Senate Judiciary advances 'Kelly Loving Act' after hours of testimony; committee adopts amendments, sends bill to Committee of the Whole

Senate Judiciary Committee moved House Bill 25-13-12, the Kelly Loving Act, out of committee late May 1 after an eight‑hour public hearing and several sponsor amendments aimed at narrowing the measure.

The bill’s sponsors said the measure is intended to update Colorado law so transgender Coloradans, especially youth, can “live with dignity and access the legal protections” they need. “We are considering House Bill 25‑13‑12, the Kelly Loving Act, which aims to update Colorado law to ensure transgender individuals, especially youth, can live with dignity and access the legal protections that so many of us take for granted,” Senator Chris Kolker, a prime sponsor, told the committee at the bill’s opening.

Why it matters: supporters said the bill clarifies anti‑discrimination protections for gender identity and expression, gives trans Coloradans clearer remedies in public‑accommodation and employment settings and creates a “shield” to prevent other states’ orders from being enforced here when those orders would punish families for accessing care in Colorado. Opponents across dozens of hours of testimony said parts of the measure risked interfering with parental rights, raised First Amendment issues about compelled speech and could invite litigation under the interstate full‑faith‑and‑credit framework.

What the committee did: after public testimony from hundreds of advocates, parents, doctors, lawyers, faith leaders and young people, the committee adopted a package of sponsor amendments (L‑8 through L‑13) that sponsors said narrowed the bill. The adopted changes included: striking the most contested section that had prompted the majority of the opposition testimony; removing language opponents said could criminalize some speech; adding a severability clause; clarifying dress‑code and name‑use language for schools and removing a requirement that would have forced court orders for repeated changes to certain public records. The committee then voted 5–2 to advance the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation.

“Section 2 will be gone by the end of the evening,” sponsor Sen. Jessie Winter told the committee when she introduced sponsor amendments, responding to testimony and public concerns. Later, the committee clerk recorded the final roll call: Ball, Doherty, Roberts, Weisman and the chair voted to advance the bill; Senators Carson and Frizzell voted no.

Key arguments and concerns raised in testimony - Supporters: Trans advocates, civil‑rights lawyers and multiple students and parents said explicit statutory language will reduce harassment and confusion in workplaces, schools and public accommodations. “No bill is perfect,” Anaya Robinson of the ACLU of Colorado told the committee, but she urged passage of the amended bill and asked members to back L‑8 through L‑13. Several trans Coloradans with personal stories said respectful use of chosen names and pronouns and clearer remedies for persistent, intentional deadnaming and misgendering improve mental‑health outcomes.

- Opponents: Parents, faith leaders, some medical providers and several legal commentators argued the original text risked treating parental disagreement as “coercive control,” could create compelled‑speech problems in public accommodations and might clash with interstate legal obligations. A number of physicians and researchers who testified urged caution on medical interventions and argued the state should not legislate in ways that would short‑circuit parents and clinicians evaluating complex cases.

Committee direction: sponsors told the panel they would continue technical conversations with legal stakeholders — including the attorney general’s office and civil‑rights groups — to address outstanding constitutional and implementation issues before the bill reaches the Senate floor. Sponsors emphasized that the package adopted in committee removed the most legally sensitive language that had drawn the bulk of opposition testimony.

Vote and next steps: the committee’s motion to move HB25‑13‑12 (as amended) to the Committee of the Whole passed 5–2. The committee recorded the vote as follows: Ball — yes; Carson — no; Doherty — yes; Frizzell — no; Roberts — yes; Weisman — yes; Chair — yes. The bill will appear on the Senate’s Committee of the Whole calendar; further amendments and a floor vote are possible.

Outlook: sponsors said their goal was to make Colorado law clearer for transgender Coloradans while addressing the legal and constitutional concerns raised by opponents and the attorney general’s office. Those conversations are likely to continue. Supporters urged the committee vote as a necessary step to protect people who said they are currently targeted in other states, while opponents said the remaining text still raises constitutional and family‑law questions that could produce litigation if enacted. The committee’s action signals the bill will receive additional floor debate in the coming weeks.