By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice
A landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee’s restrictions on gender-related medical interventions for minors has reignited scrutiny over Colorado’s HB25-1312, with several Republican lawmakers calling the ruling a clear rebuke to the law’s premise—and a warning to parents.
“I was so happy with the Supreme Court’s ruling. I hope it leads to the State of Colorado being sued for the passing and the Governor’s signing of HB25-1312,” said Sen. Janice Rich (Mesa County).
That ruling, issued June 18 in U.S. v. Skrmetti, affirmed that Tennessee’s restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for youth were constitutionally sound because the state had a legitimate interest in protecting minors from harm.
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted Tennessee had determined such treatments “can lead to the minor becoming irreversibly sterile, having increased risk of disease and illness, or suffering from adverse and sometimes fatal psychological consequences.”
For Rep. Ken DeGraaf (El Paso County), that statement cuts to the heart of the issue.
“This carries profound implications and recognition that this is, in fact, harm to which a minor cannot consent,” he said. “It is something done TO a child, not FOR them.”
DeGraaf believes the ruling validates what many Colorado parents and lawmakers have been warning about for months—that HB25-1312 opens the door to irreversible procedures without proper oversight or maturity.
Sen. Lisa Frizell (Douglas County) pointed to the ruling’s anticipated impact. “I’m very pleased about the ruling,” she said. “It really clears the way for states to be able to create legislation around this topic and make sure that children are protected within their boundaries.”
But she noted that in Colorado, politics may prevent such protections.
“I would love to see Colorado do something similar,” she said. “However, given our current political environment, I don’t know that that’s really possible.”
Gov. Jared Polis signed HB25-1312 into law on May 16, without the press events that accompanied several other bills that week. The measure builds on existing law that allows children 12 and up to seek counseling or gender-related care without a parent’s say.
It sparked heavy opposition—over 700 Coloradans signed up to speak, most against it.
During one of the hearings, Rep. Lorena Garcia (a co-sponsor of the bill) compared concerned parents to hate groups. Rep. Yara Zokaie added that the bill “does not need to be discussed with hate groups” and said she “wouldn’t ask the KKK for their opinion”—remarks that drew sharp criticism from Republican lawmakers and parent advocates.
Rep. Matt Soper (Delta County), who has a background in law, said the Supreme Court’s recent ruling might give critics a way to challenge it.
“Skrmetti would open the door to a legal challenge of HB25-1312. However, the hurdle will be that Skrmetti doesn’t address the question of what if a state does the opposite of Tennessee,” he said.
Still, Soper made his position clear. “I’d support a full repeal of HB25-1312,” he said. “A juvenile doesn’t have the mental development to understand or comprehend the decision they’d be making with puberty blockers or gender reassignment surgery.”
The Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s decision on the grounds that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting minors from potential harm. The justices cited the legislature’s findings that “minors lack the maturity to fully understand these consequences… and that many individuals have expressed regret for undergoing such treatments as minors.”
They also noted Tennessee’s conclusion that the full long-term effects of such interventions “may not yet be known.”
For DeGraaf, the ruling stands out as one of the few moments of clarity to come from the Court on this issue.
“It is very powerful that SCOTUS acknowledged ‘that administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors… carries risks, including irreversible sterility, increased risk of disease and illness, and adverse psychological consequences that minors lack the maturity to fully understand’ even if ‘to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, or gender incongruence,’” he wrote.
He continued, “Unfortunately, it does seem to leave open the door for the child’s custodian to make that decision for them. Since this stops short of an actual ban, I think it will just ramp up the rhetorical machinations of the Democrat party to groom parents into mutilating their children, or strip parents of custody as intended by the introduced HB25-1312—anything to ensure the multi-billion dollar industry of medical experimentation continues. While a welcome ruling, it unfortunately doesn’t seem to make children significantly safer.”
For Rich, the issue isn’t just medical—it’s constitutional.
“I personally believe that parents have a sacred right to raise and guide their children in ways that are consistent with that family’s traditions,” she said. “The right of parents to make decisions about their children’s upbringing is fundamental and must be protected.”
While lawmakers removed the bill’s original custody language, Rich said the bigger concern is how it positions the state above parents in sensitive situations at home.
“It concerns me that the government continues to think it knows better than the parents as to what is best for their children. Should the issue of a child’s gender arise in the home, I believe the parents of that child are in the best position to address the issue in concert with the child’s pediatrician.” Rich argued, “Parents may not always immediately understand or accept their child’s gender identity, and this should NOT be viewed as neglect. Resorting to punitive measures by taking away custody or imposing legal consequences is not only an overreach but a violation of parental autonomy.”
Frizell agreed—and went a step further, pointing to what she described as the bill’s activist roots.
“This bill was not an isolated incident,” she said. “It was characteristic of the big bills the Democrats brought that were half-baked and so bad that even they ended up having to alter them. And we were told in committee that HB25-1312 was the product of a stakeholder meeting with the trans community. It wasn’t written by these Democrat lawmakers. It was written by activists.”
DeGraaf was blunt. “It is unconscionable that some adults abuse their position as trusted adults to harm children by distancing them from their parents’ protective oversight,” he said. “The state should be protecting these children, not acting complicitly in their harm.”
As debate continues over whether HB25-1312 can or should be legally challenged under the Skrmetti precedent, all four lawmakers agree that the Supreme Court’s ruling has changed the national landscape.
For Rich, the fundamental question remains the same—who truly has a child’s best interest at heart?
“SB25-1312 is now a stealth version of the original text. And while they say they took out the child custody section, which is true, leaving in the bill the concept of ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering’ as a form of discrimination means that parents who refuse to comply with this radical worldview will still be faced with the cold, hard reality that the state could use this law to take away your children.”
Rich added, “Note: the government will never love your children.”