This story is part of CT Mirror Explains, an ongoing effort to distill our wide-ranging reporting into a "what you need to know" format and provide practical information to our readers.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has stirred up widespread uncertainty surrounding U.S. vaccine policy during his time as Health and Human Services Secretary. 

Under Kennedy’s leadership, the federal agency has overhauled the committee that issues vaccine recommendations and amended longstanding guidance for childhood immunizations. However, a federal judge in Massachusetts issued an order in late March temporarily blocking every major vaccine policy change made in the last year.

Gov. Ned Lamont has a proposal this session — House Bill 5044 — that would expand Connecticut’s authority over vaccine policy. He said it’s meant “to speak clearly on the importance of vaccines” amid “mixed messages” from the federal government. The Public Health Committee has also raised an identical Senate bill. 

“We are going with the traditional vaccination schedule. It’s been endorsed by all those medical groups. No politics. Let’s follow the lead of medical science,” Lamont said during an interview with The Connecticut Mirror. 

Here’s what you need to know.

What has been proposed?

Both bills would expand the power of Connecticut’s public health commissioner to establish vaccine recommendations for adults and would require state-regulated insurance plans to cover the cost of all state-recommended shots. 

As of now, the Department of Public Health commissioner can issue vaccine recommendations — or a “standard of care” — for children. This legislation would allow the commissioner to issue guidance for adults, as well. But DPH Commissioner Manisha Juthani has insisted these are just recommendations, not mandates.

The proposal would also allow DPH more flexibility in how it can source vaccines. Current statute only allows the state to purchase doses from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that have been recommended by the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. 

In testimony to the legislature, Juthani said that, historically, the arrangement didn’t pose a problem because “ACIP and DPH schedules have been consistent.” But, given “recent divergence in recommendations, Connecticut must ensure continued access to vaccines by authorizing DPH to purchase vaccines based on the state standard of care,” Juthani said, adding that neighboring states have already begun contracting with alternative suppliers.

What are opponents of the proposal saying?

The bills drew a swell of opposition during a public hearing earlier this month. 

Opponents said that establishing a “standard of care” could make it difficult for someone who doesn’t want to get all the recommended vaccines to find a doctor or keep a job, even though the state doesn’t mean for its guidance to be a mandate. They also see a “standard of care” as a slippery slope toward full-blown mandates.     

A measure related to religious exemptions for vaccines also drew heated criticism. 

In 2021, the legislature voted to eliminate religious exemptions from vaccines in schools. But, a state law on the books — the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA — could pose a potential conflict to that move. The proposal under consideration seeks to clarify that RFRA, which protects religious liberties, does not apply to vaccine requirements.

Even though the measure wouldn’t introduce new restrictions on religious exemptions, critics see the RFRA carve-out for vaccines could set a dangerous precedent for weakening religious protections in other areas.

The Public Health Committee passed both proposals earlier this month. The bills would need House and Senate approval to become law.