transgender

Colorado Bill Would Force Parents to Accept Child’s New ‘Gender Identity’

The Colorado General Assembly is threatening parent’s rights if they oppose “transitioning” their child to a new “identity.”

In cases where parents divorce or separate, Senate Bill 26-018 mandates that courts take into consideration whether or not a parent supports a child’s “identity as it relates to a protected class” when “determining parenting time and allocation of decision-making responsibility.” 

The bill references a Colorado law that includes “gender identity” and “gender expression” as protected classes. 

A parent in a custody dispute who refuses to embrace a child’s rejection of his or her sex would be penalized by the court, granting preference to the parent who favors “transitioning” their child. 

This is already happening in Colorado — and across the nation — as courts and child protective service agencies are removing sexually confused children from parents, but SB 26-018 codifies this abuse of parental rights into law. 

The bill, Legal Protections for the Dignity of a Minor, also suppresses court records of a minor’s name change, hiding the child’s original name and sex. 

In Colorado, 14-year-olds can initiate a legal name change without parental consent, and one parent can petition to change a child’s name and identity, without the other parent’s permission, as long as a judge decides this is in the “best interests” of the child. 

The parent pushing a child toward dangerous, experimental “transgender” medical procedures gains an advantage in custody cases over the parent who believes in biological reality. 

This is the second year in a row Colorado’s state legislators have tried to force parents to agree with a child’s sexual identity confusion — or lose out in custody battles. 

In 2025, as the Daily Citizen reported, the state passed House Bill 1312, Concerning Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals. 

Governor Jared Polis signed the bill into law, despite vehement opposition from thousands of Colorado citizens who signed petitions, attended rallies at the Capitol, testified against the measure, and made phone calls and sent emails to the governor and legislators.

That bill originally had a provision which would have allowed the government to remove children struggling with sexual identity confusion from their parent’s custody if they “misgendered” or “deadnamed” their child — meaning they simply affirmed their child’s true sexual identity and given name.

Because of the backlash, that provision was finally dropped, but the final version of the bill still contained horrible provisions. HB 1312, now the law, allows a student to choose a different name and sexual identity while at school — and requires staff to lie by using the student’s “chosen name” and recognize his or her new identity.  

HB 1312 also requires schools to allow “each student to choose from any of the options provided in the dress code policy.” So boys may wear girls clothing — and vice versa. The law is facing litigation from several parents’ rights groups. 

Colorado is one of many states where courts and child protective service agencies are already attacking parents who do not support their child’s sexual identity confusion. 

Erin Lee, founder and director of Protect Kids Colorado, recently stated in an interview: 

I’ve now helped over a dozen families in Colorado who have lost custody of their children, even in two parent loving households, for not affirming their child’s gender confusion.

In a post on X, Lee pointed to families in Arizona, California, Indiana, Maryland, Montana and Texas where one or both parents lost custody of their children so they could be medically damaged by transgender interventions. 

The parental rights activist, who works to protect children from transgender harms, spotlighted SB 26-018 in a separate post on X, saying:

Once again, Colorado is passing laws to TAKE CHILDREN AWAY FROM PARENTS who will not trans them. If you won’t tell your child they’re born in the wrong body & sterilize them, the state will take them. (Her emphasis.) 

Lee encouraged Coloradans to fight back against this destructive legislation — as does Focus on the Family. 

Related articles and resources: 

Colorado Legislature Passes Radical ‘Transgender’ Bill With Amendments

Colorado Law Mandates Health Insurance Coverage for ‘Transgender’ Mutilations

Focus on the Family Testifies Against Nightmare Bill, Colorado’s Radical ‘Trans’ Legislation Advances

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

Parents’ Rights Groups Sue Colorado Over Radical Trans Law

Protect Kids Colorado

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

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

Top 5 Moments From Supreme Court Arguments Over Girls Sports

On January 13, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases concerning Idaho and West Virginia laws prohibiting male athletes from competing in girls sports.

This morning, the Daily Citizen listened to the Court’s oral arguments – so you don’t have to.

The two cases, Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. BPJ, could have massive implications for the future of girls sports and determine whether states can recognize biological reality and reserve girls and women’s sports for females. You can read the Daily Citizen’s summary of the cases.

Following oral arguments, it seemed likely a majority of the Court would uphold Idaho’s and West Virginia’s laws protecting female athletes.

Here are the top five moments you might have missed.

1. Justice Samuel Alito Defends Reality of Biological Sex

Justice Samuel Alito asked Kathleen R. Hartnett, attorney for the male Idaho student who filed the lawsuit over the state’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, for a definition of what it means to be a “boy or a girl or a man or a woman.”

“We do not have a definition for the Court,” Hartnett replied, admitting she would not define what “sex” means.

“How can a court determine whether there’s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means?” Alito replied.

2. Alito Defends Female Athletes

In a back-and-forth with Hartnett, Justice Alito also defended female athletes who don’t want to be forced to compete against males.

“There are an awful lot of female athletes who are strongly opposed to participation by ‘trans’ athletes in competitions with them,” Alito said, asking, “What do you say about them? Are they bigots? Are they deluded in thinking that they’re subjected to unfair competition?”

“No, your honor,” Hartnett replied. “I would never call anyone that.”

3. Justice Kavanaugh Calls Growth of Girls Sports “Inspiring”

Posing a question to Hartnett about how permitting males into women’s and girls sports could harm female athletics, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to the great growth in female sports in the last five decades.

“One of the great successes in America over the last 50 years has been the growth of women and girls’ sports, and it’s inspiring,” Kavanaugh said.

There “are a variety of groups who study this issue, think that allowing transgender women and girls to participate will undermine or reverse that amazing success and will, you know, create unfairness,” he added.

“For the individual girl who does not make the team or doesn’t get on the stand for the medal or doesn’t make all league [due to a male athlete], there’s a – there’s a harm there, and I think we can’t sweep that aside.”

He asked,

[There’s] a lot of people who are concerned about women’s sports and think this raises a big problem. And I just want to make sure you can explain that.

4. Alito Reiterates Reality of Biological Sex

In another back-and-forth, Justice Alito questioned Hartnett about what a woman is, and how “sex” must have a biological basis.

“Suppose … a student who has the genes and the reproductive system of a male and had those at birth and has never taken puberty blockers, never taken female hormones, never had any gender-altering or affirming surgery, says, nevertheless, I am a woman. That’s who I am. Can the school say, ‘No, you cannot participate on the girls’ team?’” Alito asked.

“Yes, they can,” Hartnett replied.

“But that person – is that person not a woman in your understanding? If the person says, I sincerely believe I am woman, I am, in fact, a woman – is that person not a woman?” Alito pressed.

“I – I would respect their self-identity,” Hartnett replied. “But in terms of the statute, I think the question is, does that person have a sex-based biological advantage.”

5. Alito Finally Gets a Definition of What “Sex” Means

Justice Alito asked Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice, who argued in favor of Idaho’s law, what “sex” means under Title IX.

“We think it’s properly interpreted pursuant to its ordinary traditional definition of biological sex, and I think probably given the time it was enacted, reproductive biology is probably the best way of understanding that,” Mooppan replied.

“All right,” Justice Alito replied. “Thank you.”

Decisions in the cases are expected by the end of June.

The Daily Citizen will keep you updated about Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. BPJ.

Related articles and resources:

Supreme Court to Hear Title IX Girls Sports Case

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Cases on Boys in Girls Sports

Photo from Getty Images.

Supreme Court to Hear Title IX Girls Sports Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two cases about Idaho and West Virginia laws protecting girls sports from male athletes claiming to be female.

The landmark cases will be heard Tuesday, January 13, with the outcome determining if states can uphold biological reality and limit girls and women’s sports to those who are female.

Twenty-six states have similar laws safeguarding girls and women’s sports, all of which could be affected by the Court’s ruling.

In addition, a favorable verdict — protecting girls and women’s sports — could support lawsuits against states and sports organizations that have capitulated to “transgender” ideology and allowed males to compete as females.

The first case, Little v. Hecox, deals with Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. The state was the first in the nation to pass such legislation, signed into law March 30, 2020.

Just two weeks later, the American Civil Liberties Union, which used to support women’s rights in education, filed a lawsuit challenging the Fairness Act on behalf of Lindsay Hecox, who was born male but lives as if he were a woman.

Hecox wanted to run with the ladies on Boise State University’s cross country team. The ACLU argued that Idaho’s Fairness Act violated Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education, along with the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

The complaint stated:

Under Title IX, discrimination “on the basis of sex” encompasses discrimination against individuals because they are transgender, because they are women and girls (whether cisgender or transgender), and because they depart from stereotypes associated with sex (which can include stereotypes about sex characteristics that are or are not typically associated with being male or female).   

Basically, the suit is saying that “transgender girls” (who are male) are girls and that they should not be excluded on the basis of “stereotypes associated with sex.” According to the ACLU’s logic, these “girls” can have “stereotypical” male features such as male genes, reproductive organs, bone structure and musculature.

Idaho’s attorney general defended the measure, with attorneys for Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filing a motion on behalf of two female collegiate athletes, Madison Keyon and Mary Kate Marshall, to intervene in the lawsuit.

Although a federal district court allowed the women to intervene, it halted enforcement of the Fairness Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld that ruling.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, along with ADF attorneys, appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the Idaho and West Virginia cases in July 2025. 

The second case is State of West Virginia v. BPJ.

In 2021, West Virginia was the fifth state to pass a law protecting female athletics. The Sports Act, HB 3293, clarified that male and female sports teams in public secondary schools and colleges must be based on biological sex.

Again, the law was challenged in court by the ACLU along with Lambda Legal, another radical LGBT activist group.  

The complaint was filed on behalf of Becky Pepper-Jackson (B.P.J.) and his mother, Heather Jackson, who is raising the boy as if he were a girl.

ADF intervened “in the lawsuit on behalf of Lainey Armistead, a former collegiate athlete who played soccer at West Virginia State University.”

ADF is co-counsel with West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey. A federal district judge ruled in favor of the state law, but that sensible ruling was overturned by the U.S Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

So West Virgina appealed to the Supreme Court, which consolidated the case with Idaho’s.

Pepper-Jackson was 11 years old when the suit was filed; now he is 15. His and his mother’s complaint reads:

H.B. 3293 is based on unfounded stereotypes, false scientific claims, and baseless fear and misunderstanding of girls who are transgender, which are insufficient to justify discriminatory treatment under any level of scrutiny.

West Virgina responded to the lawsuit:

Allowing biological males to compete in female sports is unfair to biological females due to males’ inherent physical advantages. … It is thus plain that a public school may lawfully prohibit, consistent with the Constitution, males from participating in women’s sports in order to protect equal opportunity concerns that arise from the physiological differences between the two sexes.

Every time a male-bodied athlete competes in a female sport, girls lose out. Thousands of female athletes have been bumped off winner’s podiums by males masquerading as women. The website shewon.org lists 3,257 female athletes around the world who have lost 4,627 medals, sports records, scholarships or other opportunities to male-bodied athletes.

In addition, girls and women are unwillingly exposed to male bodies in locker rooms and showers; are forced to change in front of male athletes; lose the opportunity for female-only camaraderie; and have their safety threatened.

Please pray for the justices as they consider these cases.

The Daily Citizen will keep you updated about Little v. Hecox and State of West Virginia v. BPJ.

Related articles and resources:

ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Idaho Law Protecting Girl’s and Women’s Sports

Biologically Male Collegiate Athlete Wins Female Runner of the Week Award

Biologically Male Runner Decides to Compete as a Woman in College Cross Country

Collegiate Women Athletes File Motion to Keep Biological Males Out of Women’s Sports in Idaho

Idaho Governor Signs Laws Protecting Women’s Sports and Keeping Birth Certificates Based on Biology – Activists and Media Call this ‘Discriminatory’

Meet Three Heroes Working to Protect Colorado Children

Middle School Girls Who Protested ‘Trans’ Athlete Are Banned From Future Competition

U.S. Supreme Court Takes Up Cases on Boys in Girls Sports

West Virginia Passes ‘Save Girls Sports’ Act

Yes, Girls Care When Boys Take Their Trophies

Photo: West Virginia State University soccer player Lainey Armistead, courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom.

Proposed Executive Order Would Protect Parental Rights

A pro-family, pro-child coalition urged the Trump administration this week to issue an executive order protecting parental rights and the religious freedom of Christian parents and foster parents.

The proposed order, which the coalition workshopped with the White House Domestic Policy Council on Wednesday, would:

  • Explicitly affirm parents’ constitutional right to raise their children according to their religious beliefs.
  • Repeal federal foster care rules preventing or obstructing people who affirm biological sex from becoming foster parents.
  • Prohibit organizations from using federal funds to remove children from parents who do not affirm same-sex attraction or sexual identity confusion.
  • Remove federal funding from organizations which help children conceal sexual identity confusion from their parents.

These four recommendations would prevent federal and state governments from unconstitutionally withholding adoption and foster care licenses from Christians or taking children with sexual identity confusion away from loving, Christian parents.

States like Colorado, Massachusetts, Vermont, Oregon, Washington and California require prospective foster parents to affirm a child’s same-sex attraction and sexual identity confusion.

In 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services released regulations giving progressive, “gender affirming” foster care placement organizations privileged status over biology-affirming ones.

Policies like these prevent people like Jessica Bates, Bryan and Rebecca Gantt, Brian and Katy Wuoti and Mike and Kitty Burkes from fostering or adopting some of the estimated 400,000 children in the U.S. foster care system.

Parents in many states can also lose custody of their children for failure to affirm their same-sex attraction or sexual identity confusion.

The Indiana Department of Child Services took custody of Mary and Jeremy Cox’s 16-year-old son after the couple refused to affirm his “transgender identity.” A court eventually found the Cox’s had not abused their son — but the state never gave him back.

He remained in the department’s care to receive treatment for an eating disorder which had worsened while he was away from home.

The Coxes are just one of innumerable heartbreaking examples of state agencies taking children from loving parents who affirm biological. Erin Friday, one of the coalition leaders who met with the White House on Wednesday, says the number of families in this situation far exceeds most people’s expectations.

“The public is unaware that children are being kidnapped by child protective services and family judges because these cases are usually sealed or there are confidentiality laws that prevent parents from going public,” she told The Daily Signal.

Christian parents need not have their child taken to suffer under child protective agencies’ scrutiny.

Erin Lee received an unexpected visit from the Colorado Department of Human Services after she tried to hold her daughter’s public school accountable for secretly teaching gender ideology.

“We managed to evade losing our children that day, but I’ve met many parents who weren’t so lucky,” Lee, who eventually saved her daughter from damaging sexual identity confusion, told the Daily Wire.

She continued:

I also had a six-year-old and an infant at the time and I shudder to think that I could have lost all three of my kids for being a good parent, for being unwilling to lie to my daughter and send her down a path of self-hatred and destruction.

Laws and policies penalizing Christian parents and prospective foster parents for questioning “gender affirming care” are increasingly ludicrous given the mounting evidence proving sex-rejecting procedures harm minors.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ own, peer-reviewed report found “transgender” medical interventions — including puberty blockers, wrong-sex hormones and surgeries — pose “significant, long term and too often ignored” harms to children.

It’s about time America’s foster care systems reflect reality.

Additional Articles and Resources

Wait No More

Wait No More Suitcase Bundle

When Government is Hostile to Christian Foster Parents

President Trump to Sign Executive Order Strengthening Foster Care

Christians Banned as Fathers to the Fatherless

Christian Families Are Not Second-Class Foster Parents

‘Art Club’ Documentary—One Family’s Escape from Gender Ideology, and the Bigger Trend Sweeping the Nation

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

Riley Gaines Asks For Colorado Parents to Help Save Girls’ Sports and Defend Parental Rights

Court Frees Christian Mom to Adopt, Stops Oregon’s Gender Ideology Adoption Mandate

Indiana Family Loses Custody of Son Over Religious Beliefs; Supreme Court Won’t Hear Case

Thank You, Senator Scott, For Leading Charge to Stand Up for Parents and Children in Foster Care

Massachusetts DCF Denied a Catholic Couple’s Foster Care License — Now, They’re Being Sued for Religious Discrimination

HHS Investigates Seattle Children’s Hospital Over Harmful ‘Transgender’ Procedures

U.S. Health and Human Services General Counsel Mike Stuart announced on X that he asked the department’s Office of Inspector General to investigate Seattle Children’s Hospital for “failure to meet professional recognized standards of health care” in its treatment of children who struggle with sexual identity confusion.

Stuart stated, “Our kids’ safety is critical!”

The move followed HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s recent announcement that the department was blocking clinics and hospitals from performing transgender mutilating procedures on children.

The HHS news release announced that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would cut all funding from hospitals that perform “sex-rejecting procedures on children under age 18.” The department further explained:

Sex-rejecting procedures on children – which include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical operations – expose them to irreversible damage, including infertility, impaired sexual function, diminished bone density, altered brain development, and other irreversible physiological effects.

It is unknown how many children were treated by Seattle Children’s with these horrific, body-damaging procedures since it opened in 2016.

But the HHS news release gave some national figures about children harmed by these disfiguring interventions:

Research published in 2023 estimated that from 2016 through 2020, approximately 3,700 adolescents in the U.S., aged 12 to 18 with gender dysphoria diagnoses underwent surgical interventions. This figure includes more than 3,200 youth who underwent breast or chest surgery and over 400 who had genital surgeries resulting in permanent reproductive organ alterations and compromised sexual function.
Separate research examining the period from 2017 to 2021 identified more than 120,000 children ages 6 through 17 diagnosed with gender dysphoria, with over 17,000 of these minors initiating either puberty blockers or hormonal therapy.

Those numbers may be underestimated, as hospitals and clinics across the nation are under investigation by the Department of Justice for lying about “gender dysphoria” diagnoses so that insurance companies will cover puberty blockers and hormones for children.

The DOJ stated on July 9,2025:

Today, the Department of Justice announced that it has sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics involved in performing transgender medical procedures on children.

A declaration from Lisa Hsiao, acting director of the DOJ’s Enforcement and Affirmative Litigation Branch, explained the investigation into one such clinic at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (sadly, with the apt acronym “CHOP”).

Hsiao stated in the declaration:

From testimonies of public whistleblowers and leading national medical experts on the subject matter, the Government is aware of potential violations of federal law in connection with the provision of gender-related treatments for minors occurring at healthcare providers across the country.

She further explained that some who provide these medical interventions, including possibly CHOP, use “the incorrect diagnosis and/or billing code,” change or misrepresent a patient’s sex, or “fraudulently [make] a gender dysphoria diagnosis where patients do not meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.”

Some providers failed to give informed consent to children and their parents; “actively deceived patients and parents with false claims and statements regarding the drugs’ [puberty blockers and wrong-sex hormones] effectiveness”; or “misrepresented to minor patients and their parents the risks associated with and the science claimed to support taking the drugs.”

Seattle Children’s was one of the hospitals under investigation by the DOJ, but a judge shut down the effort.

In investigating Seattle Children’s, HHS is following an executive order signed by President Donald J. Trump in January 2025, Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.

But transgender activists and their allies have worked to stymie the administration’s efforts to safeguard troubled children.

Shortly after the order was signed, the state of Washington, joined by Oregon and Minnesota, sued to stop it from going into effect.

Washington Governor Bob Ferguson supported the lawsuit stating:

President Trump’s attempt to withhold federal funds from states that offer health care to transgender Washingtonians is unlawful and cruel. Washington is a place that supports every resident’s civil rights.

On the contrary, no one has a “civil right” to maim and mutilate themselves.

Similarly, there is no medical “civil right” to damage and destroy children’s bodies.

The Daily Citizen is grateful that the tide is turning on against transgender identification, ideology and medical interventions. We pray that HHS is successful in pursuing those who fraudulently performed these destructive procedures on children.

Related articles and resources:

Daily Citizen:

DOJ Targets Those Mutilating Children with ‘Transgender’ Drugs and Surgeries

FDA Sends Warning Letters to Companies Promoting Sex-Rejecting Breast Binders

Florida Sues Medical Groups for Promoting ‘Transgender’ Mutilation of Children

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

HHS Will Block Hospitals From Performing Sex-Rejecting, Mutilating Procedures on Children

President Trump Signs Order Protecting Children From Transgender Medical Interventions

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

Sixteen States Sue Trump Administration for Protecting Children from ‘Trans’ Procedures

Transgenderism and Minors: What Does the Research Really Show?

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

Focus on the Family:

Chloe Cole: Gender Reassignment Surgery Regret

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

God’s Amazing Grace in a Transgendered Person’s Life

Transgender Resources

Understanding “Transgenderism”

Photo from Shutterstock.