Colorado’s new transgender protection laws could mean parents lose custody of their children for refusing to use preferred pronouns, sparking nationwide debate over parental rights and free speech.
At a Glance
- Colorado’s HB25-1312, known as the Kelly Loving Act, defines non-affirmation of a child’s gender identity as “coercive control” in custody cases
- The bill prohibits using a transgender person’s birth name (“deadnaming”) and using pronouns that don’t match their gender identity (“misgendering”)
- Critics argue the legislation could lead to children being removed from homes and infringes on First Amendment rights
- HB1309 mandates funding for transgender medical procedures through health insurance plans
- Colorado has established what critics call a “trans continental pipeline” to attract transgender individuals from other states
Parental Rights Under Threat
Colorado’s recent legislative moves have ignited fierce opposition from parental rights advocates who warn of serious consequences. House Bill 25-1312, which has already passed the state House and moved to the Senate, mandates gender policies in schools and considers a parent’s refusal to affirm a child’s gender identity as “coercive control” in custody cases. The bill prohibits Colorado courts from enforcing out-of-state laws that remove children from parents who allow transgender treatments for minors, effectively creating a sanctuary state for such procedures.
Parents across the political spectrum have expressed alarm at the bill’s implications. The legislation could potentially give the state authority to intervene in families where parents don’t use their child’s preferred pronouns or chosen name, leading to accusations of abuse and possible loss of custody. This is particularly concerning for parents in the midst of custody disputes with ex-spouses who disagree on transgender medical interventions for their children.
The Colorado General Assembly's recent activities:
HB25-1312 – "Kelly Loving Act" – Concerning Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals
Status: passed the House, heading to the Senate.
Details:
☑️ In child custody and parenting time decisions, courts must consider… pic.twitter.com/5C8IA2pZGE— AgaObF (@AgaObF) April 7, 2025
First-Hand Concerns from Parents
Two mothers, Erin Lee and Erin Friday, have become prominent voices against the legislation based on their personal experiences. Both women had Child Protective Services called to their homes after refusing to affirm their daughters’ transgender identities. Their stories highlight the real-world implications of policies that classify non-affirmation as potential abuse.
“This is giving the authority to our state to take our children away if we don’t agree with these gender transitions, so it’s got huge ramifications for all parents, especially those in custody situations who are fighting with their ex-spouses to stop their children from being medicalized.”, said Erin Lee.
What’s notable is that this isn’t strictly a partisan issue. Erin Friday, who identifies as a Democrat, has called for bipartisan opposition to the bill and urged legal action to challenge it. During legislative hearings, the atmosphere grew tense when a Colorado Democrat reportedly compared concerned parents to hate groups, further inflaming the debate.
The bill you mentioned, CO HB 1213, doesn't exist in 2025. You likely meant HB25-1312, the Kelly Loving Act. It doesn't allow the state to take kids away for misgendering but requires courts to consider misgendering or deadnaming as coercive control in custody cases. This could… pic.twitter.com/EYNWrtGZlv
— Grok (@grok) April 17, 2025
Comprehensive Legal Changes
HB1312 works in tandem with another piece of legislation, HB1309, which mandates funding for transgender medical procedures and requires health insurance plans to cover these interventions. Together, these bills establish what critics describe as a comprehensive framework for advancing transgender policies in Colorado. Following national backlash, some amendments were made to HB1312, but opponents argue these changes are merely superficial and don’t address core concerns about government overreach.
“This bill will not only determine that parents like Erin and I are abusers — both of us had Child Protective Services come to our home when we refused to call our daughter males — but this bill also affects the press and its freedom of the press, and it will require them to use the chosen name of a child, how they choose it, and any adult.”, said Erin Friday.
Colorado has positioned itself as a destination for transgender individuals seeking supportive policies. The state has established what some term a “trans continental pipeline,” offering relocation assistance and access to medical care for those coming from states with more restrictive laws. Critics view this as part of a broader strategy to normalize certain gender policies and potentially override laws in other states.
Constitutional Questions
The legislation has raised serious constitutional questions about the balance between protecting transgender individuals from discrimination and preserving foundational liberties like free speech and parental rights. Those opposed to the bills argue that prohibiting “deadnaming” and “misgendering” constitutes government-compelled speech, potentially violating First Amendment protections. Legal challenges appear inevitable as parents, religious organizations, and free speech advocates prepare to contest these laws in court.
“It opens the door for all parents to potentially have their children forcibly removed by the state if they’re not willing to affirm their child’s mental health distress.”, added Lee.
As Colorado implements these policies, they may serve as a template for similar legislation in other states where progressive majorities hold power. The outcome of this legislative experiment and any subsequent legal challenges will likely influence the national conversation on transgender rights, parental authority, and the limits of state power in family matters for years to come.
