SB 90, An Act Revising And Consolidating The Hate Crimes Statutes

TESTIMONY OF THE CONNECTICUT HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
SUBMITTED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Friday, February 27, 2026

The Connecticut Hospital Association (CHA) appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony concerning SB 90, An Act Revising And Consolidating The Hate Crimes Statutes.  CHA opposes Section 11 of the bill, as written.

Connecticut hospitals make our state stronger by delivering nationally recognized, world-class care, supporting jobs and economic growth, and serving communities across Connecticut.  Every day, hospitals improve access, affordability, and health equity — providing care to all patients regardless of ability to pay.  At the same time, hospitals invest in their workforce and local communities, even as they navigate significant financial and federal challenges.

Section 11 of the bill establishes a new hate crime if a person acts in violation of existing public accommodations laws, without specifying a level of intentionality or mens rea (“guilty mind”) normally included in hate crime laws.  Mens rea is the state of mind statutorily required to convict a particular person of a particular crime.  In order to prove guilt in a criminal trial, the prosecution generally must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the offense, the actus reus (physical element of the crime), with a culpable state of mind.

As mentioned above, Section 11 does not specify a level of intentionality or mens rea and would equate intentional harm inflicted on a person from a protected class with an accidental failure to meet public accommodation laws. 

That language would have the practical effect of making it a hate crime in Connecticut if someone accidentally fails to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards or admits a disproportionate number of students of color as part of an equity and diversity initiative.  We do not believe that is the legislature’s intent, but that would be the impact of the bill.

We ask that either Section 11 be deleted from the bill or that the requisite intentionality language that is present in other sections of the bill be incorporated into this section.  That added language would be:

… with intent to intimidate or harass any other person motivated in whole or in substantial part by any protected social category of such other person or another person.

Thank you for your consideration of our position.  For additional information, contact CHA Government Relations at (203) 294-7301.