HB 26-1128 would create a specific statute of limitations for civil claims arising from a “youth gender transition procedure.” Under the bill, a person who alleges injury from such a procedure could bring an action against the provider only until the person turns 38 years old. The bill applies both to intentional-conduct claims and to claims based on a provider’s liability for wrongful or negligent acts by employees, officers, agents, or other representatives that were a legal cause of the procedure and resulting injury.
The bill defines “provider” broadly to include physicians, surgeons, endocrinologists, mental health professionals, clinics, hospitals, and other entities involved in recommending, approving, or providing a gender transition procedure. It also defines “youth gender transition procedure” broadly to include medical, surgical, hormonal, counseling, or therapeutic interventions performed before age 26 for the purpose of assisting an individual’s identification with a sex or demographic category that does not correspond to the individual’s sex. The definition expressly excludes male circumcision and procedures for individuals with medically verifiable disorders of sex development.
In practical terms, the bill would add a new section to Colorado’s limitations statutes and override any other limitations period that could otherwise apply to these claims. It would not repeal other laws regulating or prohibiting youth gender transition procedures, and it would not limit local governments from adopting rules that are at least as stringent as state law. The bill also includes severability and legislative declaration language, and it would apply only to claims not already barred when the act takes effect.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited, but the bill did not advance: it was postponed indefinitely in the House Committee on State, Civic, Military, & Veterans Affairs. That outcome suggests insufficient support or unresolved concerns at the committee stage. No vote tally or transcript is available, so the record does not show a formal debate, but the subject matter indicates the bill was likely politically and legally contentious.
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of gender-affirming care and the breadth of its definitions. Supporters would likely view it as extending the time for individuals to seek redress for alleged harms from transition-related treatment, while opponents would likely object to the bill’s framing of gender transition procedures, its broad inclusion of counseling and therapy, and its potential effect on providers and patients. The age cutoff, the expansive provider definition, and the exclusion of other medical contexts are also likely to be disputed.
The bill would add a new limitations provision to Title 13 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, requiring claims for damages arising from youth gender transition procedures to be filed before the injured person turns 38. It would supersede any shorter limitations period that might otherwise apply, while leaving existing laws regulating or prohibiting such procedures intact and preserving local authority to adopt stricter rules. The bill would affect potential plaintiffs, medical providers, hospitals, clinics, mental health professionals, and other entities involved in gender transition-related care.
The available legislative history shows the bill was postponed indefinitely in committee, which indicates the measure did not have enough support to move forward. Because there are no transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, there is no detailed public record of debate, but the bill’s subject matter suggests it was likely controversial and polarizing. The committee outcome points to skepticism or opposition rather than broad consensus.
The central controversy is whether Colorado should create a special, extended limitations period for claims tied to youth gender transition procedures. Opponents are likely to object to the bill’s broad and ideologically charged definitions of “sex” and “youth gender transition procedure,” its inclusion of counseling and therapy alongside surgery and hormones, and its potential to chill access to care or expose providers to long-tail liability. Supporters would likely argue that people who believe they were harmed by such procedures need more time to discover injuries and bring suit. The carve-outs for circumcision and disorders of sex development, and the bill’s broad reach to providers and affiliated entities, are also likely to be disputed.