Legislation

State Roundup: Legislation Affecting Families in Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire and Washington

At least 46 state legislatures are in session right now, considering bills that affect life, marriage, families and religious freedom. While Congress’ actions often receive the most media attention, there are important measures being debated in each state. 

Legislative efforts often spread from one state to others, so it’s important for those concerned about culture and policy issues to pay attention to what’s happening around the country — as well as what legislators propose in their own state. 

Here’s a quick rundown of bills in four different states — Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire and Washington — dealing with key issues affecting families. 

Defining “Male” and “Female” in Indiana

Indiana Family Institute (IFI) is supporting Senate Bill 182, a measure which defines “male” and “female” for all state laws. The Institute, a Focus on the Family-allied Family Policy Council, explains why the bill is needed: 

For decades, no statutory definition of “male” or “female” was necessary, but modern gender-identity activism has made clarity essential. Defining sex according to objective biological markers protects the original meaning of laws like Title IX and prevents the legal chaos that would result from replacing sex with self-declared identity. Senate Bill 182 would codify a clear, biologically based definition of “sex” in state law and require that birth certificates reflect an individual’s sex at birth, without later alteration.

In addition, the bill prohibits public schools “from requiring a student to share sleeping quarters with a member of the opposite sex, unless the individual who is a member of the opposite sex is a family member.” It also “requires public schools … to designate a multiple occupancy restroom or changing area as follows: (1) For the exclusive use of the male sex. (2) For the exclusive use of the female sex.”

Check out Indiana Family Institute for more information about their 2026 Legislative Agenda to support issues related to marriage, family, life and religious freedom. 

Religious Freedom in Kentucky

Kentucky’s Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation to protect the conscience rights of doctors, nurses and other health care professionals, with a vote of 28-5. SB 72, the Healthcare Heroes Recruitment and Retention Act, is supported by The Family Foundation, a Focus on the Family-allied Family Policy Council. The organization explains why this bill is important: 

This important bill protects doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals from being forced to perform harmful or unethical procedures that violate their oath and conscience.

David Walls, executive director of the pro-life, pro-family organization, encouraged the Kentucky House to pass the bill, saying, “No Kentuckian, especially our frontline healthcare workers, should be forced to choose between their faith and their profession.” 

There’s more information about The Family Foundation here. 

New Hampshire’s Pro-Life Measure 

“Right-to-try” laws allow patients with chronic and debilitating illnesses to access treatments that are not yet fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration. New Hampshire has a right to try law, but HB 1292 would improve the law and protect life by criminalizing the use aborted babies’ organs as a source for stem cell lines.

New Hampshire’s Cornerstone, a Focus on the Family-allied Family Policy Council, explains the importance of this legislation: 

After last year’s advancements for the right to try experimental life-saving treatments, biotech companies are now taking interest in New Hampshire. Layon’s bill will help continue to attract innovation to the Granite State while ensuring we stop and criminalize use of abortion byproducts.

The organization explains that the legislation is modeled after a successful Florida law, adding: 

By prohibiting experimental treatment biotech companies from using stem cells of aborted children, companies can research life-saving treatments without supporting a life-taking industry. Stem cell treatments that do not use abortion will still be strongly protected. 

Learn more about New Hampshire’s Cornerstone and how to support family-friendly legislation here. 

Higher Taxes in Washington State

The Washington State Legislature is considering a bill titled “Establishing a tax on millionaires.” SB 6346 is opposed by the Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW), a pro-life, pro-family Focus on the Family ally. 

The organization explains in a Facebook post that the bill places  a “9.9% income tax on income over one million dollars, along with a cap on charitable deductions.” Pastor Brian Noble, CEO and President of FPIW, argues that the “‘Millionaires Tax’ violates biblical principles of justice, property rights, charity, and civil authority, and also conflicts with the state constitution and voter intent.”

FPIW states that SB 6346 will negatively affect all families, giving this warning: 

High earner income and wealth taxes are associated with capital flight and relocation of entrepreneurs, investors, and business owners to lower tax states, which can shrink the long-term tax base and private sector job growth rather than strengthen it. In the name of “tax the rich,” the real impact of this bill will be to hurt middle- and lower-income families, who need good jobs in order to prosper.

Citizens of the Evergreen State can find out more about the bill here and more about Family Policy Institute of Washington here. 

Related articles and resources: 

How to Get In Touch With Your State Policy Group

Activist Erin Friday on Protecting Kids and Fighting ‘Gender’ Ideology

‘The Babylon Bee’ Fights Hawaii Law Censoring Political Speech

Invoking God’s ‘Mercy,’ NY Gov. Kathy Hochul To Sign Assisted-Suicide Bill

Kansas Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto, Protects Women’s Bathrooms

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

Sixteen Attorneys General Demand Answers on YouTube Censorship

UPDATED: Pornography Age Verification Laws — What They Are and Which States Have Them

Washington State Citizens Fight for Parents’ Rights, Girls Sports

Colorado Committee Kills ‘Children Are Not for Sale Bill’

The Colorado House Judiciary Committee voted against the “Children Are Not for Sale Bill,” legislation that would have mandated a life sentence without the possibility of parole for anyone who traffics or purchases a minor for sexual activity.

It seems common sense that the most heinous crimes deserve the harshest penalties, but the bill was killed before it could go to the full House for a vote. 

Legislators voted along party lines, with seven Democrats voting against the measure and four Republicans voting for the bill. It is clear where people stand.

The bill, HB26-1082, would have elevated human “trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude” from a class 2 to a class 1 felony in Colorado, categorizing it with the most serious crimes like first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping.

In more than four hours of intense testimony, dozens of parents and victims of trafficking spoke in favor of the Children Are Not for Sale Bill. 

Only five people testified against it, including three defense attorneys and a representative of the ACLU. 

In his opening remarks, committee Chair Javier Mabrey, D-Denver and Jefferson Counties, acknowledged that “emotions run high” when discussing this horrific topic. He reminded the representatives and those who testified:

It’s important to be clear that every person in this room cares about the safety of children.… These crimes are among the most serious and devastating offenses imaginable.

Mabrey then went on to add: 

And reasonable people can differ on the policy here. You can differ on what the punishment should be, how our sentencing structure should operate and what approach best protects children and strengthens public safety.

And there were, indeed, serious policy differences between those who supported the Children Are Not for Sale Bill and those who opposed the measure. 

Representative Scott Bottoms, R-El Paso County, who also serves as a pastor in Colorado Springs, introduced the bill, saying: 

I think one of the most egregious things that can happen to a society is the rape of children, the trafficking of children, the abuse of children. … I strongly believe that children are the most innocent among us, and I’m not okay with anybody touching them or doing anything to them inappropriately. 

He described his more than 30 years of helping victims of sexual abuse and trafficking, both as a pastor and as a board member of a ministry to survivors. Bottoms explained this exploitation has life-long effects on children, so perpetrators deserve a life sentence. 

He also argued, “Having been trafficked isn’t an excuse for repeating the cycle.” 

Dr. Karen Pennington, a professor of nursing and Colorado director of Concerned Women for America, testified in favor of the legislation:

The issue of child sex trafficking and prostitution has seen explosive growth in our country, from $500 million a year to $150 billion per year. Tennessee Board of Investigation cites a child is sold or bought for sex every two minutes every day in this country. 

Dr. Pennington added: 

Without this bill, a prostituted child is left with a mandatory life sentence of multiple traumas, PTSD, mental and behavioral difficulties.  And the perpetrator gets probation, in most cases, and is free to continue to prey on our children.

Erin Lee, founder and director of Protect Kids Colorado, also spoke in favor of the bill, which is virtually identical to a citizen-initiated ballot measure the organization is hoping to place on the November ballot. 

She explained that Colorado ranks number 10 in the nation for human trafficking reports, adding:

We need to deter people from harming children. If they know there are strict penalties, and they will be held accountable, they are less likely to victimize a child to begin with. 

The first to oppose the bill was Ariane Frosh, an attorney who works as policy counsel at ACLU Colorado. With a background in “gender and reproductive justice,” she said the ACLU opposes the measure because judges “are best suited to decide a just sentence” and there was no allowance for “mitigating and individualized circumstances.”

Frosh added that the bill “undermines goals of rehabilitation and personal transformation while in jail and increases financial burdens on these institutions.” She suggested the state invest in prevention strategies. 

Three defense attorneys opposed the bill. James Karbach, from the Colorado Public Defender’s Office, said the bill was too broad and that it could “ensnare people who themselves have been trafficked.” He also argued: 

If a person hires an 18-year-old prostitute or a person engaged in sex work and is caught, they would face very, very limited penalties. If they believed that person to be 18 and they turned out to be 17, then they would face life without parole under this bill. … This policy solution won’t achieve effective goals, is costly, and doesn’t fit well within our [penalty] scheme.

Laurie Rose Kepros, the director of sexual litigation for the Colorado Office of the State Public Defender, said HB26-1082 could be used against survivors of trafficking, or even against those trying to help trafficking victims with food or shelter. 

She stated the proposed law could also be used to prosecute someone for giving somebody a ride or for helping someone set up a website. During questioning, Kepros explained that transporting a victim could mean: 

An 18 year old who is trying to talk a 17-year-old peer out of engaging in sex work, and decides to give her a ride anyway, so that she will not hitchhike and face even more risk, is subject to prosecution under transportation provisions of this statute. 

Rep. Scott Slaugh, R- Larimer and Weld Counties, explained his vote in favor of HB26-1082: 

We talked about the proportionality of life without parole and a life sentence in prison, versus the life sentence that an innocent individual, an innocent child would face if they were trafficked, I think the proportionality there is pretty significant to look at.  An individual who does this, knowingly, willingly, absolutely deserves severe punishment, and they should fear for their life, their life in prison for doing these kinds of things. No child should fear for their life, and that is the sentence that [a trafficked] child is given.

Those who voted against the bill explained that child sex trafficking is a horrible crime that already receives harsh, cumulative sentences in Colorado. But then gave their reasons for opposing the proposed legislation. Rep. Chad Clifford, D-Arapahoe County, voted against the bill, saying: 

I voted for a bill last year that had increased child sexual assault penalties … And now, for the last two years, I have been engaged with people working on, talking to, people related to this issue long enough to know that something that sounds simple in law is not always so simple. …

He added, “I’m on record multiple times saying that I do believe that offenders of child sexual assault should spend their life in prison.” Clifford then stated that the bill was “like a sledgehammer” aimed at “one particular statute” that would not solve the trafficking of minors in Colorado. He concluded, “We know that this [bill] is not the way.” 

Come November, Coloradans may have the opportunity to vote on a resolution that mandates a life sentence without parole for anyone who traffics a minor, but, at this point, increased penalties will not come from the Legislature. 

Related articles and resources: 

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

Bongino Announces FBI Apprehended 449 Child Predators, Rescued 224 Kids in 3 Months

How to Prevent Sexual Exploitation of Your Child

How to Fight Human Trafficking

Human Trafficking: What You Need to Know

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)

NCMEC’s 24/7 call center number: 1-800-THE-LOST (843-5678)

Protect Kids Colorado

Protecting Your Child From Sexual Abuse

Reclaiming Hope: Resources and Mentoring for Sex Trafficking Survivors

Sign These Three Ballot Petitions to Protect Kids and Parental Rights in Colorado

‘Still Hope’ Movie Tells Story of Hope and Healing After Horrors of Sex Trafficking

Understanding the Scope of Human Trafficking

Is it ‘Voter Suppression’ to Require Proof of Citizenship to Vote?

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE America Act) is proposed federal legislation that would require individuals to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote and to show photo identification when voting in federal elections. 

Proponents state that the Act is necessary to prevent voter fraud and keep non-citizens from voting in federal elections. They explain that the millions of illegal aliens currently living in the U.S. necessitate strengthening election integrity. 

Opponents, on the other hand, claim “instances of noncitizen voting are rare.” They also contend that the Act amounts to “voter suppression” that would “block millions of Americans from voting.”

The Brennan Center for Justice, for example, states its opposition to the Act: 

In every form, the SAVE Act would require American citizens to show documents like a passport or birth certificate to register to vote. Our research shows that more than 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents.

The SAVE America ACT would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), known as the “motor voter law,” which mandates that states offer voter registration for federal elections at state motor vehicle agencies. NVRA also requires states to offer voter registration by mail-in applications. 

The NVRA also requires applicants to sign a statement, under penalty of perjury, that they meet the requirements to vote. But it does not require them to present any proof of citizenship. 

Representative Chip Roy, R-TX, introduced the first version of the SAVE Act in 2024, where it passed in the House but failed in the Senate. Rep. Roy reintroduced the bill in 2025, with the House voting 220 to 208 to pass the measure. Again, the bill died in the Senate. 

Roy introduced a slightly different version of the bill, HR 7296, renamed the SAVE America Act, on January 30, 2026. The newer version, also dubbed SAVE 2.0, added the requirement for voters to present a photo ID to vote in federal elections and mandates that states purge non-citizens from voter rolls. 

The House is scheduled to vote this week on the newer version, and members who support the measure are putting pressure on the Senate to also bring the bill to a vote

Massive Bipartisan Citizen Approval

Voter ID laws have widespread approval. A recent survey from Pew Research Center demonstrated that Americans overwhelmingly support, by a margin of 83-16%, “requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.” Voters from every ethnic background approve of these laws. 

Pew reported: 

Support for photo ID requirements also remains widespread in both parties. More than nine-in-ten Republicans (95%) and about seven-in-ten Democrats (71%) favor requiring all voters to show government-issued photo identification to vote.

House Speaker Mike Johnson stated his support for the SAVE America Act, stating, “The American people deserve free, fair, and secure elections. That starts with proving your identity when you vote.” 

On CNN, news anchor Dana Bash questioned House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries about popular support for voter ID laws. He responded, “We know that states are the ones who are empowered to conduct elections, and every state should be allowed to decide the best way to proceed, to ensure that there’s a free and fair election.” 

He went on to accuse Republicans of trying to engage in “voter suppression.” 

Hans Von Spakovsky, an attorney who has served on the Federal Election Commission, writes: 

Voters want both access and security. And contrary to the claims of critics, you can provide both. Making sure that every eligible citizen is able to vote does not prevent you from implementing measures intended to safeguard that vote.

To this end, Von Spakovsky recommends that states certify the accuracy of voter registration lists, verify citizenship of voters, require voter ID, and limit absentee ballots. He also suggests banning vote harvesting by third parties should be banned and giving election observers complete access to the entire voting and ballot counting process. 

According to Ballotpedia, 49 states “require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections.” North Dakota does not have a statewide voter registration system but does require voter identification to vote. 

However, the online resource adds, “Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring proof of citizenship at the time of voter registration.” Of these, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana have not implemented those systems, and a court decision invalidated Kansas’ law. 

In addition, “Ohio requires proof of citizenship only when registering to vote at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles facility … and Tennessee, requires proof of citizenship for some registrants if there are questions about a person’s citizenship status.” 

Ballotpedia also explains, “As of October 2025, 36 states required voters to present identification in order to vote at the polls on Election Day, but many states provide for exceptions to these rules.” 

States like California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Vermont require no ID to vote.  

Related articles and resources: 

Are Elections Secure? 10 Examples of Election Issues Around the Country

Can the US Postal System Be Trusted with Our Ballots?

Election Security Is on the Ballot in November and December

Georgia’s Election Integrity Act – Voter Suppression or Election Integrity?

The Heritage Foundation: Election Integrity and the American Republic

Voter Fraud: The Election Process, What Can Go Wrong, and Previous Contested Elections and Incidents Why (and How) Christians Should Vote

Photo from Shutterstock.

Texas Doctor Surrenders Medical License Amid Prosecution for Child Mutilation

A prominent Texas pediatrician surrendered her state medical license last week amid allegations she performed illegal “transgender” medical interventions on minors.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Dr. May Lau, then Medical Director of the Adolescent and Young Adult clinic at Children’s Medical Center Dallas, last October for violating state law prohibiting the performance of transgender surgical and hormone procedures on patients under 18 years old.

Dr. Lau voluntarily gave up her Texas medical license on October 23 — but continues to deny any wrongdoing.

“Dr. Lau decided to move her medical practice to Oregon and saw no reason to continue to maintain her Texas license,” her attorney told The Texas Tribune.

“Dr. Lau continues to deny the Texas Attorney General’s politically- and ideologically-driven allegations.”

Attorney General Paxton celebrated Dr. Lau’s departure from the state and vowed to continue the case against her:

May Lau has done untold damage to children, both physically and psychologically, and the surrendering of her Texas medical license is a major victory for our state.
[But] my case against her for breaking the law will continue, and we will not relent in holding anyone who tries to “transition” kids accountable.

SB 14 prohibits doctors from performing transgender medical interventions on minors. The law took effect in September 2023 and remained effective throughout its successful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which upheld it in June 2024.

Three months later, Attorney General Paxton sued Dr. Lau for violating SB 14 at least 22 times.

The filing presents evidence showing Lau illegally prescribed testosterone to at least 21 healthy female patients following the implementation of SB 14, either by writing a script after the law went into effect or by prescribing the patients an improper number of hormone refills past the law’s effective date.

Lau falsely identified several of these female patients as males.

In another case, Lau allegedly diagnosed a young man with a non-existent endocrine disorder to ensure his insurance would pay for opposite-sex hormones.

The Texas Attorney General’s office believes this patient took estrogen for gender confusion, not hormone dysfunction. He later sought treatment from QMed, formerly QueerMed — an organization dedicated to dispensing opposite-sex hormones to people confused about their sexual identity, including minors.

Though Lau continued billing this patient for “endocrine disorder” treatments, other doctors at Children’s Medical Center Dallas billed him for “gender dysphoria” treatments.

The lawsuit uses Lau’s medical background, in conjunction with her alleged bad practice, to paint a picture of a doctor financially and professionally intertwined with radical gender ideology.

Lau claimed to specialize in “adolescent female and male sexual and reproductive health, along with treating youth with gender dysphoria” while heading up the Adolescent and Young Adult clinic at Children’s Medical Center Dallas.

She boasted associations with the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society of Adolescent Health and Medicine and Gender Education and Care Interdisciplinary Support, a now-defunct organization reportedly dedicated to performing transgender medical interventions.

She routinely co-authored research with members of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, a radical activist group made up of members who benefit financially and ideologically from performing transgender surgical and hormone interventions.

The filing estimates 20% of Lau’s published work relates to gender “transitioning.”

Perhaps the most damning piece of background information cited in the filing is a YouTube seminar Lau gave in January 2020 — nearly five years before her alleged misconduct.

In the presentation, titled “Transgender Care of Adolescents and Adults,” Lau admitted:

  • She changes her patient’s records to reflect their subjective “gender identity,” rather than their biological sex.
  • She had at least witnessed, if not performed, transgender surgeries on minors before they started opposite-sex hormone treatments.
  • Adolescent patients experiencing sexual identity confusion often change their name, sex and preferred pronouns from visit to visit.
  • Transgender hormone interventions can cause permanent side effects, including sexual dysfunction.
  • Scientists have not studied the long-term effects and safety of using “puberty blockers” — medications used off label to block the normal production of estrogen and testosterone — on healthy children.

Lau’s statements in the seminar show she knew transgender hormone and surgical interventions were experimental, and that performing them on gender confused adolescents could cause permanent, life-long consequences for people who often change their “identity” later in life.

She chose to perform these unproven, dangerous procedures on teenagers anyway.

Texas is right to pursue legal action against Dr. Lau and others that facilitate and profit from the mutilation of children.

All states, regardless of their political leanings, should adopt policies like SB 14 in recognition of the science, which proves transgender medical interventions do not help children.

Additional Articles and Resources

Focus on the Family Transgender Resources

Why the Move to Re-Pathologize ‘Trans’ Identity is Important

New Paper Details ‘Emerging and Accumulating’ Adverse Effects of ‘Gender Affirming’ Estrogen

Texas’ Ban on Transgender Medical Interventions for Minors Can Take Effect, Court Rules

FTC Begins Investigation ‘Gender-Affirming’ Medical Community for Deception, False Advertising

FBI Investigates Three Major Hospitals for Mutilating Children

INVESTIGATION: Taxpayers Fund Transgender Experiments on Children

HHS Releases Report on Harms of ‘Transgender’ Medical Interventions for Minors

New Research: 50-Fold Increase in ‘Gender Dysphoria’ in UK

Doctor Refuses to Publish Major Study Finding Puberty-Blocking Drugs Don’t Help Children

England’s NHS Stops Dispensing Puberty Blockers for Children — Not Safe or Effective

Do Not Fall for the ‘Affirm Them or They Will Die’ Lie‘ Transgender Means Many Different Things’ — And Nothing

Radical Colorado ‘Transgender’ Bill Threatens Parents’ Rights and Free Speech

A radical bill in Colorado, under the guise of providing “legal protections for transgender individuals,” is being rushed through the General Assembly by activist legislators. They are the same ones who call opponents of the bill “hate groups,” equating them with the KKK, and said such group echo “hateful rhetoric … against the trans community.” 

While supporters claimed the bill is about “civil rights,” it directly threatens parent-child relationships, schools and businesses. The proposed legislation unconstitutionally limits free speech, religious freedom, and parents’ rights to provide for the care, nurturing, and moral and religious upbringing of their children.

Real civil rights don’t take away rights from others.

HB 1312, “Concerning Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals,” actually gives special rights to those with a psychiatric condition listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR), as “gender dysphoria.”

The bill was introduced late in the day on Friday, March 28. On Monday a committee hearing was scheduled for the next day, April 2, giving opponents little time to rally opposition. While more than 100 people testified against the legislation, the vote passed out of committee with a 7-4 vote along party lines.

The legislation seeks to force parents, schools and businesses to kowtow to false and harmful transgender ideology.

One of those who rallied the troops against the bill was Erin Lee, who began exposing the gender cult in Colorado schools after a middle school encouraged her daughter to embrace sexual identity confusion.

Typically, Colorado legislators talk about proposed measures with stakeholders – those who have an interest in the legislation. Witnesses testified the bill had “been worked on for over a year,” but state Representative Jarvis Caldwell said he had just learned about the legislation on Monday, April 1.

Jarvis asked if other stakeholders, “like parent groups that are not a part of the LGBT community,” were consulted.

Representative Yara Zokaie, a former community organizer, responded with contempt for conservatives and Christians, saying:

“A well stakeholdered [sic] bill does not need to be discussed with hate groups. And we don’t ask someone passing civil rights legislation to go ask the KKK their opinion.”

Representative Javier Mabrey concurred, saying, “But I agree, there’s no reason to go to the table with people who are echoing the hateful rhetoric going around about the trans community.”

So only transgender activists and ideologues were consulted about the bill.

Here are explanations of several sections of HB 1312, which is really eight bills rolled into one, noting how different provisions negatively affect basic constitutional rights.

Section 2: When a parent is involved in a custody case before a court, and their child insists he or she is a different “gender” or sex, the bill declares that it is “coercive control” – child abuse – if the parent does not affirm the child’s mental, psychological and emotional confusion. The measure’s summary of this section says:

When making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual’s gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control.

A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child.

According to HB 1312:

“Deadname” means to purposefully, and with the intent to disregard the individual’s gender identity or gender expression, refer to an individual by their birth name rather than their chosen name. …

“Misgender” means to purposefully, and with the intent to disregard the individual’s gender identity or gender expression, refer to an individual using an honorific or pronoun that conflicts with the individual’s gender identity or gender expression.

Parents, who knew their child’s sex from birth and named their child, are forced to use the new name and pronouns chosen by their child.

The bill violates parental rights and infringes on their First Amendment rights to free speech and religious liberty.

Section 3: HB 1312 prohibits Colorado courts with complying with “another state’s law that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from the child’s parent or guardian because the parent or guardian allowed the child to receive gender-affirming health-care services.”

In other words, Colorado will now be a destination state for a parent who wants to harm his or her child with irreversible, body-damaging drugs, hormones and surgeries. Colorado courts may not cooperate with the parent’s home state – even if that state has taken custody away from that parent.

Sections 4, 5 and 6: Public schools with dress codes “must not create or enforce any rules based on gender and must allow each student to abide by any variation of the dress code,” the bill’s summary states. Schools must also allow students to change their names from their given, legal name. The new law applies to charter schools.

Finally, Sections 8 and 9 add “deadnaming” and “misgendering” to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, “prohibiting these discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation.”

The bill forces people to support false and damaging gender ideology. It requires employees and businesses to agree that it is possible to change one’s sex, violating the religious freedom of many.

All of Colorado must now “collaborate with a mental disorder,” as Psychiatrist Paul McHugh wrote.

HB 25-1312, “Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals,” is likely to pass the full House. One it has been assigned to a Senate committee, concerned citizens may learn about how to participate in Colorado’s legislative process and sign up to testify.

Related Articles and Resources

Erin Lee tells the story of fighting gender ideology in her daughter’s school.  

American College of Pediatricians: No Benefits From ‘Gender-Affirming’ Interventions

Are Sex and Gender Different Things?

Mom Files Lawsuit Against School District for ‘Transitioning’ Daughter Without Her Consent

A Singularly Christian View of the Transgender Problem

‘Trust the Science’ About ‘Gender-Affirming Care.’ What Science?

What Are Male and Female in God’s Story?

Why a Trans Woman is a Not a Woman

‘The WPATH Files’ Exposes ‘Surgical and Hormonal Experiments on Children’

The WPATH Files – Transgender Interventions Are ‘Unethical Medical Experiments’