Doctors, parents, pastors say HB25-1312 “crosses line” as Senate advances bill after midnight

By / / Top Stories, Rocky Mountain Voice, State

By Tori Ganahl | Rocky Mountain Voice

HB25-1312, also known as the “Kelly Loving Act,” proposes major changes to how Colorado law handles gender identity. After more than eight hours of emotional testimony that went past 1:00 a.m., the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the bill on a 5–2 party-line vote.

The bill would expand the state’s anti-discrimination laws to include gender identity and expression in areas like public spaces, schools, and legal proceedings.

Bill sponsor Faith Winters described it as a “crash couch for the state,” a metaphor meant to convey safety and refuge for at-risk individuals.

Despite several amendments adopted during the hearing, critics argue the bill still threatens parental rights, religious liberty, and First Amendment protections. 

According to Michelle Chandler, over 680 people signed up to testify. She was only six people away from testifying at the end of the hearing, but was turned away when public testimony ended. As were approximately 500 others.

The hearing was capped at eight hours—four hours for each side—with speakers limited to two minutes. Dozens of Colorado parents, pastors, educators, and experts waited in line for hours, only to be turned away after midnight.

From Mandate to Opt-In: Public Pressure Reshaped the Bill

When first introduced, HB25-1312 included sweeping mandates that would have required every Colorado public school and government agency to adopt specific gender-affirming policies, treat misgendering as a direct violation of civil rights law, and penalize institutions—including publishers and educators—that failed to comply.

But following sharp legal critique, hours of expert testimony, and a growing grassroots backlash, the bill’s sponsors offered six amendments at the beginning of the hearing—significantly reshaping its scope.

Language that would have criminalized misgendering or deadnaming outright was softened; such actions are now framed as evidence of discrimination, not stand-alone violations. 

Provisions targeting publishers and school dress codes were also removed or revised. Schools, however, must still permit students to choose from any dress code option, regardless of gender.

Supporters defended the changes as necessary for constitutional clarity. Civil rights attorney Ashley Cordero testified:

“It requires intentional action. It requires repetitive action. These are the kinds of definitions that our law says are necessary in order for a restriction to be constitutional… This is about repeated, intentional misgendering or deadnaming. Courts have told me they don’t know if it’s discrimination because these definitions don’t currently exist in law.”

Even with the amendments, critics argue the bill’s ideological foundation remains. Courts would still be barred from cooperating with other states that restrict gender-affirming care, and public institutions must recognize individuals’ stated gender identity in official documentation. Courts may also consider repeated misgendering or deadnaming in family law decisions, raising alarm about custody disputes.

Custody, Coercion, Medicalization, and Religious Liberty Concerns

Opponents testified that even in its amended form, HB25-1312 could tilt family court decisions, force medical professionals to conform, and open the door to legal action against parents who don’t affirm their child’s gender identity.

Due to previously enacted legislation, some argued this is already happening, offering their firsthand experience.

“I lost custody of my daughter because professionals affirmed her gender identity without my consent,” said Paul Serrini, a Colorado father. “She’s been suicidal, institutionalized, and has done self-harm. These professions are hijacked with the threat of taking your child away.”

Greg Veeder, another parent, warned, “All a child has to do is say something to social services and they can be removed from their home. Counselors are forced to affirm. No room for discussion.”

Medical experts echoed concerns about politicized care.

“I’ve prescribed cross-sex hormones for adults, but this isn’t something primary care providers should be doing for kids without proper referral,” testified Dr. Travis Morell. “Planned Parenthood and others in Colorado offer these medications through telehealth to minors. There are no good studies proving safety. In the UK, six studies were shut down; Canada has one ongoing. These treatments can lead to significant effects—like pelvic structures of post-menopausal women, underdeveloped genitalia, inability to have full sexual relationships, and lifelong medicalization.”

Dr. Christine Riviera added, “Just because a treatment sounds compassionate doesn’t mean it’s beneficial. We once thought lobotomies and hormone overdoses were helpful too. We were wrong.”

Educators also raised red flags. “I asked my third graders who matters most to them—they said family, not teachers or the state,” said Stacy Adair, a public school teacher. “If I use the wrong pronoun, am I going to get sued? It brings stress to my classroom instead of helping kids learn.”

Faith-based leaders warned that the bill could criminalize traditional views on gender and compel speech against their conscience.

“This bill is an offense to good. It turns justice on its head. It criminalizes Christianity itself,” said Pastor Chase Davis of Boulder County. “God will not be mocked.”

Key Themes from Testimony

Supporters framed HB25-1312 as a civil rights expansion. Civil rights attorney Maddie Lips likened opposition to resistance to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Employment attorney Hayden DePorter testified the bill would provide clarity for workplace conduct, calling persistent misgendering a form of targeted harassment.

But opponents raised sharp concerns about what the bill would mean in practice. 

Clinical psychologist Dr. Eddie Waldrop called gender-affirming protocols “activist-driven” and not supported by long-term data. “Gender dysphoria is rare, but 98% of cases are misdiagnosed—[when it’s] really anxiety, depression, or autism. The suicide data being cited is not evidence-based. Young girls are especially affected. We need to stop and study this,” said Waldrop.

One mother said her custody was impacted when a judge labeled her use of her child’s birth name as “coercive control.” “HB1312 would codify that into law,” she warned. 

Dustin Gonzalez, another father, said a school counselor communicated with his ex-wife for nearly a year behind his back, encouraging his child’s transition. “I wasn’t abusive. I disagreed,” he said. “That disagreement cost me my parenting rights.”

A significant portion of the hearing focused on the emotional and political weight surrounding transgender youth. Multiple supporters framed the bill as a matter of life and death. Multiple speakers asked lawmakers, “Would you rather have a trans kid—or a dead kid?” 

Others cited personal experiences of bullying, isolation, or suicide risk in schools, urging the state to offer broad legal protections and affirming environments.

August, a 17-year-old who identifies as non-binary testified, “I am here on behalf of myself and my nonbinary friends. Suicide is the leading cause of death for people my age. We deserve safety and the right to be ourselves. This bill helps protect our lives and identities.”

Opponents challenged those narratives, highlighting the increasing number of young people who regret their transition. “85 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria resolve by adulthood. Gender affirming care is not affirming—it’s changing. Leave the children alone,” said Dr. Steve Broman.

Others emphasized the blurred line between “social transition,” like name or clothing changes, and permanent medical intervention. “Social transition is not neutral,” said one family law expert. “It’s often the first step on a medical path, and this bill pushes parents and professionals to affirm—or risk liability.”

In The National Spotlight

HB25-1312 has captured national headlines. A recent Wall Street Journal editorial by local parent Erin Lee, “Colorado’s Totalitarian Transgenderism Bill,” called it one of the most extreme examples of compelled gender ideology in the country. Figures like Megyn Kelly and Corey DeAngelis have also criticized the bill, and legal groups are reportedly preparing lawsuits if it passes.

The bill has also been a focus of RMV investigations, with articles examining its implications for school policies and family court. More than 20 pastors signed a joint letter opposing the measure. Grassroots groups like Fight 1312 continue to organize rallies and deliver petitions—including one with 40,000 signatures.

The Judiciary Committee’s vote now sends the bill to the Senate Committee of the Whole for second reading and floor debate.

Critics say the battle over HB25-1312 isn’t just about policy—it’s about what kind of state Colorado will be.

“This bill redefines disagreement as discrimination,” said Chandler, a parent who waited hours to testify but was never called. “If that’s the new standard in Colorado, we’re in trouble.”