Colorado Democrats defeat bills on girls’ sports fairness and malpractice timelines for gender treatments

By Shaina Cole | Contributing Writer, Rocky Mountain Voice

Colorado lawmakers earlier this week heard testimony that moved between two questions tied to the state’s ongoing debate over transgender policies.

One centered on medical treatments performed years earlier and whether patients should have more time to file malpractice claims. The other focused on school athletics and whether girls’ sports programs should be limited to biological females.

Physicians spoke about long-term medical outcomes. Detransitioners described treatments they received as minors and the consequences they say followed years later. Athletes and parents weighed in on fairness in girls’ sports.

Both questions came before the House State, Civic, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee.

First up was HB26-1128 – a bill regarding malpractice claims tied to gender-related medical treatments performed on minors.

Supporters told lawmakers that some consequences tied to hormone treatments or surgeries may not become clear until years later.

The committee also considered House Bill 26-1083, which addressed eligibility rules for girls’ sports programs.

Sponsor says malpractice timelines may not reflect long-term effects

Rep. Ken DeGraaf, the sponsor of HB26-1128 presented the bill to the committee during the hearing.

“This bill doesn’t ban gender-affirming care, and it does not restrict doctors,” he explained during the hearing. “It simply ensures that if a child is harmed by a life-altering medical intervention, that they have enough time as an adult to seek justice.”

He argued that some medical consequences tied to hormone treatments or surgeries may not appear until years later.

“If the care is safe and responsibly delivered, this bill will never be used. But if harm occurs, the patient deserves the chance to seek justice.”

Doctors say malpractice timelines already extend decades in some fields

Physicians who testified in support of HB26-1128 told lawmakers that long-term medical outcomes are not unusual in malpractice law.

Dr. Travis Morrell said the timing of complications can vary depending on the type of medical treatment involved. In many procedures, problems become clear relatively quickly.

“For the vast majority of medical procedures, if you get a knee surgery or something, you’re going to know in a few months if everything’s working out okay,” Morrell told the committee.

But treatments involving fertility, hormones, or long-term endocrine changes may take much longer to fully understand.

“If doctors are going to be taking major risks with youth’s fertility — then they should be able to seek recourse in the time that that will become an issue for them… not when they’re 13 or 16 or 17, but over years, and when they’re older, 25, 35.”

Dr. Kevin Howell, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist, told lawmakers that extended malpractice timelines already exist in other areas of medicine.

“When I deliver a baby, that child has the opportunity to file suit against me up to two years after its 21st birthday,” Howell said. “So they have 23 years to determine whether or not an accident or a problem occurred at the time of birth.”

That framework, he said, shows that long timelines are not unusual when medical outcomes may take years to emerge.

“So when you look at this bill and it says that at the age of 38, you may think, well, this is a prolonged period of time. That’s kind of crazy to give them that much time to figure this out.”

“But it’s not crazy because already there is a standard in obstetrics where 23 years is the standard where we can be held accountable for something that occurred at the time of birth. So it does take some time for these children to determine whether or not there’s a problem.”

He added, “I think that the age of 38 is not unreasonable.”

Detransitioners describe long-term consequences

Several detransitioners testified in support of HB26-1128, describing medical decisions made years earlier and the consequences they say followed.

Prisha Mosley told lawmakers, “When I was 17, my doctors began injecting me with large doses of testosterone in order to change my appearance to emulate the opposite sex.” She added, “A year later, my healthy breasts were amputated in a surgery that I didn’t know would cause me life-threatening complications almost a decade later when I gave birth.” 

Mosley called what happened to her “medical fraud and malpractice” and said, “I did not understand the extent of what was done to me or the damage that my doctors had caused until years after the treatments began.” She later told the committee, “This happened to me over 10 years ago, and I am still suffering from irreversible and harmful side effects from testosterone and surgery.”

Antoinette De La Cruz described a different path to the same conclusion. “I did this at 21 years old, and so I wasn’t a minor,” she said, but added that she “still made a huge mistake, and a mistake that I regret to this day.” 

In her opening testimony, De La Cruz said, “it did take me almost close to two decades to figure out my mistake.” She told lawmakers she “would have benefited more from being able to talk with someone and work out through my mental illness and be able to get to mental wellness,” and warned, “giving this to a child, you’re guaranteed to have folks who are going to be falling through the cracks who will become your future detransitioners.”

Debate centers on fairness in girls’ sports

With HB26-1128 finished, lawmakers shifted to another issue before the committee — House Bill 26-1083.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Scott Bottoms, addressed eligibility for girls’ sports programs.

Much of the testimony focused on whether biological differences between male and female athletes affect fairness in competition.

Eric Bodenstadt pointed lawmakers to the physical changes that occur during male puberty. “Male puberty creates permanent advantages in strength, reach, leverage, and cardiovascular capacity,” he said.

Supporters of the bill argued those differences are why athletic competitions have historically separated male and female divisions.

Several witnesses said allowing biological males to compete in girls’ sports could affect results and opportunities for female athletes.

One supporter told the committee, “If we could just save one girl from losing a medal or getting a college scholarship, we should support this bill.”

Missy Espinoza told lawmakers, “No female should lose a chance at a scholarship to a male ever. No female should have to concede their place to a male ever. It is an injustice and you know it.”

Locker room privacy also came up during testimony.

“I can’t imagine having to share a locker room with a biological male when I was a female athlete,” one supporter told lawmakers.

Others framed the bill as reinforcing the purpose of girls’ athletic programs.

Another witness told the committee, “HB 1083 would limit participation in girls sports programs to biological females, affirming the biological distinctions of male and female athletes.” 

Opponents warn of exclusion

Testimony also included concerns about how the bill could affect transgender students in school activities.

“Limiting children’s opportunities harms children and prevents them from realizing their full potential,” a witness representing the League of Women Voters told the committee.

Some witnesses also questioned how eligibility rules would be enforced.

“This bill singles out transgender and intersex students and creates a system where their bodies and identities can be questioned,” one opponent testified.

Alex Floyd of One Colorado told lawmakers the bill could have broader impacts.

“This bill will harm not only transgender girls, but all girls.”

Final votes

The hearing brought together testimony from physicians, athletes, parents, detransitioners, and advocacy organizations on both sides of the two proposals. Supporters of HB26-1128 focused on malpractice timelines and long-term medical outcomes, while testimony on HB26-1083 centered on fairness in athletics and eligibility for girls’ sports.

Both measures ultimately failed in the House State, Civic, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee on 8–3 party-line votes.