To The Editor:

As a Connecticut taxpayer, I am writing to express my strong disapproval of the recent decision to approve emergency funding that includes $10,400,000 for Planned Parenthood under the banner of “keeping Connecticut affordable.”

Framing this allocation as an affordability measure is, in my view, misleading. This funding does not provide broad, direct relief to residents in the form of lower taxes, reduced utility bills, rent relief, or other general cost-of-living measures. Instead, it appears to function primarily as a backfill for lost federal dollars to a single nonprofit provider, stabilizing its operating budget rather than directly reducing the financial burden on Connecticut families.

Labeling this as an effort to “keep Connecticut affordable” obscures the true nature of the expenditure and the trade-offs involved. Many taxpayers reasonably expect emergency funds marketed as affordability measures to be used for widely shared benefits, such as food assistance, energy relief, housing support, or broad-based health cost reductions. Using this umbrella language to justify a multimillion-dollar subsidy to one organization, particularly one that provides abortion services and is, therefore, politically and morally contentious for many residents, undermines transparency and public trust.

Moreover, this decision looks less like urgent, short-term emergency relief and more like a discretionary policy choice to protect one provider from federal funding reductions going back months and extending into the future. If the state believes Planned Parenthood’s funding gap is a priority, that case should be made honestly and directly to taxpayers and the legislature, rather than presenting it as a generalized affordability initiative.

As a taxpayer, I am deeply concerned that:

The messaging around this funding masks a targeted organizational subsidy as broad affordability relief.

The money could have been directed to more neutral and widely accessible forms of assistance that clearly and directly lower costs for Connecticut residents.

This approach sets a precedent for using “affordability” as a catch-all justification for controversial or narrowly targeted expenditures.

I respectfully urge you to reconsider this approach to both policy and communication. At a minimum, future proposals should clearly distinguish between universal affordability measures and targeted bailouts or backfills for specific organizations, allowing taxpayers and legislators to understand and debate the real priorities and trade-offs.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to greater transparency and a stronger focus on truly broad-based affordability relief for the people of Connecticut.

Vikki Lynn Carlson

Newtown