House Judiciary advances Kelly Loving Act after hours of testimony on transgender protections

The House Judiciary Committee advanced House Bill 13‑12, called the Kelly Loving Act, to the Committee of the Whole on a 7–4 vote late Wednesday after an extended public hearing filled with personal testimony from transgender Coloradans, parents, medical professionals and opponents.

Proponents say the bill clarifies existing anti‑discrimination law, protects students and adults from repeated misgendering or “deadnaming,” and adds a shield so Colorado will not enforce out‑of‑state orders that would remove a child from a parent for bringing the child here for gender‑affirming care. Opponents argued the measure risks overruling parental discretion and could create novel legal complications in custody disputes.

Representative Rob Garcia, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee the measure was born of months of stakeholder work and said the purpose is to make statutory protections meaningful: “This bill is about ensuring that what we say exists with anti discrimination is a reality,” Garcia said during his opening remarks.

Representative Webb Stewart, Garcia’s co‑prime sponsor, summarized the bill’s three broad aims — custody standards, school rules and clearer statutory definitions in Colorado’s anti‑discrimination law — and defended the measure as narrowing, not expanding, confusion in the law. “It clarifies protections in child custody, that supporting a child's gender identity is indeed in the best interest of the child,” Stewart said.

The bill would do several things in statute: - Add “coercive control” language to family‑law factors a court may consider and specify that repeated deadnaming or misgendering may be relevant in custody disputes; - Create a “shield” provision preventing Colorado authorities from enforcing out‑of‑state orders that would remove a child for seeking or obtaining gender‑affirming care while in Colorado; - Require that any school parental‑notification policies for chosen names apply equally to all reasons a student seeks a different name; - Clarify that an individual’s chosen name and gender‑affirming records should be treated with the same respect as other protected identifiers; and - Add definitions and protections to the Colorado Anti‑Discrimination Act (CADA), so repeated, intentional misgendering and deadnaming can be treated as unlawful discrimination in places of public accommodation.

Supporters said those changes would reduce the real‑world harm trans Coloradans face. Anaya Robinson of the ACLU of Colorado said the bill “creates a mechanism in which trans youth get to feel seen, validated, and supported while in school where youth spend the majority of their time.” Robinson testified that the measure simply implements protections already contemplated under CADA and public policy.

Medical and mental‑health witnesses told the committee that social support and clear legal protections correlate with better mental‑health outcomes for transgender youth. “Research consistently shows our transgender community members face high rates of depression, anxiety and suicidality — not because of their identity but because of marginalizing elements of oppression,” testified Dr. Hunna Montoya, a clinical psychologist who treats transgender patients.

Local governments and school administrators raised implementation questions. Heather Stauffer of the Colorado Municipal League testified she supported the bill’s intent but urged clearer language for public entities on what constitutes a claim and how repeated errors would be aggregated into municipal liability. “We do have questions and concerns regarding its implementation for public entities,” Stauffer said.

Opponents, including parents and faith‑based speakers, said they feared the bill could be used to penalize well‑meaning parents or compel speech. Some family‑law critics argued the addition of “coercive control” in custody cases could be invoked against parents who object to a child’s medical care, while others raised constitutional concerns about compelled speech in places of public accommodation.

“Section 2 redefines ordinary parental concerns, coercive control,” said Frank Leonard, speaking in opposition. “This bill dangerously overreaches into fundamental liberties, especially those of parents.”

Committee members probed both sides. Some raised questions about how a Colorado court would treat out‑of‑state custody orders (the hearing included discussion of the UCCJEA and the limits of full‑faith‑and‑credit when orders implicate the shield provision). Supporters replied the provision was intended to protect families temporarily in Colorado from punitive out‑of‑state orders focused on gender‑related care, not to remove recognition for ordinary long‑standing custody decrees.

After amendments were taken up — including the removal of a section directing state agencies to update forms that bore a fiscal note — Representative Garcia moved the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; Representative Clifford seconded the motion. Roll call recorded seven members in favor and four opposed. The committee’s clerk announced, “On a vote of 7 to 4, House Bill 13‑12 passes. You are on the way to the Committee of the Whole.”

What’s next: the bill is scheduled for consideration by the Committee of the Whole, where additional amendments and debate are possible. If it advances, it would move to the floor for general‑assembly consideration; if amended, sponsors and opponents told the committee they expected to continue negotiations. Proponents said the text clarified long‑standing confusion; opponents said the measure requires more stakeholdering.

Why it matters: supporters framed the bill as making statutory rights real in schools, workplaces and courts and as a life‑saving measure for vulnerable youth. Opponents framed it as a potential expansion of state power over family decision‑making and free expression. The Committee of the Whole will now consider whether the state should enshrine protections for chosen names, anti‑deadnaming language, and the “shield” for families traveling to Colorado for care.

Votes at a glance: House Bill 13‑12 — referral to Committee of the Whole, favorable recommendation as amended. Motion: Representative Rob Garcia. Second: Representative Rob Clifford. Vote: 7 yes, 4 no.