Contact your State Senator today to oppose HB 6638.
Allison Cross at The Hartford Courant and AP News Fact Check let activists conflate “attraction” with “action”, on par with other recent articles addressing HB6638, previously addressed here and here.
Activists and reporters conflate a pedophile’s sexual “attraction” to children (legal) with sexual “activity” with children (illegal). They and many legislators have not been able to conceive or refuse to admit, that some people are sexually attracted to children, even struggle against it, and don’t act on it. It’s like they don’t believe that in the area of sexual attraction, self regulation is possible.
To that end, we encourage Senators and House members likely to see this bill again, to consider the broad language of “attraction” which is set up to give blanket anti-discrimination protections. Because “attraction” is so broad, and there are no alternative provisions permitting parents, employers and agencies to discriminate based on the underlying reasons for the attraction (pedophile attraction), discrimination against identities based on their attraction to minors (not activity with minors) will be protected from a wide variety of discrimination. Let’s say that again for the reporters, the ATTRACTION will be protected, not the ACTION.
Think it ain’t so? There are many sympathetic stories of pedophiles (people sexually attracted to children), who do not engage in the activity yet can’t find employment or who have lost licensure or other privileges. They are not convicts, they do not practice pedophilia. There are pedophiles not covered by the criminal laws punishing pedophilia actions because they have not been convicted and/or do not engage in that behavior, but do have the attraction. They are also organized.
They are not practicing, yet they are “romantically, emotionally or sexually attracted” to minors (not convicted of any crime) and their attraction is directed at a “gender or genders”. Recall that children have “gender or genders” and are taught to identify their gender or genders in “genderbread person” lessons in our public schools. The “gender or genders” part of the bill provides no plain language to exclude minors.
The most generous interpretation I can think of to exclude “Minor Attracted” identities from anti-discrimination protection is the wishful thinking, that despite the plain wording of the law, a judge would permit a family, employer or agency to discriminate against an “attraction” based on the underlying cause of the attraction, like “pedophilia”? This seems far fetched because, you know, “attraction is attraction”. And a CHRO or other judge faced with a sympathetic fact pattern, legislative history showing legislators rejected any carve-out, and sweeping bill language, will easily rule in favor of a minor attracted person if they want to, particularly if the job or license doesn’t directly deal with children.
To that end, an amendment is necessary to carve out of the broad “attraction” provisions and create an exemption for paraphilias or at least attractions to minors (pedophilia). Parents, employers and agencies should not be forced to entrust their children to professed, un-convicted pedophiles to satisfy wishful thinking, assertions or other about adult notions of sexual identity.