Category: colorado

LGBTQ+ rights are on the ballot in 6 states this year. Here’s what you need to know.

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

This November, voters in six states will decide on eight LGBTQ+-related ballot measures, including four anti-trans sports bans in Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, and Washington; two measures restricting gender-affirming care for transgender youth in Colorado and Missouri; a measure that could out LGBTQ+ kids to their potentially unsupportive parents in Washington; and one pro-LGBTQ+ measure to remove a state same-sex marriage ban in Virginia.

“This isn’t actually about giving voters a say in democracy. It’s a political tactic by a small but vocal minority of extremists who want to turn out their base, driven by the fear and misunderstandings about people who are transgender,” said Adam Snipes, the director of strategic partnerships at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, during a September 30 GLAAD media briefing attended by LGBTQ Nation.

Snipes is correct: anti-trans measures are being used as “ballot candy” to increase Republican turnout at the polls.

But statewide anti-trans proposals have dramatically increased since 2015, the year that the US Supreme Court legalized marriage equality. In 2016, North Carolina passed an anti-trans bathroom bill. Since then, similar anti-trans measures have expanded to sports, educational policies, healthcare, and other areas.

Approximately 91% of anti-trans bills fail in state legislatures, GLAAD’s senior director of news and campaigns Barbara Simon said. But such legislation and ballot measures give anti-LGBTQ+ politicians and activists “a permission slip” that emboldens them to use marginalizing and dehumanizing rhetoric that harms vulnerable youth, Simon said.

“This is really part of a national MAGA playbook, which is about distracting voters from real issues facing families — like high healthcare costs, gas costs, housing costs — and instead just flaming fears about a small, really already vulnerable group of people… in this case, LGBTQ+ kids,” Washington’s first out lesbian state House Speaker, Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D), told the press briefing.

Anti-trans sports bans in Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, & Washington

Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, and Washington are all considering ballot measures with nearly identical language that would ban students who are transgender from playing school sports on sex-segregated teams that differ from the sex they were assigned at birth. None of these measures take intersexuality into account, leaving intersex students unsure about their place on the sports field.

Generally speaking, these measures fall largely on young girls and women to “prove” their sex, often with invasive medical exams that aren’t usually part of standard athletic exams. (Athletic medical exams usually focus on athletes’ eyesight, bone health, as well as respiratory, cardiovascular, or other issues that could affect overexerted athletes.)

Medical examinations to verify athletes’ sex can violate the privacy of all young girls and women — causing a decrease in their sports participation overall. Furthermore, such exams may not be covered by patients’ health insurance plans, adding an extra financial burden for low-income families.

These measures undermine local control by overriding policies and recommendations already put in place by local school boards and associations that have articulated what’s best for their students’ needs. These ballot measures also do nothing to address the sexism, abuse, and poor funding that harm girls and women and discourage them from participating in sports to begin with.

Arizona’s Proposition 318

Based on a 2022 Arizona law that federal courts had blocked from enforcement (before the US Supreme Court ruled such bans as constitutional last June), the so-called “Protect Girls’ Sports in Arizona Act” would require K-12 schools and private sports leagues to designate which sports are sex-segregated and then decide participation based on the sex listed upon each player’s birth certificate.

Additionally, schools and private leagues would have to ban trans athletes from restrooms, showers, and locker rooms that don’t match the sex they were assigned at birth. The measure would allow athletes to sue schools or leagues that violate its provisions.

Darrell Hill, the policy director for ACLU of Arizona, told KTAR that facilities and cities could interpret the law too broadly and restrict restroom and locker room access to trans kids and adults in various situations that have nothing to do with sports participation. “It can really act as a big barrier for trans people to participate in public life,” he said.

While the measure seems to “verify” athletes’ sex via birth certificates, state Sen. Mitzi Epstein (D) said it would “subject girls to invasive inspections and questions about their gender,” effectively harming all girls and women (and communicating that they are less valued than boys and men), “in an effort to score political points by discriminating against trans girls.”

The Arizona Interscholastic Association says no trans student-athletes have tried to compete in the state since the 2022 law was signed. It’s unclear whether any tried to compete before the 2022 law was signed.

Colorado’s Proposition 134

Proposition 134 would then require K-12 schools, colleges, and athletic associations to designate sex-segregated and co-ed sports and then forbid boys from participating on girls’ teams and vice versa.

The measure would define girls as people with female reproductive organs and boys as those with male reproductive organs, but it’s unclear how sex would be determined. While some supporters say a doctor-signed form or a DNA cheek swab could suffice, opponents warn that it could subject girls to invasive genital inspections.

Z Williams, a school parent and director of Bread and Roses Legal Center, told The Colorado Sun, “Kids have been playing sports with trans kids for decades…. Playing sports is an important and healthy part of growing up: People building a sense of who they are, learning how to work with a team, learning to lose. To take that away from kids simply for who they are is absurd. It is socially and politically cruel.” 

Chris Cook, the father of an 11-year-old transgender girl, told the aforementioned publication, “It would tell kids that simply participating in school sports could mean being questioned, scrutinized, or subject to invasive gender inspections to prove who they are. No child should have to live with that fear, and this doesn’t affect (just) transgender kids. When schools are asked to police students’ gender, any child who looks too tall, too strong, or doesn’t fit someone’s idea of what a girl should look like could be singled out.”

Nebraska’s Measure 442

Measure 442 would write into the state constitution a 2025 law, sponsored by state Sen. Kathleen Kauth (R), that already requires public K-12 and college athletes to play on teams matching their sex at birth. The measure defines one’s sex at birth as having a reproductive system that “does or at some point will produce, transport, and utilize” either eggs ( for a woman or girl) or sperm (for a man or boy).

The measure would apply to all athletic teams or sports sponsored by public schools, postsecondary educational institutions, private schools, or educational institutions that compete against public schools.

Interestingly, the state Supreme Court recently heard arguments challenging the measure’s legality. Opponents say that the ballot measure’s sponsors failed to “adequately inform the public of what they are trying to accomplish” when collecting signatures for the effort. The measure will appear on ballots regardless of the court’s decision; if the court rules against it, all votes upon it will simply be invalidated.

Washington’s Initiative IL26-638

IL26-638 would bar students who are “biologically male” from competing in K-12 schools and nonprofit sports teams designated for girls and women. The initiative would require every student who wants to compete in girls’ sports to obtain a signed statement from a health care provider verifying their sex. Students wanting to play on boys’ teams wouldn’t have to obtain any such statement.

The initiative permits three verification methods: genetic testing, testosterone measurement, or a visual examination of reproductive anatomy. Seeing as the first two methods are expensive and not covered by insurance, most parents will likely go for the third option, requiring kids to expose their genitals to adult medical professionals.

Over 100 doctors and other medical professionals recently released a statement against the initiative, with some saying they would refuse to conduct invasive exams to verify the sex of young girls and women.

“IL26-638 would make every girl in Washington who wants to compete in a female-only interscholastic sport prove her sex to a doctor, regularly, in order to play,” the Washington State PTA noted, calling the initiative “discriminatory,” “harmful,” and “disproportionate.”

Trans journalist Erin Reed noted that even if the measure passes, it could still face constitutional challenges under the longstanding legal precedent of Washington laws protecting trans students.

“Washington adopted an Equal Rights Amendment in 1972 declaring that ‘equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex,’” Reed wrote. “That provision triggers strict scrutiny for claims of sex discrimination, a standard that would likely render a categorical ban on transgender participation in sports unconstitutional — particularly given the state’s more liberal judiciary.”

Restricting gender-affirming healthcare in Colorado and Missouri

Two states, Colorado and Missouri, both have ballot measures to restrict gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth. However, they differ in significant ways.

Colorado’s Proposition 135

Colorado’s Proposition 135 is a vaguely written measure that would forbid doctors from performing surgeries on anyone under 18 “for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics,” including changes to sexual organs, body shape, facial appearance, or voice (even though such surgeries on minors are rare to nonexistent).

The measure would also ban state or federal funds, Medicaid, and private insurance from paying for these surgeries. Though the measure’s language doesn’t specifically mention transgender youth, its restrictions would apply to any young person. However, the law wouldn’t place any restrictions on prescribing hormone therapy, puberty blockers, counseling, or support for social transition.

The measure includes exceptions for male circumcision, people born with a “medically verifiable disorder of sex development,” and “acquired physical or chemical abnormalities,” meaning that intersex individuals could still be eligible for augmenting surgeries.

Nevertheless, the Colorado Medical Society opposes the measure (along with dozens of other LGBTQ+ and allied organizations statewide), saying it would interfere with doctors’ medical judgment. The measure is backed by Protect Kids Colorado, an organization led by anti-LGBTQ+ activist Erin Lee. 

Jax Gonzalez, political director at One Colorado, said the measure’s vague language around a minor’s “perception of sex or gender” leaves both patients and providers unclear about what procedures would be prohibited.

“All of us have gender and have lots of ideas about that, and so, does that mean that if a patient brings up a conversation about their own gender, regardless of their general identity, does that mean that that provider can’t treat them anymore?” Gonzalez, who is trans, told News From the States.

Missouri’s Amendment 3

Missouri’s Amendment 3 main purpose is to repeal the abortion-rights amendment that voters approved in 2024 and to make most abortions illegal in the state, except for ones that are conducted in cases of medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, and within the first 12 weeks of pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

The final clause in the measure would “prohibit gender transition procedures for minors,” which is curious, seeing as the state has banned gender-transition surgeries for minors since August 2023. The measure would also ban puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy for minors.

Currently, state law forbids any new prescriptions of the aforementioned medications for trans youth until 2027; the measure would write this ban into the state constitution, meaning it would continue indefinitely.

Forcibly outing trans students to their parents in Washington

Washington voters will consider IL26-001, a measure that would repeal the state’s current parents’ rights laws and replace them with language taken verbatim from Louisiana. The measure would give parents unrestricted access to school, medical, and mental health counseling records without requiring student consent, including information on confidential conversations about a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

“When a student … is dealing with anxiety, they need trusted adults and mental health resources they can turn to that help them make sense of their world,” the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington wrote in opposition to the measure. “[Allowing parents to view sensitive counseling records is a] violation of privacy [that] can undermine the relationships that students may have with counselors and other trusted adults in schools.”

“The sad truth is not all students have a supportive adult they can turn to and talk about their sexuality, gender identity, or mental health without fear. Allowing schools to disclose private health information — as IL26-001 proposes — would severely impact a student’s stability at home, at a time when they need love and support, not punishment and rejection,” the ACLU of Washington added.

Indeed, statistics show that 40% of homeless queer youth say they were kicked out of their homes when their families learn of their identities, meaning that the measure could worsen at-home conflicts for LGBTQ+ students with unsupportive or abusive parents.

This initiative and the state’s ballot measure banning trans athletes are opposed by state Gov. Bob Ferguson (D), the state’s US Sen. Patty Murray (D), the Washington State Parent-Teachers Association (PTA), by the Washington State Nurses Association, the League of Women Voters, and domestic violence prevention groups, because they put kids at greater risk of violence and harm.

Defending marriage equality in Virginia

A bright spot on the somewhat gloomy horizon, Virginia’s Question 2 asks voters to remove the state’s 2006 constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and to add a right to marry regardless of a partner’s sex, gender, or race.

The state’s current ban, rendered inactive by the US Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing marriage equality, defines marriage as “only a union between one man and one woman” and bans any union, partnership, or legal status for unmarried couples that carries the rights and benefits of marriage. Question 2 would remove all of this language and acknowledge that “Marriage is one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.”

Virginians approved their state’s same-sex marriage ban in 2006, with 57% voting yes. A federal judge struck it down in 2014, but it stayed in the state constitution. State election officials say the ban would become enforceable again if the US Supreme Court ever overturned Obergefell v. Hodges, as some of the court’s conservative justices have threatened.

Currently, 24 states have dormant bans against same-sex marriage in both their state constitution and their statutes, five have such a ban in their statutes only, and three have such a ban in their constitution only, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

Since 2020, voters in four states have voted to repeal previously approved same-sex marriage bans. Nevada did in 2020, and California, Colorado, and Hawaii all did the same in 2024.

These ballot measures are about LGBTQ+ involvement in civic life

“As somebody who grew up trans, sports and other activities represented more than just competition,” Adrianna Suluai, the Policy & Advocacy Director at UTOPIA Washington, an organization dedicated to uplifting queer and transgender Pacific Islanders, told the press briefing.

“They were opportunities for me to participate, build confidence, and be around other young people and feel like I was a part of something. And when you’re a young person who may already feel different, sometimes simply having a place where you can show up and belong means everything,” Suluai added.

Suluai’s comment applies not only to the sports field but also to LGBTQ+ youth in classrooms, doctors’ and counselors’ offices, and the general public.

Because these ballot measures are often sold as ways to “protect children’ and strengthen “parental rights,” it’s all the more imperative that LGBTQ+ voters and allies understand them and share their potentially harmful consequences with other sympathetic voters.

0

Navigating Equality: Top U.S. States with Comprehensive LGBTQ+ and Transgender Legal Protections

In an increasingly fragmented legal landscape, civil rights, non-discrimination protections, and healthcare access for LGBTQ+ and transgender individuals vary significantly across the country. For individuals, families, and professionals seeking to understand where state law provides the most robust safeguards, several states stand out as national leaders.

By evaluating data from the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) State Equality Index and the Movement Advancement Project (MAP), we have highlighted key states—including Connecticut, a national pioneer—that have built comprehensive legal frameworks to protect LGBTQ+ and transgender residents.

Key States Leading LGBTQ+ Legal Protections

Connecticut: A Pioneer in Healthcare & Legal Safety

Connecticut stands out as a historic and statutory leader, consistently earning high policy scores for its proactive stance on civil rights and transgender safety.

  • The Original Shield Law: In 2022, Connecticut became the first state in the nation to enact a comprehensive “shield law” specifically designed to protect patients, medical providers, and out-of-state visitors receiving or delivering gender-affirming care. The law blocks out-of-state legal subpoenas, prevents extradition, and bars licensing boards from disciplining providers for administering legal medical care.
  • Data Privacy Protection: Connecticut enacted specialized laws restricting health apps and online entities from collecting, selling, or disclosing consumer data related to gender-affirming care.
  • Explicit Non-Discrimination: Gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are fully protected under state civil rights laws spanning employment, housing, credit, and public accommodations.

California

California sets a national benchmark for comprehensive LGBTQ+ protections across every major area of civil law.

  • Healthcare & Shield Laws: Following Connecticut’s model, California passed strong safe-haven legislation protecting transgender individuals, families, and doctors from out-of-state legal liability related to gender-affirming care.
  • Non-Discrimination: The Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) explicitly safeguard gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation in housing, workplace settings, and business transactions.
  • Identity Documents: The state allows streamlined updates to gender markers on driver’s licenses, birth certificates, and state IDs without requiring surgical confirmation or court orders.

Massachusetts

As the first U.S. state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004, Massachusetts maintains a deeply entrenched system of legal protections.

  • Broad Public Protections: Anti-discrimination laws explicitly cover public accommodations—such as restaurants, retail stores, and healthcare facilities—alongside housing and employment.
  • Youth & Family Safeguards: The state enforces a complete ban on conversion therapy for minors and maintains robust anti-bullying and inclusion guidelines across public school districts.
  • Medicaid & Insurance Requirements: Private insurance and MassHealth (Medicaid) are legally required to cover medically necessary gender-affirming care.

Colorado

Over the last decade, Colorado has transformed into a major sanctuary state for transgender protections in the Mountain West.

  • The Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Care Shield Act: Enacted to shield out-of-state patients and local practitioners from external civil and criminal investigations or licensing penalties.
  • Administrative ID Updates: Jude’s Law permits non-binary “X” gender markers and allows transgender individuals to update state documents smoothly without requiring physician affidavits or court decrees.
  • Anti-Discrimination Enforcement: The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) covers employment, housing, and public spaces, enforced aggressively by the state civil rights division.

New York

With a deep history rooted in the modern LGBTQ+ civil rights movement, New York’s laws reflect comprehensive protections.

  • GENDA (Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act): Passed in 2019, GENDA formally added gender identity and expression as explicit protected classes across housing, employment, public spaces, and non-sectarian education.
  • Medical Safeguards: Comprehensive shield laws ensure that healthcare institutions and practitioners face no administrative penalties or extradition requests for delivering legally protected medical services.
  • Informed Family Laws: New York maintains progressive legislation supporting gestational surrogacy, legal adoption, and parental recognition for LGBTQ+ families.

Illinois

Illinois serves as a critical legal sanctuary in the Midwest, backed by mature statutory protections.

  • The Illinois Human Rights Act: Enforces complete non-discrimination across real estate transactions, employment, public services, and banking.
  • Education & Youth Protections: State legislation requires public school curricula to include LGBTQ+ history and imposes strict safety and anti-bullying standards across districts.
  • Out-of-State Refuge: Illinois statutes shield healthcare providers treating patients traveling from surrounding jurisdictions, making it an essential hub for safe medical access.

The Bottom Line

Whether evaluating states for personal safety, corporate expansion, or legal analysis, these jurisdictions demonstrate what comprehensive protection looks like in practice. By pairing clear non-discrimination statutes with proactive health-privacy and shield laws, states like Connecticut, California, and Colorado offer the most legally secure environments for transgender and LGBTQ+ residents.

0

Study finds that Nevada is the safest state for LGBTQ residents

Read more at 8NewsNow.

According to the 2026 LGBTQ+ State Safety Report Cards, Nevada earned the study’s only “A+” rating and scored nearly a full point over the second-highest-scoring state.

The study was done by safehome.org by evaluating all 50 states using factors such as hate crime protections, anti-discrimination laws, healthcare access, legal protections, and reported hate crime data.

The hate crime score is based on FBI Uniform Crime Report data on anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes in each state. The study showed that the total number of hate crimes reported in the latest data did decline slightly from the prior year, but that number was still over 2,500 incidents in one year.

Overall, 13 states recieved “A” grades, while six earned a failing “F” grade.

The states that scored the highest out of 100 points in the study were Nevada (95.8), Illinois (94.9), Hawaii (94.7), Colorado (94.5), and Maine (94.4).

Nevada was in the top 10 states nationally for both legal protections and hate crime data, the study found. The state also had perfect or nearly perfect scores in several pro-equality law categories, including non-discrimination, parenting rights, youth protections, and healthcare access.

In 2022, Nevada voters amended the state constitution to enshrine protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression. Later, in 2025, a Nevada bill that would have restricted transgender athletes in school sports died in committee.

Additionally, in 2025, the state recognized Las Vegas’ historic “Fruit Loop” district as an official landmark.

West Virginia (44.7) scored the lowest out of all 50 states and Washington, D.C., followed by D.C. (50.8), Louisiana (51.4), Arkansas (56.7), and Tennessee (56.9).

The study found that 28 percent of LGBTQ Americans have considered moving across state lines in search of better legal protection and safety.

0

What states are the best for LGBTQ+ people? These are the top 15

Read more at the Advocate.

Legislative attacks on the LGBTQ+ community have been pushed everywhere from city councils to the White House — but there are still some areas that are safe.

Over 1,000 anti-LGBTQ+ laws have been proposed across every state legislature in the U.S. over the past two years, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, and 126 have passed into law. Less than two months into the 2025 legislative session, 390 laws targeting LGBTQ+ people have been proposed.

Still, marriage equality and anti-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity are still guaranteed federally by U.S. Supreme Court rulings (for now). On top of that, at least 15 states have “shield laws” protecting access to gender-affirming care and abortion.

Based on laws surrounding marriage, family rights, health care, education, and youth collected by the Movement Advancement Project, here are the 15 best states for LGBTQ+ people.

The states include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. Honorable mentions go to Washington DC, Delaware, Hawaii, Michigan, New Mexico, and Virginia.

You can read about each state in more detail in the Advocate’s article.

0

Colorado passes new conversion therapy bill just after Supreme Court ruled against its ban

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Colorado’s legislature has just passed a bill to curtail conversion therapy in the state. It now goes to Gov. Jared Polis‘ (D) desk. Polis is gay, has been supportive of LGBTQ+ rights in the past, and is expected to sign it.

The bill, H.B. 26-1322, or the Civil Actions for Conversion Therapy Survivors Act, would allow conversion therapy survivors to sue therapists for damages if they tried to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill defines conversion therapy as treatment provided by a licensed mental health professional with the “predetermined outcome” of changing someone’s gender identity or sexual orientation. This effectively keeps the bill from applying to members of the clergy or lay ministries – most conversion therapy in the U.S. is performed by religious organizations, not licensed therapists – and creates an exemption for discussions of LGBTQ+ identities that come up in therapy, a matter of contention in a recent Supreme Court case.

The legislation passed the state senate last week in a party-line vote after already passing the Colorado House of Representatives. The state senate amended the bill so it had to pass the state house again, which happened late last week, the Colorado Daily Camera reports.

The bill was introduced as the Supreme Court considered a challenge to Colorado’s previous ban on conversion therapy, passed in 2019. That ban on conversion therapy has never been enforced in the state, but a Christian therapist sued, saying that it violated her freedom of speech. She argued that it would ban her from even discussing LGBTQ+ identities with her clients, even though the state said repeatedly that it would not.

The Court ultimately ruled against the ban in Chiles v. Salazar, saying that it violated therapists’ First Amendment rights, and sent the case back to a lower court to reevaluate the law under a higher legal standard. Experts believe this means that Colorado’s 2019 conversion therapy ban – and bans like it passed in 26 other states and hundreds of municipalities – will likely eventually be overturned by courts.

The new bill is an attempt to circumvent the Court’s decision by treating it as a civil matter. The bill was introduced by state Reps. Alex Valdez (D) and Karen McCormick (D), and in the Colorado Senate by state Sens. Lisa Cutter (D) and Kyle Mullica (D).

LGBTQ+ rights advocates supported the bill, including trans National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter, who referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles as “specific guidance about how to amend conversion therapy laws to be viewpoint-neutral.”

“Given the urgency of this issue and the danger that conversion therapy poses to youth, Colorado moved swiftly,” he said. “Today this legislation is moving to the desk of Governor Polis and will protect Colorado’s youth and families from this discredited practice.”

“Colorado’s story is still being written, and today we took another step toward becoming a state where LGBTQIA+ people can live openly, safely, and fully as themselves,” said One Colorado executive director Nadine Bridges in a statement. “This victory belongs to the survivors, advocates, and community members who refused to let this issue be forgotten.”

Conversion therapy is a harmful practice based on the idea that LGBTQ+ identities are the result of trauma and that LGBTQ+ people need to fundamentally change who they are in order to be a good person. The practice has been linked to several harmful results, including anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and suicidality.

0

Colorado Dems pass “profound” law to protect trans kids who change their names

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) has signed a law to protect trans children by sealing name changes for those who are under 18 when they file for one. The legislation will protect trans children

“Passing this bill is simple, but its impact is profound,” Colorado state Senator Katie Wallace (D), a sponsor of the bill, said in February. “It gives children the safety and dignity they deserve, and it treats their private life with the same care we afford in other sensitive cases.”

Colorado’s Senate Bill 18, “Legal Protections for Dignity of Minors,” simply makes it so that starting July 1, when anyone who is under 18 years old petitions for a name change, the court is required to suppress the record. That means the petition will not be part of the public record and cannot be collected through searches or data harvesting.

The only exception to the process is if the petitioner was previously convicted of a felony.

While the court will keep a record for administrative purposes, it cannot publish the petitioners’ names or their deadnames. The record can only be accessed by the petitioner or by someone who has obtained the petitioner’s verbal consent and submitted an affidavit to that effect.

The bill will easily benefit anyone who might want to change their name as a child, whether to have a name they feel more connected to or to distance themselves from a family name. While the language of the bill itself does not mention trans people, it will have a huge impact for trans kids, which has always been the mission of the legislation.

At a senate committee hearing in February, Z Williams, co-director of Bread and Roses Legal Center, spoke of how a parent thought someone in their child’s class might be trans and was able to search for their name change document online and out the second grader to the school, Colorado Newsline reported.

Williams said the parent “exposed that child is transgender in second grade to the entire school community through flyers and through her own children, not only practicing hate herself, but teaching others how to. That is why we asked the senators and representatives to run this bill.”

At the same hearing, Elsie Fierro, the political and policy director at LGBTQ+ advocacy organization One Colorado, shared the story of a Colorado family who had petitioned for a name change on behalf of their trans child. But when they searched the new name online, a search engine returned results that included the child’s deadname along with identifying information that had been scraped from public court documents. “That family spent months trying to remove it and protect their minor child in an increasingly hostile political climate. This is the reality some families are navigating,” Fierro told the committee.

In the face of Republican opposition, state Sen. Wallace said, “This bill will protect children from AI data-scraping of those public records, the potential of bullying if they should be found and from hostile individuals in the wider world.”

The bill was originally intended to do even more good, but had a section stripped from it in February. It originally sought to instruct family court judges to consider acceptance of a child’s gender identity when determining custody cases. Several studies, including one by The Trevor Project, have linked trans children being connected to accepting adults to lower risk for depression and suicide attempts.

The custody clauses had originally been included in an earlier bill, HB 1312, which passed last year and introduced legal protections for trans people against deadnaming, misgendering, and more. However, they were removed before it passed after LGBTQ+ groups raised concerns that the language could erode existing protections.

For SB 18, the clauses had been reworked, but Polis threatened to veto the bill unless the clauses were removed, claiming to have received word of similar concerns once again. However, state Sen. Wallace and Williams both suggested that Polis’ view of the provisions being “substantially the same” was incorrect and that they had been amended to assuage concerns.

Colorado Republicans have opposed this bill and other pro-trans legislation, pushing anti-trans bills in their place. However, Democrats currently hold a supermajority in the state and have been defending trans rights with new protections.

0

Supreme Court rules against Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy aimed at LGBTQ youth

Read more at NBC News.

In a blow to LGBTQ rights, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy aimed at youths struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity violates the free speech rights of a conservative Christian therapist.

The 8-1 decision in favor of therapist Kaley Chiles on her claim brought under the Constitution’s First Amendment is likely to have national implications — more than 20 states have similar laws. It could also have an impact on other forms of medical treatment that involve speech.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that “the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

Colorado’s law “does not just ban physical interventions,” Gorsuch wrote. It also “censors speech based on viewpoint.”

In deciding the case, the court embraced Chiles’ argument that the Colorado law banning conversion therapy regulates speech, not conduct, as Colorado had argued. As such, the measure is not like other health care regulations that focus on conduct, the court concluded. The case, decided on the global Transgender Day of Visibility, will now return to the lower courts.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere,” Chiles said in a statement. With the ban not in effect, she will be able to speak freely to clients “when they choose the goal of growing comfortable with their bodies,” she added.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, taking the unusual step of reading a summary of her opinion in the courtroom. She focused on the distinction between speech and conduct.

“Under our precedents, bedrock First Amendment principles have far less salience when the speakers are medical professionals,” Jackson wrote.

Conversion therapy, favored by some religious conservatives, seeks to encourage gay or lesbian minors to identify as heterosexual and for transgender children to identify as the gender assigned to them at birth. Colorado bans the practice for licensed therapists, not for religious entities or family members.

The practice is widely discredited by medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Conversion therapy is ineffective, research has found, and can even be harmful, increasing a risk of suicide among people subjected to it.

The ruling could have an impact on other forms of medical regulation, with Jackson saying the court could be “ushering in an era of unprofessional and unsafe medical care” where some forms of treatment are effectively free from regulation. She mentioned as an example what are known as “informed consent” regulations that require medical practitioners to ensure patients are aware of any potential risks before they undergo a treatment.

“The fallout could be catastrophic,” Jackson added.

Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote a concurring opinion making it clear the Colorado law did implicate free speech rights, but so would what she called “mirror image” laws that could seek to ban therapy aimed at affirming a teen’s gender identity.

“Once again, because the state has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward,” she said, describing how courts would address such a measure.

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority that has frequently ruled in favor of Christian conservatives who bring free speech cases that touch upon their religious beliefs.

The ruling follows a similar 2018 decision in which the conservative majority backed a free speech challenge to a California law that requires anti-abortion pregnancy centers to notify clients about where abortion services can be obtained.

The Supreme Court has backed LGBTQ rights in the past, legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015 and ruling five years later that a federal law barring employment discrimination applies to both gay and transgender people.

But, in a separate string of cases, the court has embraced free speech and religious expression rights when they conflict with anti-discrimination laws aimed at protecting LGBTQ people.

Last year, for example, the court backed a religious rights challenge to a Maryland school district’s policy of featuring LGBTQ-themed books in elementary schools without providing an opt-out option for families.

0

Two ballot initiatives gathering signatures target transgender kids in Colorado

Read more at Colorado Newsline.

A Colorado organization is leading two ballot measures that would restrict rights for transgender children in the state. 

Protect Kids Colorado, a coalition led by prominent anti-LGBTQ activist Erin Lee, is gathering signatures for ballot measures that would prevent transgender children from participating in school sports and receiving gender-affirming surgeries. Lee led several anti-LGBTQ initiatives that the Colorado Title Board rejected ahead of the 2024 election. 

The group has until Feb. 20 to submit 124,238 valid signatures from registered voters for each initiative to the Colorado secretary of state’s office. If that threshold is met, the measures would be placed on the November 2026 ballot. 

Z Williams, co-director of the Denver nonprofit Bread and Roses Legal Center, said both of the issues the ballot measures seek to address are relatively minute. Williams said they have yet to see “actual validated science” that supports the need for the initiatives. 

“The number of trans athletes is incredibly small, and the number of gender-affirming surgeries done for transgender youth or minors is even smaller,” Williams said. “We have two ballot measures … that are going to require hundreds of thousands of dollars, waste a lot of time, create a lot of confusion during the election over two pretty much manufactured issues.”

Protect Kids Colorado did not respond to Newsline’s request for comment on the initiatives.

Coloradans value freedom, a freedom that belongs to everyone, including transgender youth and their families.

– Cal Solverson, spokesperson for One Colorado

There isn’t clear data on the number of transgender student athletes in Colorado, and the two major hospitals that provide gender-affirming care to minors do not offer surgeries to minors.

Cal Solverson, spokesperson for LGBTQ+ advocacy organization One Colorado, said the ballot measures are ill-informed and jeopardize individual freedom. They also put transgender people, their families and health care providers across the state at risk, Solverson said. 

“Coloradans value freedom, a freedom that belongs to everyone, including transgender youth and their families,” Solverson said in a statement. “The right to exist as we are extends beyond the exam room to the playing field, where every child deserves the opportunity to stay active, develop life skills, and experience the deep camaraderie of a team.”

If the measures make it to the ballot, Solverson said One Colorado trusts that Colorado voters will defend transgender youth and “ensure that freedom continues to exist for all Coloradans and not just some.”

Prohibit certain surgeries on minors

Ballot Initiative 110 would prohibit health care professionals from knowingly performing any surgery on a minor “for the purpose of altering biological sex characteristics.” 

The measure would also prohibit state and federal funding including Medicaid from being used to pay for gender-affirming procedures.  

Children’s Hospital Colorado and Denver Health have paused gender-affirming care for youth amid the Trump administration’s threats to pull Medicaid and Medicare funding entirely.   

A document on Protect Kids Colorado’s website says that Children’s Hospital Colorado performs gender-affirming surgeries on minors, but Children’s Hospital said in a statement that it has never provided gender-affirming surgical care to patients under 18, and it stopped offering such surgeries to adults in 2023. Denver Health stopped offering surgeries to minors in early 2025.

The document also says that while the ballot measure only targets gender-affirming surgeries, the organizations has “a multi-pronged plan to outlaw puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors as well.”

The language in the initiative includes medical terms that aren’t necessarily related to surgery, such as prescriptions. It also applies to health care professionals such as podiatrists, dentists and chiropractors, who wouldn’t be performing gender-affirming surgeries in the first place. That adds concern about how the measure would affect other elements of gender-affirming care, according to Mardi Moore, CEO of LGBTQ+ advocacy group Rocky Mountain Equality. 

“It’s kind of like they’re throwing the spaghetti at the wall to see what’s going to stick,” Moore said. “There’s not a lot of people you can trust anymore, and I think Protect Kids Colorado is one of those groups that cannot be trusted to think they will keep all children safe.”

If the measure passes, it would lead to discriminatory practices in medical care, affecting all children, not just transgender children, Moore said. 

Male and female participation in school sports

Ballot Initiative 109 would create definitions in state statute aiming to define boys and girls based on physical anatomy, excluding transgender people. 

Sports teams sponsored by schools or athletic associations would be required to expressly designate those teams as for men, women or co-ed. Schools and their athletic departments would be required to adopt policies implementing the requirements of the initiative.

The measure would not affect any student’s ability to participate in co-ed sports. 

The state’s commissioner of education would be tasked with enforcing the measure, and would have discretion to determine how to “take appropriate remedial action” against any school not in compliance with its requirements. 

“It would mean a little 8-year-old who loves to play soccer and who happens to be trans couldn’t play anymore,” Moore said of Initiative 109. 

Colorado is known to be a safe place for LGBTQ+ people, Williams said, and families have moved to the state from around the country because they share those values. 

“When I was a kid, we were ‘the hate state,’ and Colorado has unequivocally disavowed that stance,” Williams said. “So I think we need to remember that these are folks that are trying to use a very marginalized community to rebuild a political ideology that’s been rejected for a very long time here.” 

Protect Kids Colorado is running a third ballot measure to increase penalties for people convicted of human trafficking of a minor. 

0

Supreme Court Will Review Ban on LGBTQ ‘Conversion Therapy’

Read more at MSN.

The US Supreme Court agreed to consider whether scores of state and local governments are violating the Constitution by barring licensed counselors from trying to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The justices said they will hear a challenge to Colorado’s ban on what critics call “conversion therapy.” A counselor says the 2019 law violates her free speech rights.

The case adds to a growing list of culture-war clashes the Supreme Court has agreed to hear. The justices are already assessing a Tennessee law that outlaws certain medical treatments for transgender children. And in April they will hear a dispute over the use of LGBTQ-friendly books in the classroom and a case over efforts to create the country’s first religious public charter school.

Twenty-eight states and more than 100 other jurisdictions either fully or partially ban the disputed practice, according to Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group that tracks laws around the country. The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Washington state’s ban in 2023.

The Colorado law is being challenged by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor who says she views her work as an outgrowth of her Christian faith. She is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that has been behind some of court’s highest profile cases in recent years, including the successful effort to overturn the constitutional right to abortion.

In a call with reporters, Chiles said the law “silences diverse perspectives and interferes with my ability to serve my clients with integrity.” One of her lawyers, ADF’s Jim Campbell, said Chiles had turned away multiple clients because of the law, though he didn’t disclose how many.

In upholding the law, the Denver-based 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals said it legitimately regulates professional conduct and only incidentally affects speech. Colorado officials urged rejection of the appeal, likening the measure to malpractice laws and informed-consent requirements.

The Constitution “allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech,” Colorado argued.

The court will hear arguments and rule in the case in the nine-month term that starts in October.

The case is Chiles v. Salazar, 24-539.

(Updates with comments from counselor in sixth paragraph.)

0

Colorado state sports association settles lawsuit by allowing schools to ban trans athletes

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA) has settled a lawsuit brought by right-wing school districts for the right for schools to bar trans students from joining sports teams that align with their gender. The lawsuit targeted multiple defendants and will continue with the remaining ones without CHSAA’s involvement.

“Eligibility decisions have always been left to individual schools and districts, which is why being named in this lawsuit was both frustrating and unnecessary,” a CHSAA spokesperson said in a statement. She went on to call the organization’s inclusion in the lawsuit “much more performative than substantive.” 

The lawsuit was brought by several school districts but was led by District 49. That district’s board passed a controversial trans sports ban back in May by a narrow margin. The lawsuit against the state was filed the day after the policy was voted in, calling for Colorado to allow the ban to be enacted and to align policies with the demands laid out in the president’s “two sexes” executive order.

Colorado has state laws prohibiting discrimination against trans people, specifically people’s gender identity or gender expression. While the lawsuit cites the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in arguing that trans girls playing on the girls’ team affects the rights of cis girls, it does not mention the impact on the rights of trans girls.

To settle their part of the lawsuit, CHSAA agreed not to sanction the districts and schools named in the lawsuit for banning trans students from sports teams. It will also not respond to statements the schools make about “advantages of biological males over biological females in competitive sports” or potential propaganda about the hazards of “allowing biological males to play contact sports with or against biological females.” There will also be no penalties from CHSAA for forfeiting against a team because they allow trans children to play.

CSHAA has said that it will still sanction the schools and districts if any of those statements are demeaning in nature or call for violence against trans people. The organization is also recouping $60,000 in legal and operational fees.

While some Colorado school districts specifically allow trans students to play sports under their correct gender identity, others have no concrete rules about it. CSHAA has never stepped in over a trans person being allowed to play school sports, or not being able to.

The lawsuit will continue with the Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser and other Colorado Civil Rights Division officials as the remaining defendants.

Colorado’s District 49 has around 27,000 students. In May, Board President Lori Thompson noted that, as far as she was aware, the district had only had one instance of a trans student trying to join a sports team that aligned with their gender identity. The student in question was a trans boy, and they did not pass tryouts.

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑