Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Malpractice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Colorado committee hears weeks‑long testimony on extending malpractice window for youth gender‑related care; bill fails, then postponed
Summary
Lawmakers heard hours of testimony from detransitioners, physicians and advocates on HB 26‑11‑28, which would extend the time to sue over certain medical interventions provided to minors. The bill failed in committee and was then postponed indefinitely.
Representative de Graaf opened debate on House Bill 26‑11‑28 by saying the measure would not ban gender‑affirming care or criminalize doctors but would give people harmed as minors more time as adults to seek legal recourse.
Supporters who described themselves as detransitioners urged the committee to back the bill, telling personal stories about long‑term complications they attribute to hormones and surgery. Missy Espinosa testified, “Two years isn’t enough when it comes to these types of procedures,” and Antoinette De La Cruz said it took nearly two decades for her to recognize harm and find legal help. Physician witnesses including Dr. Travis Morel and Dr. Kevin Howell told the panel that some interventions in adolescence can have consequences that only appear years later and that malpractice windows sometimes are extended for such injuries.
Opponents — including faith leaders, reproductive‑health advocates and professional groups — said the bill singles out one kind of care and would create liability that could discourage providers from offering medically accepted treatments. Monica Hughes of Cobalt Advocates told the committee the proposal “singles out one area of medically recognized care and treats it differently from every other form of health care in Colorado.” Reverend Larry Morris III of the Interfaith Alliance said broader moral questions were at stake and warned that the bill could have a chilling effect on clinicians.
Committee members pressed both sides on data, definitions and the practical effect of the proposed change. Representative Bradley asked detransitioners whether they had received informed‑consent materials when they were treated; several said they had not. Medical witnesses debated the strength and limits of the available evidence about long‑term outcomes, with Dr. Morel saying “we don’t know” in many areas and urging caution in treating adolescents.
After public testimony and questions, the committee recorded a roll‑call vote on the bill; the clerk reported that House Bill 26‑11‑28 failed on a vote of 8 to 3. Vice Chair Clifford then moved to postpone the bill indefinitely; the motion was seconded and, with no objection, the committee postponed HB 26‑11‑28 indefinitely.
The committee moved on to other bills on the same agenda after the disposition of HB 26‑11‑28.
