Concerning safeguarding a minor from health-care interventions intended to alter the minor's biological sex.
HB 26-1087 would prohibit a range of medical and mental health interventions for minors when the purpose is to alter a minor’s biological sex characteristics or to affirm a gender-related belief that the minor was born in the wrong body. The bill bars health-care providers and mental health professionals from performing sex-related surgeries on minors, prescribing or administering hormones or puberty blockers for that purpose, and providing certain counseling, therapy, or referrals that affirm a minor’s stated desire to transition. It also restricts public schools, health-care providers, and governmental entities from withholding from parents information about a minor’s expressed desire to transition.
The bill further declares that state or federal funding, Medicaid reimbursement, and health insurance coverage may not be used for the prohibited interventions. It creates a civil cause of action for individuals who, as minors, received a prohibited intervention, allowing suit up to 20 years after they turn 18. In addition, it requires license revocation for covered professionals who violate the law and makes knowing violations a class 5 felony with mandatory maximum sentencing and fines.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to Colorado law in Title 12 governing health-care and mental health practice, creating a broad statutory ban on specified gender-affirming treatments for minors and imposing professional, civil, and criminal penalties. It would affect physicians, surgeons, mental health professionals, schools, parents, insurers, Medicaid, and state agencies by restricting treatment options, disclosure practices, and payment sources. The measure also would override or limit existing professional licensing and reimbursement frameworks to the extent they conflict with the bill’s prohibitions.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure indicate strong support from sponsors for restricting gender-related medical care for minors, but the available legislative history shows no recorded votes or committee testimony beyond its introduction. The bill was ultimately postponed indefinitely in the House Committee on Health & Human Services, which suggests it did not advance and likely faced significant opposition or insufficient support. Because there are no transcripts in the provided record, the broader sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s disposition rather than from direct debate.
The central point of contention is the bill’s treatment of gender-affirming care for minors, especially whether such care should be prohibited, limited, or left to medical judgment and parental consent. Supporters’ findings frame the interventions as experimental and harmful, while opponents would likely object to the bill’s broad ban, its restrictions on counseling and referrals, and its criminal and licensing penalties for providers. Additional likely disputes include parental rights versus a minor’s privacy, mandatory disclosure to parents, insurance and Medicaid coverage restrictions, and the creation of a long-tail civil remedy for past treatment.