A story mentioning HB6638 and the Family Institute of Connecticut was recently “Fact Checked” by Politifact, and we wanted to provide an analysis of their “checking”. We deem their “rating” as Mostly False. An e-mail message to the reporter asking for clarification received no response. We “check” their analysis below each section of their screen shot and annotated below.

ok, so far.

Nothing here is untrue.


This can all be stipulated except that because the definition revolves around “sexual attraction” and “asexuals” have no “attraction” they are excluded from the anti-discrimination protection.

The exclusion for criminalized sexual behavior is not at issue here. The law professor is conflating criminalized sexual behavior with “age-based attraction”. They are assuming that all “pedophiles” are “engaged in criminal behavior”. Not all “minor attracted persons” are sex predators or criminals. The “textual support” is section HB6638 Sec.2(26) which connects “sexual orientation” to the “gender or genders” to which they are “romantically, emotionally or sexually attracted.” The definition has to do with the attraction, not the behavior. MAPs or pedophiles experience pedophilia, an ongoing sexual attraction toward pre-pubertal children. We recommend the bill be clarified to include an “attraction” only to persons who are adults.

Again, as above, a professor conflates ” raping people, sexually assaulting/having nonconsensual sex with them, etc.,” (sex crimes) “or liking to do such things” (still a sex crime) with having an attraction. He conflates “behavior” with “attraction”. With regard to assurances that a “court” will not extend non-discrimination protection to a minor attracted person (MAP), it is simply wishful thinking and an assertion. We propose the legislature clarify that “attraction” excludes attraction to minors.

We rate Politifact’s claims: MOSTLY FALSE