Candidates for state House, Senate discuss abortion decision, Safe Harbor law

reporter photo

The Record-Journal recently polled area candidates running for state House and Senate for their views on the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade, as well as earlier passage of the state’s “Safe Harbor” law. 

Candidates were asked the following:

1.  Where do you stand on the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and why?

2.  Do you agree or disagree with the state’s Safe Harbor Law, which blocks state agencies from assisting in interstate investigations that could hold someone criminally or civilly liable for receiving abortion services in Connecticut, and why? 

Candidates are listed in ballot order. Asterisks indicate incumbents.

Here’s how they responded: 

13th Senate

(Meriden, Middlefield,
Middletown, Cheshire)

Jan Hochadel, Democrat

1. “Being a woman and a cancer survivor, I understand the value of bodily autonomy. The Supreme Court decision made me both angry and sad. Women should make decisions about their own bodies. The ruling will especially hurt individuals and families who do not have the money to travel hundreds of miles to a state that still respects reproductive rights. The Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade makes this country a more dangerous, less free place for all of us.”

 2. “I strongly support Connecticut being a safe harbor state for women seeking abortions, and I'll continue to vote for those freedoms when I'm in the State Senate. Connecticut should be at the forefront in the fight for women's rights. Women should know that their decisions about their bodies will be honored here.”

Joseph Vollano, Republican

1. “The Supreme Court did not necessarily overturn Roe versus Wade. This was another case that they were taking up about in Alabama and in order to rule correctly on that, Roe versus Wade’s decision had to be erased. So that being said, I do support the Supreme Court’s decision and again it’s not based on anything about abortion. So take Roe versus Wade out of the equation. It could be on anything. It could be on gun control. We could put anything in there that the states have the right to decide on. This was not a case about abortion. This was a case about the constitution and the states’ rights to make a determination about whether or not abortion is legal in their state. That’s what this case was all about.

So again, take out abortion and put any other subject you want in there. My agreement is the same with the court’s. It is not the federal government’s responsibility … If the Congress wants to go pass a bill saying abortion is legal across the board, go do it. Go do it. Democrats had the opportunity. Democrats had the opportunity under Obama when they had all three sides to go and do this. They did not. Republicans had an opportunity when George Bush was in office and had all three branches to go ahead and do this and say they wanted abortion banned, but none of them have done that.

Instead, in 1970, the Supreme Court wrongly decided that they were going to make the law to make it OK for abortion where it is nowhere in the constitution that give the right of anybody to sit there for abortion. If the states want to make this determination for themselves like Connecticut did, that is fine. This is a state issue. This is not a federal issue and that is all the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court said it is not the federal government’s responsibility to make this determination and that it is up to each and every state to sit there and make a determination whether they want abortion to be legal or not and they kicked it back to the states. That was the decision.”

2. “So if you’re for state rights on the first part of the question, you have to be for state rights in the second part of the question. What do I mean by that? So, right now they are saying some states are going to hold people criminally liable or as criminals for going across state lines to have an abortion. Connecticut has a rule, Safe Harbor Law, that says that we will not help other states in prosecuting these people or an investigation that can lead to prosecution. So again, if I’m all for state rights and Connecticut’s right is to have an abortion, then yes, I agree with the Connecticut State Harbor Law.

Because if Connecticut is taking it upon ourselves to say yes, you can have an abortion here, whether I agree with that or not, doesn’t matter. If it is the state law here, again, other states, I respect your law, you will respect our’s … If we’re going to respect state law and the right for each state to make their own decisions, I don’t expect another state like Texas or Alabama or Mississippi or anything to dictate to Connecticut what we can or cannot do. And if people want to come to our state for any reason because if you started with abortion, where does it end? Immigration? Gun laws? It’s a slippery slope. So yes if abortion is legal in the state of Connecticut, it is no other state’s business what we do here. Just like I don’t want to dictate to other states how they run their state and what they can or cannot do or what they decide to do or do not do.”

34th Senate

(Wallingford, North Haven, Durham, East Haven)

Alida Cella, Democrat

1. “Pro-life activists have spent decades focused on taking away a woman's right to choose, rather than why a woman might want to choose to end a pregnancy. If this was really about saving lives, their fight would have focused on that. If there was universal access to birth control without a prescription; if there was universal maternal care, and it didn't cost upwards of $10,000 to have a baby if you are uninsured or underinsured; if there were universal day care, so mothers could continue their schooling or careers after their baby was born and maintain their earning potential; if the minimum wage were raised to a true living wage level so that a single mother with no skills could afford to support her family on her own  - these would absolutely reduce the number of abortions sought. Instead, this ruling has determined that women with the resources or support who want an abortion will still be able to get one, albeit cost them more; and women and their families without, will be either seeking potentially unsafe alternatives, illegal alternatives, or be subscribed to a continuing spiral of poverty that will be ever harder to escape from - for themselves and the children they are being forced to have.

I don't believe pro-life claims and their morality story that they are saving lives; they don't actually care about those lives. If they did, they'd be interested in helping the living choose to give life, and not just with fake women's health clinics created to deceive and convince women to go to term, and then abandon mothers after the baby is born. They do nothing beyond maybe a few diapers and some formula.”

2. “So yes, we need safe harbor laws, privacy laws, and everything else to protect those who want to choose for themselves and determine their own future, and not allow that decision to be made for them.  I support all laws that protect a woman's right to choose, to seek help in other states, but even more so, I support all policies and laws that would help a mother want to choose life - universal healthcare, universal daycare, and higher wages.”

Paul Cicarella, Republican*

1. “The Supreme Court's recent decision does not change a woman's right to choose in the state of Connecticut, nor will it. In Connecticut, the protections in Roe v. Wade were codified with overwhelming bipartisan support as state law in 1990. This law is not changing in CT, as has been stated and reaffirmed by our state’s Democratic and Republican leaders alike. This is a deeply personal and emotional issue and I understand the concerns we are seeing across the country. Unlike many other states, here in CT protections are settled law.”

2. “I voted in support of House Bill 5414 because it seeks to further protect and uphold our Connecticut laws and aims to ensure that no other state dictate policy in CT. I always strive to represent the voices of my constituents and I hear from families everyday about the challenges they are facing here in our state - from record breaking inflation to concerns over public safety. It’s clear that Connecticut’s Roe v. Wade protections are settled law, but what remains unsettled in our state is how CT is helping all residents struggling to make ends meet. My focus in the legislature continues to be focused on helping those most in need, creating opportunity, and making our state more affordable for every family during these challenging times.”

David Bedell, Green Party

1. “I don’t really know about the constitutional argument but certainly I think women should have access to abortion.” 

 2. “One state should not be able to control the laws in another state. I have been thinking about this. For example, before same sex marriage was legal nationwide, I was a justice of the peace performing same sex marriages here in Connecticut for people coming from out of state. I was never sued by another state for performing a service for their citizens. People can travel now from one state to another where marijuana is legal in one state but not the other one. I don't see that there is a basis to stop people from traveling to another state to do something that is legal in the other state.” 

16th Senate

(Southington, Cheshire, Waterbury, Prospect, Wolcott)

Christopher Robertson, Democrat

1. “I have strong feelings on the court overturning Roe v. Wade. This law was in place for a reason for over 50 years. All women have the right to choose what is right for themselves. Men don’t have any restrictions over what to do with their bodies. Why should women? Abortion rights are being taken away on the basis of religion, which should be kept separate from State. As my daughter has said very straight forward, ‘My body my choice.’”

2. “No individual should ever be held criminally or civilly on a procedure that protects their health or rights in the United States of America.”

Rob Sampson, Republican*

1. “Of course, anyone who can manage a little objective political and/or legal thinking knows that this is the correct and proper decision regardless of how one feels about the subject of abortion. Contrary to some of the hysteria coming from Democrats, Roe v. Wade has always been suspect as far as its Constitutional validity. There is no Constitutional right to abortion and there is a real matter for debate about when life begins and whether or not the rights of the unborn are as valid as the rights of the mother. We should really have adults who can handle common sense and mutual respect discussing and debating what our policies should look like, not political manipulators and activists willing to lie to gin up their own base. 

The truth about this decision is simply that it undoes an unconstitutional protection for abortion and instead transfers the authority where it belongs to state governments to make their own policy on the subject. It does not undermine the status quo in Connecticut in any way. Indeed, it’s clear from the reactions from members of both parties, there is zero chance that any significant change in abortion law will occur in Connecticut in the short term.  

It’s sad that this subject is so overly politicized by people in politics and the media. The vast majority of people in this country consider themselves as I do – pro-life but unwilling to eliminate all abortions whatsoever. Instead, preferring to eliminate late-term abortions or using the practice as birth control and including checks that will help to reduce criminal behavior and abusers like a requirement for parental notification.

I’m hopeful that turning the decision-making over to the states will result in better policy that more accurately resembles how citizens feel locally rather than one broad national brush that ignores the views of so many.”

2. “I believe that both Texas law and our response to it in Connecticut are up for much legal wrangling and will both be challenged in higher courts. The short answer is yes, I don’t believe Connecticut has any obligation to assist another state in the prosecution of their laws, assuming we do not consider the offense a crime in our state. That said, I do believe we have an obligation to assist federal authorities when they have jurisdiction, such as immigration law. Connecticut has created safe harbor laws that prohibit the assistance of federal ICE authorities and I believe those are void constitutionally.”

82nd House


Michael Quinn, Democrat*

1. “I am opposed to the Supreme Court's decision and object to them taking away a woman's right to choose in contravention of the well established 50 year precedent of Roe.”

2. “I was an early co-sponsor of this legislation, HB-5414, and fully supported its passage.  It is unfortunate that this legislation was even necessary, but I am glad that the drafters had the foresight to propose this legislation so that the rights of women to make their own healthcare decisions are fully protected in Connecticut.”

Quinn is running unopposed.

83rd House

(Meriden, Berlin)

Jonathan Fazzino,

1. “Like many Connecticut residents, I am extremely disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. As an attorney, I disagree with the majority's convoluted arguments and its suffocating perspective on due process as it relates to fundamental liberties. More importantly, as a candidate for office, I fully believe that women should be the deciding factor on what is best for their own bodies. Not the government. This ruling takes our country back over a half century. Now, the main stage of the issue of abortion rights and access falls to our State Capitol, where I plan to resist and reject any effort that would strip women in Connecticut of their right to choose what is best for them.”

2. “I support the Safe Harbor law. It will protect women who travel to Connecticut for an abortion. This was a wise and proactive step that the legislature took knowing that the Supreme Court was poised to strike down Roe v. Wade. Not only is this law the right thing to do, it also makes clear that Connecticut will not be an accomplice to any jurisdiction reaching beyond their border to prosecute someone seeking a legal medical procedure in our state. I'd like to especially thank and applaud Rep. Abercrombie and Rep. Linehan for their support of this vital legislation.”

Lou Arata, Republican

1. “First and foremost, we are a people who follow the rule of law and to be able to exercise personal freedom should not be infringed. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. In situations of rape, incest or medical emergency, I support the woman's decision. I believe the ultimate decision is between the mother and her God. Late term abortions and abortions used as contraception, I am vehemently against. Are we not supposed to protect our most vulnerable?

Furthermore, I feel parents should be part of the decision making process, assisting with a minor's choice. If the medical experts put the viability of the baby at 22-26 weeks, is not six months time enough for the mother to decide the life path for the expected child?”

2. “If the state of Connecticut has legal abortion access, then that is what we have. When our own legislation is written to supersede the laws of other states, I am not sure that is a healthy relationship between states.”

84th House


Hilda Santiago, Democrat*

1.  “I am disappointed and disheartened for the countless women who lost a fundamental constitutional right to make decisions impacting their bodies and their families. I understand both arguments on this issue, and stand in support of the individuals that ultimately must make tough decisions with respect to their very personal circumstances.”

2.  “I supported this law because the decision to terminate a pregnancy is very personal and not as simple and easy as some may choose to believe. It is not a one size fits all approach. There are several different reasons pregnant individuals may pursue to end their pregnancy and I stand in support of their personal choice. It is not my job to judge circumstances, but to support those who, for one reason or another, need to come to Connecticut to have an abortion, now that they lost a fundamental constitutional protection. I am pleased with the law we put in place to codify what has been the law of the land for 50 years, as I firmly believe that decisions like this one should be left to individuals and their physicians caring for them. My commitment is to defend protections for all individuals regardless of what my personal principles are. Our Safe Harbor Law offers that choice to those who need it.”

Santiago is running unopposed. 

85th House


Mary Mushinsky,

1. “I strongly oppose the Supreme Court's decision which reversed 50 years of the right to legal abortion and sent the question back to the states. The states disagree on abortion policy, and Connecticut women will need to carefully consider whether they should move to, or even travel through, a state where the procedure is banned. For example, if a pregnant woman developed an ectopic pregnancy (outside the uterus), some states' laws would not allow a doctor to remove it to save the woman's life. 

I have spent considerable effort to successfully reduce our state's unplanned pregnancy and abortion rate by legislating programs including: (1) Pathways/Senderos and other programs to mentor youth to focus on their future and avoid early pregnancy; (2) medically accurate family life education; and (3) contraceptive services, including in 2022 the most reliable version, long-acting reversible contraceptives. The number of abortions in CT dropped by nearly a third over the decade 2009-2019 as we improved access to more affordable and effective contraceptive methods. I expect this trend to continue if CT continues to make available the long-acting reversible version.”

2. “I strongly support and voted for Connecticut's Safe Harbor Law. It takes these steps in response to Texas "bounty" law to protect both Connecticut women and Connecticut doctors and medical clinics serving women from Connecticut or other states:  (1) we protected Connecticut doctors and clinics, and those women who use these doctors and clinics, by restricting the release of patients' health care records; and (2) we allowed patients and providers in Connecticut to recover legal costs if they are targeted by a bounty hunter from Texas or another bounty hunter state. In Connecticut, the majority of legislators, including me, objected to amateur bounty hunters from Texas or any other state interfering with doctors or patients in our state, where abortion is legal, to win a $10,000 reward.”

Republican Kerry Lentz did not respond for comment. 

90th House 

(Wallingford, Middlefield)

Rebecca Hyland, Democrat

1. “SCOTUS’s decision to overturn Roe is disastrous. It guarantees more women will lose their lives through dangerous pregnancies and unsafe abortions. More mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives will be irreparably harmed by this decision. Even more aggravating is the fact that this will disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes, as well as minorities. This Court is not a democracy in action, and we must continue to fight against it.”

2. “Yes, I agree with CT’s Safe Harbor Law, and I will work to protect it as State Rep. CT is a role model when it comes to protecting women’s right to choose and reproductive rights. However, we cannot take this for granted. We must vote in pro-choice candidates. My opponent is actively working to undermine abortion rights. He is the lawyer for an Arizona organization suing our state in an effort to chip away at women’s rights. That is terrifying. We must actively seek to protect women in CT, including those who come here for our help. That starts with voting the right people into office.”

Republican Craig Fishbein, the incumbent, did not respond for comment. 

86th House 

(Durham, Guilford,
North Branford)

Vincent Candelora,

1. “I think I understand the court’s attempt to provide states more authority to govern themselves essentially under the construction of our U.S. Constitution, but it has obviously put a lot of states into crisis and I think from a practical standpoint that’s just highly problematic for those states that are impacted by it. So the decision overall, I haven’t read it so the jurisprudence of it I don’t have as much of a comment on being a lawyer, but I think the practical impact of it is significant. Fortunately Connecticut will not feel the legal impact of that decision. “

2. “I voted against that legislation for other reasons. Ironically I think the Safe Harbor Law isn’t keeping with the Supreme Court’s decision about state’s rights. I don’t believe that any state in the union should be able to come after Connecticut residents or activity in the state of Connecticut and try to prosecute that activity. Each state is their own sovereign entity. We respect the laws of each other states with full faith and credit and so I think that is a provision that was passed this year that I was supportive of.”

Candelora is running unopposed. 

81st House


Christopher Poulos,

1. “In May of 2008, at the end of her first trimester, my wife called me at work and shared her doctors had told her there was a 50% chance our unborn child had Down’s Syndrome. We decided to opt for a test that would let us know for sure and we’re relieved when the results came back negative.

The doctors then said it was likely the baby would be born deformed. We waited and as the fetus developed and they soon eliminated that prognosis.

Then we were told that it was likely that the baby had a heart defect. Again we waited and the heart was fine.

Finally, just before the 4th of July the doctors told us that they had discovered fluid in the baby’s lungs, and if the fluid remained, the lungs wouldn’t develop. They said they could attempt to drain the fluid, but there was no guarantee that this treatment would work. Despite the risks we opted for the procedure and waited. At our follow up appointment, the doctors reported that the fluid was back.

We were then told that there were no more tests and that our options were to terminate the pregnancy or wait for a miscarriage. Doctors calculated that we would lose the baby over the next two days. As people of Christian faith, we opted to let nature taken its course.

The two days turned into two of the longest most painful months of our lives. While the dying baby developed, we attended weekly doctors appointments with no new prognosis. My wife had to endure comments and questions at the grocery store, at church, and at the mall: ‘How nice it will be for your daughter to have a sibling,’ ‘Are you having a boy or a girl?’ ‘What name have you picked out?’ ‘You look great.’

All along we knew that the baby was going to die. Our Catholic priest told us that the strength of our marriage was most important. He told us that if we chose to have an abortion in an effort to ensure that our circumstances would not destroy our relationship, he would offer us confession. But we persisted. Preeclampsia set in before a lengthy labor and the baby was born at 32 weeks. We held her for 10 minutes as she suffocated and died.

Despite the pain and emotional toll during those many weeks of uncertainty and despair, my wife and I endured because we had our faith and the unconditional support of our families... not everyone has that.

We made a very difficult choice that we felt was best for us. It wasn’t an easy choice and no one- not our doctors, families, priest, or anyone else- told us what to do. It was the most difficult decision of our lives, but we had a choice.

We are dismayed at the recent Supreme Court ruling overturning a Roe v Wade. The rhetoric is divisive and does not acknowledge the complicated, difficult circumstances that surround a woman’s choice. Opponents have reduce choice to a whimsical or convenient decision, and they focus on the graphic details of late term abortions, which for the record, I don’t support.

I stand behind a woman’s right to choose. You can judge me on this position. You can judge me on how my wife and I handled our situation. You can judge me on my morals and values, but from experience, I can say with confidence- without hesitation - that no one but the pregnant woman - not a legislator, not a judge, not a news network, and certainly not a critic on social media, should be making any choice for anyone.”

 2. “As for the Safe Harbor component of the recent law that was passed by the General Assembly, I believe that a person's medical choices should be protected and kept confidential regardless of procedure. Doctors operating legal practices in CT should also be protected from the laws of other states.”

Republican Tony Morrison did not respond for comment. 

30th House

(Berlin, Southington)

Republican incumbent Donna Veach and Democratic challenger Lois Campanelli did not respond for comment. 

80th House

(Wolcott, Southington)

Republican incumbent Gale Mastrofrancesco, running unopposed, did not respond for comment.

103rd House 

(Cheshire, Wallingford, Hamden)

Liz Linehan, Democrat*

1. “The SCOTUS decision to send the issue of abortion to the states was a reversal of the fundamental freedom of bodily autonomy, and a convenient excuse to open the door to eliminating the separation of church and state. With Justice Thomas' additional statements on revisiting same-sex marriage and contraception, it's never been more important to elect individuals who will fight to keep the Government out of the marriages and bedrooms of consenting adults. My work in the legislature over the past 6 years has shown my commitment to these rights, and my constituents can trust that I will continue to protect them in this regard.”

2. “Not only do I agree with it, but I cosponsored this legislation. Access to safe abortions remains a top priority. As House Chair of the Committee on Children, my work often centers around child abuse and internet safety. There are concerns that women of childbearing age will use the internet to learn DIY abortions, or purchase counterfeit mifepristone and misoprostol online, which can result in unsafe procedures with possibly deadly consequences. At the Rally for Repo Rights in Cheshire, we heard a heartbreaking story from a young woman who spoke publicly about her abuse which resulted in pregnancy when she was 10. She said the man who was abusing her wanted to ‘keep me and keep the baby,’ and then bravely told the crowd had she not had access to a safe, legal abortion, she would have ended her life instead. For these reasons (and others), Connecticut was right in our refusal to aid in the prosecution of providers and women who seek safe healthcare, while also providing access to essential services for all.”

Chris Bahadosingh,

1. “The recent ruling in Dobbs has confirmed what we already know: the Supreme Courts decision will not affect abortion rights in Connecticut.  Connecticut's abortion protections have been codified since 1990 and the recent Safe Harbor Law is an additional safeguard of our state's autonomy to enforce those laws. I believe that states should have the right to govern these decisions themselves, free of external pressure from other states.”

2. “If elected as state representative for the 103rd District, I have no intention of proposing or supporting any laws aimed at curtailing or overturning the Safe Harbor Law or Connecticut's other existing abortion protections.”

89th House

(Cheshire, Bethany, Prospect)

Kevin O’Leary, Democrat

1. ”As a practicing attorney, I am in complete shock regarding the Supreme Court's decision to reverse Roe v Wade. I strongly disagree with the decision. The Roe v. Wade decision had been the rule of the land upholding the right for an individual to make medical decisions on their own behalf for almost 50 years. This is a constitutionally protected right under the 14th Amendment which calls for an individual's right to privacy.  The integral component of this is the right of an individual to maintain privacy from government intrusion. This Supreme Court has essentially decided that the right to privacy no longer applies if the state government decides so. The recent decision from Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization allows for individual states to attack the constitutional rights of individuals for which our country is supposed to protect. We are a country that was founded on the premise of individual freedom yet this decision expresses otherwise. It effectively allows state governments to intervene in the medical decisions of an individual that should be ultimately left to them, their family, and their healthcare provider. Individual autonomy is now being stripped away. State governments can enact legislation to prosecute private decisions of individuals that would otherwise fall within the scope of healthcare. If you are for limited government intrusion, liberty, and the right for the individual to make their own decisions then this ruling should also sound alarm bells. It now becomes the task of states to ensure the constitutional right to privacy is being upheld rather than the federal government. This is a huge injustice to the personal freedoms of every individual in this country.”

2. “I agree with the state's Safe Harbor law. The state should not have to intervene to protect federally protected constitutional rights, but due to the Supreme Court decision there is no other option at this point until Congress acts. The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization allows the State's to prosecute individuals for making medical decisions that they have decided are in their and their families best interest. This has also created the unforeseen impact that States will have the ability to enact laws to ensure those healthcare decisions are protected, even for those crossing state lines. Equal access to healthcare is something that we as a country should be striving for, yet the Supreme Court ruling is creating inconsistency among an individual's rights and causing individuals to seek health care in other states. Individuals should not be in fear of arrest or incarceration for making health care decisions that have been decided upon in consultation with their doctor and family.”

Republican Lezley Zupkus, the incumbent, did not respond for comment.

22nd House

(Southington, Plainville, Farmington)

Rebecca Martinez, Democrat

 1. “The minute I heard Roe V. Wade was overturned, I felt anxious, angry, and deeply saddened. Women should be making the decisions about their own bodies, not the government. This decision will not stop abortions this will only stop safe abortions. Women will die as a result of unsafe abortions and dangerous pregnancies. This attack on women’s rights impacts every single one of us Democrat, Republican, and Unaffiliated voters alike. Some say this doesn’t impact CT.  We are safe in CT right now. We must make sure we stay that way by electing candidates that will strongly support a woman’s right to choose.”

2. “As a nurse, I fully support Connecticut’s Safe Harbor Law. Access to safe abortion is a priority. This law is necessary to protect  both women and healthcare providers. 

Francis R. Cooley,

1. “The Dobbs v. Jackson decision by the Supreme Court effectively nullifying Roe v. Wade is in line with Justice Byron White’s dissent on Roe in 1973.  Justice White argued the appropriate mechanism for resolving the issue of abortion was through the legislative process, a position echoed by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during a 2013 Q and A at the Chicago Law School, a process that eventually creates a consensus.  As Justice Alito noted in his opinion the Court’s 1973 opinion has only inflamed debate and deepened division rather than creating consensus on the issue.  The Connecticut General Assembly has already passed law regarding Connecticut’s position on the issue so the Supreme Court’s decision will have little effect in the state as consensus, at least in Connecticut, has been achieved.  The recent results in Kansas over a state constitutional amendment on the issue of abortion strongly suggest the majority of Americans are somewhere in the middle on the issue, echoing former President Clinton’s position during the 1992 Presidential campaign, ‘legal, safe, and rare.’”  

2. “Simply put, state law is applicable only in that state’s jurisdiction. New York does not enforce New York law in Connecticut and Connecticut does not enforce Connecticut law in New York.  Interstate investigations of interstate crime is the providence of the Federal Government. State agencies in Connecticut should not be acting in any manner to aid or abet any other state from investigating any legal activities occurring in Connecticut by any person in Connecticut.  To do so is simply unconstitutional and Connecticut state agencies should not need a law to remind them of this basic Constitutional fact.”


More From This Section