner, medical director of the Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute gets his way, the final answer will be no.

Despite his clear conflict of interest, the state allowed Salner to speak against Danbury Proton during an initial hearing on April 1, 2021. Salner used the opportunity to plug his own CON application, which was still pending at the time, while planting doubt about the ability of his rival to provide “good coordination of care.”

Something similar would happen if Connecticut allowed The Home Depot to participate in decisions about new hardware stores— or if the state allowed McDonald’s to say who could sell burgers. Our public interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, has no connection to either proton therapy project, but supports the rights of all providers to invest their own money without unreasonable or excessive government interference.

CON laws purport to lower health care costs, increase patient access, and ensure quality by managing the distribution of private resources. But a joint report from two federal agencies —the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department— finds no evidence that CON laws achieve any public benefit.

A supermajority of studies agrees. More importantly, decades of real-world experience show that CON laws do not work as advertised. Recognizing the policy error, Congress reversed itself in 1986 and repealed CON mandates it had imposed just 12 years earlier.

Since then, California, Texas and 10 other states, which contain nearly 40% of the U.S. population, have canceled their CON laws entirely. Most recently, New Hampshire joined the list in 2016. Each time, the American Hospital Association and local affiliates predicted disaster, but negative effects never materialized.

The opposite happened instead. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, states without CON laws had more hospitals and surgery centers per capita, along with more hospital beds, dialysis clinics and hospice care facilities.

Recognizing its disadvantage, Connecticut scrambled to suspend CON requirements for mental health care facilities through June 2026 in response to a bed shortage. The measure, which Gov. Ned Lamont signed on May 23, represents a step in the right direction. But additional psychiatric hospitals already could be open without CON constraints.

Proton therapy also could be available today if providers did not have to spend years begging for permission to serve patients. Lifesaving technology should not have to wait. Rather than play favorites, Connecticut should repeal its certificate of need laws and let doctors work.

Jaimie Cavanaugh is an attorney and Daryl James is a writer at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va.