Hate-crimes legislation that would provide specific protection for gays, lesbians, abortion clinics and other groups and enhance penalties is already drawing contentious debate on Capitol Hill.

At a hearing Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, both proponents and opponents of a proposed hate crimes law packed the room to hear and voice their own views on SB34, which outlines categories of people and institutions that would receive protection under the current law.

Sponsoring Sen. Pete Suazo, D-Salt Lake, said the hate crimes statute passed in 1992 is inadequate because it was watered downed by the same opposition it faced Tuesday.

"Why are we even considering something like this?" asked Gayle Ruzicka, head of the conservative Eagle Forum, an opponent to the bill. "All people deserve to be protected equally."

She said Utah law should not protect "illegal and immoral behavior" such as sexual orientation under the proposed bill.

But Jeanetta Williams, president of the Salt Lake branch of the NAACP, said Utah needs to stop denying it has a hate crimes problem.

"It is a big problem here in Utah when we have to come back and discuss this bill. There shouldn't even be an argument."

The committee did not vote on the bill as time ran out before all those scheduled to testify could speak.

The bill would protect people against hate crimes on the basis of race, religion, national origin, color, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity or mental or physical disabilities.

Any misdemeanor crime such as assault, telephone harassment or vandalism becomes a third-degree felony if motivated on the basis of these categories. In addition, the bill also protects religious institutions, psychiatric hospitals, abortion clinics and health-care providers.

The bill also provides for sentencing enhancements if the crime is already a felony.

For example, a judge would have the discretion to impose a minimum term of between five-to-eight years in prison if the person is convicted of a crime that is a first-degree felony and proven to be hate crime.

"These acts of terrorism are taking place. These are crimes we must vigorously prosecute," Suazo said.

Prosecutors have complained that Utah's current hate crime law is difficult to prosecute because it fails to define protected categories and it requires proof that the accused meant to intimidate or terrorize.

Suazo's bill deletes the language of intimidate or terrorize.

Paul Boyden with the Statewide Association of Prosecutors said after the hearing that the proposal addresses some of the problems with the current law, although his group has not taken a position.