After a father’s warning, lawmakers block porn age-check measure

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

A Mesa County father didn’t show up to talk policy. He showed up to talk about kids.

“My heart breaks for this generation and the technology that they face today,” Mesa County Commissioner Cody Davis told lawmakers, describing a world where explicit material is “one click away” and often discovered long before children understand what they’re seeing.

He talked about foster children, smartphones, and the quiet moments when exposure happens before parents even know it.

“Right now, a 10-year-old boy is quietly absorbing scenes that teach him that women are objects,” Davis said. “Right now, a 12-year-old girl is comparing her natural developing body to the… performer she sees.”

No one in the hearing questioned the problem. Kids are running into explicit content earlier than most parents expect.

That wasn’t where the disagreement was. It was over what to do next.

A proposal from Matt Soper would have let Colorado voters decide whether the state should require age verification for access to pornographic material online. Instead, House Concurrent Resolution 26-1002 was voted down in the House State, Civic, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee on April 13, ending its path to the ballot.

Soper said the idea isn’t new.

“Half of all American states already require age verification for adult content websites,” he told the committee, and ran through a long list of states that have already adopted similar laws, from the South to the Mountain West.

For him, the question wasn’t whether it could be done—but whether Colorado would follow.

A father’s warning

The idea didn’t start at the Capitol.

Soper said Davis approached him about carrying the measure, raising concerns about how easily minors can access explicit content and how difficult it has become for parents to keep up.

“It’s hard for parents to police this,” Soper told RMV after the hearing. “Kids are glued to the internet… anything we can do as a society to protect the innocence of kids—that’s important.”

Davis, speaking as a father and foster parent of 15 years who has cared for 18 children, framed the issue in terms lawmakers couldn’t easily dismiss.

“If we don’t set the standard,” he said, “porn will.”

Why Soper took it to the ballot

The resolution would not have created an age-verification system itself. It would have asked voters whether the state should require one, leaving the details to future legislation.

Soper said the conversation isn’t where it was a year ago. He pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding a Texas age-verification law, saying it gives states more room to act.

But for him, sending the question to voters wasn’t just about the courts.

“Our constitution is a reflection of society’s values,” he told RMV, arguing that if Colorado has used it to define protections in other areas, voters should also have a say in how the state approaches protecting children online.

“When we create protections, it should apply across the board—not just to a subset of society.”

Soper said Davis’s testimony stuck with him because it framed the issue in terms of respect and childhood.

The concern, he said, isn’t just exposure—it’s what that exposure teaches.

A different approach

Lawmakers are also weighing a separate proposal this session, Senate Bill 26-051, which would require devices to collect a user’s age at setup and send an “age signal” to apps—a system built on self-reported information.

As previously reported by RMV, that approach relies on users entering their own age rather than verifying it.

Soper said that’s not enough.

“That’s basically just clicking a box,” he told RMV. “That’s not the same as actually verifying someone’s age.”

He acknowledged no system would stop every minor from accessing explicit material.

“This is one more hurdle,” he said. “It’s not going to stop everything—but it slows it down.”

Why it failed

Not everyone on the committee saw it the same way.

Rep. Cecelia Espinoza said she “strongly support[s]” protecting younger people from exposure to explicit material—but questioned putting this into the state constitution, especially with language she said was too broad.

She pointed to the bill’s reference to “sexually explicit themes,” raising concerns about how far that definition could reach.

“I strongly support the notion of protecting people at earlier ages from exposure to this information,” Espinoza said.

But she warned the language could reach beyond what supporters intended.

Lawmakers also pressed on what that could mean in practice—like someone renting or watching a movie at home.

Where does that line get drawn?

Espinoza, who said she previously worked as an obscenity prosecutor, said putting language this broad into the constitution could create problems down the line—especially as technology keeps changing.

Vice Chair Chad Clifford made a similar distinction.

“I would vote yes on a bill in the general assembly that required age verification,” Clifford said. “I am a no on trying to do this… in the constitution.”

Clifford said putting it in the constitution would make it harder to change. If it needed to be fixed, lawmakers would have to take it back to voters.

When the vote came, it failed 7-4. Democrat Rep. Lisa Feret broke with her party and voted no.

Common ground

Even among supporters, the debate showed how complicated the issue has become for families.

“With four boys, this has become a serious problem,” Rep. Brandi Bradley said, describing how parents are struggling to keep up with what their children can access online.

Rep. Stephanie Luck said she shared concerns about using the constitution but supported the measure to elevate the conversation.

“I don’t believe that the people understand the severity of impact that pornography has,” she said.

Colleen Enos, representing Christian Home Educators of Colorado, called exposure to pornography a “public health crisis of the digital age” and urged lawmakers to give parents more tools.

Who decides

Soper pushed back on the idea that the legislature alone should settle the question.

“This isn’t about us in that room deciding yes or no,” he said. “It’s about asking the people of Colorado, where do you stand on this?”

Davis wasn’t talking about theory. He was talking as a father—and as a foster parent who has cared for 18 children over the years.

“We already set firm age limits for things that can harm kids,” he told lawmakers. “Why treat this any different?”

He pointed back to testimony from Soper earlier in the hearing, where the lawmaker walked through the many places age verification already exists in everyday life.

Buying alcohol. Entering a casino. Purchasing a firearm. Even getting a tattoo.

In each case, someone checks.

For Davis, the difference isn’t the principle—it’s the platform.

The rules are already there. They just haven’t caught up to the screen.

For now, the answer from the committee was no.

Parents are still left to manage it on their own.

And the question isn’t going away: what should Colorado do to protect kids online?