Latest news with #FaithWinter
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Colorado parents unload on liberal lawmakers, prompting changes to controversial gender bill
Parents packed a Wednesday night Colorado Senate hearing to voice outrage over a gender identity bill that critics say could attack parental rights. HB25-1312, which imposes state-mandated gender policies on schools, initially would have considered a parent's refusal to affirm their child's gender identity as "coercive control" in child custody cases. "Pass this bill and history will not remember you as heroes, it will remember you as cowards who sold out the rights of the people for the approval of extremists," one concerned dad declared. Others branded the bill an "attack on parental rights," with one saying the measure could be more accurately called "how to break up families and use the law to steal children from their parents." Colorado Dems Ram Abortion, Transgender Bills Through On Limited Sunday Session Debate: 'Unprecedented' Another more succinctly said, "disagreement is not abuse." Read On The Fox News App After much contention, sponsoring lawmakers, Democratic Sens. Chris Kolker and Faith Winter, stripped the bill of its most controversial provisions before an overnight vote — and while Republicans say it's a big win for them and for parents, their fight against the effort isn't over yet. State Rep. Rose Pugliese, a Republican representing the Centennial State's 14th district, told "The Faulkner Focus" on Thursday that she believes the bill is still an attack on parental rights. "All the grassroots parents that came and waited in line for hours in order to testify really helped make this bill less egregious in some ways and then more egregious in other ways," she said. "While they took out that child custody piece, which was a real problem, especially for domestic violence survivors that I get to work with… they included language that said, 'you no longer are required to get a court order in order to change your name and get a government-issued ID, even if you are in this country unlawfully,' so that jeopardizes public safety in a different way. Colorado's 'Totalitarian' Transgenderism Bill Sparks Concerns From Parents She continued, "So we're still attacking parental rights, but we are now adding an additional public safety element to it." She went on to slam the state's Democratic leadership for pushing measures to make Coloradans less safe and urged parents to continue their pressure campaign by talking to their state senators. "We know that amendments could be offered on the floor. We don't know what this bill will look like when it comes back to the House, so we cannot let the pressure off. We need to have these conversations and continue to get our voices heard, and I think parents are doing that across Colorado and across this nation." According to The Denver Post, if the bill becomes law, it will "still protect transgender people from being misgendered or deadnamed, or referred to by the name they used before they transitioned, in discrimination laws for places like work and school." The hypothetical law could also protect Colorado from other states' "anti-transgender policies" and make changes to existing policies for name alterations and gender markers on driver's article source: Colorado parents unload on liberal lawmakers, prompting changes to controversial gender bill
Fox News
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Colorado parents unload on liberal lawmakers, prompting changes to controversial gender bill
Parents packed a Wednesday night Colorado Senate hearing to voice outrage over a gender identity bill that critics say could attack parental rights. HB25-1312, which imposes state-mandated gender policies on schools, initially would have considered a parent's refusal to affirm their child's gender identity as "coercive control" in child custody cases. "Pass this bill and history will not remember you as heroes, it will remember you as cowards who sold out the rights of the people for the approval of extremists," one concerned dad declared. Others branded the bill an "attack on parental rights," with one saying the measure could be more accurately called "how to break up families and use the law to steal children from their parents." Another more succinctly said, "disagreement is not abuse." After much contention, sponsoring lawmakers, Democratic Sens. Chris Kolker and Faith Winter, stripped the bill of its most controversial provisions before an overnight vote — and while Republicans say it's a big win for them and for parents, their fight against the effort isn't over yet. State Rep. Rose Pugliese, a Republican representing the Centennial State's 14th district, told "The Faulkner Focus" on Thursday that she believes the bill is still an attack on parental rights. "All the grassroots parents that came and waited in line for hours in order to testify really helped make this bill less egregious in some ways and then more egregious in other ways," she said. "While they took out that child custody piece, which was a real problem, especially for domestic violence survivors that I get to work with… they included language that said, 'you no longer are required to get a court order in order to change your name and get a government-issued ID, even if you are in this country unlawfully,' so that jeopardizes public safety in a different way. She continued, "So we're still attacking parental rights, but we are now adding an additional public safety element to it." She went on to slam the state's Democratic leadership for pushing measures to make Coloradans less safe and urged parents to continue their pressure campaign by talking to their state senators. "We know that amendments could be offered on the floor. We don't know what this bill will look like when it comes back to the House, so we cannot let the pressure off. We need to have these conversations and continue to get our voices heard, and I think parents are doing that across Colorado and across this nation." According to The Denver Post, if the bill becomes law, it will "still protect transgender people from being misgendered or deadnamed, or referred to by the name they used before they transitioned, in discrimination laws for places like work and school." The hypothetical law could also protect Colorado from other states' "anti-transgender policies" and make changes to existing policies for name alterations and gender markers on driver's licenses.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Colorado bill on transgender protections advances with stripped down provisions
Sen. Faith Winter, a Broomfield Democrat, speaks at the Colorado Capitol last week. She sponsored a bill that would add protections for transgender people in Colorado. (Sara Wilson/Colorado Newsline) An amended version of a bill that intends to add legal protections for transgender people in Colorado passed its first vote in the Colorado Senate after eight hours of testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday evening into early Thursday. House Bill 25-1312, dubbed the Kelly Loving Act in honor of a transgender woman killed during the 2022 Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs, initially proposed various new legal protections for transgender people in education, family legal matters and public accommodation. Sponsors amended out a provision that concerned child custody decisions — which drew intense opposition from parental advocates — and a stripped down version of the bill passed the committee. The bill defines deadnaming — when someone calls a transgender person by their previous name — and misgendering as discriminatory acts in the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. It would also shield parents who help their child obtain gender-affirming care from laws in other states that outlaw the practice. The amended version removed references to 'chosen' names in a section requiring school policies be 'inclusive of all reasons' that a student changes their name, and it removed language around gender in the section that says schools must allow students to choose from any variation contained in dress code policies. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The committee removed a section of the bill that would have made judges in child custody cases consider deadnaming, misgendering or threatening to publish information related to an individual or child's gender-affirming care as a form of 'coercive control' in custody proceedings. Much of the testimony against the bill focused on that section, with many witnesses sharing concerns about the government involving itself in family matters. Sen. Dylan Roberts, a Frisco Democrat on the committee, said 95% to 99% of the concerns he heard related to the cut section. 'If Section 2 were still in the bill, I would have been opposed. I think it was an intrusion into the parent-child relationship that would have had some negative consequences,' Roberts said. 'And while I understand the intent maybe of the original inclusion, I think the policy implications were challenging at best.' The committee voted 5-2 to move the bill forward along party lines, with Democrats in support and Republicans against it. Some committee members who voted in support of the bill said they still want to see more changes to reflect concerns from certain LGBTQ+ groups and around the shield law provision of the bill, but they said the amended version was better than how the bill started. 'I think they're bringing up some valid legal concerns, not questioning their support for trans Coloradans,' Roberts said. ' I think they're bringing up valid legal concerns about the firmness of what's on the paper here if it were to get challenged all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court.' One Colorado, one of the largest LGBTQ+ advocacy groups in Colorado, initially supported the legislation but has changed course and has since taken an 'amend' position on the bill with concerns that it could jeopardize current protections. After it passed the House with Democratic support, it stalled in the Senate as stakeholder conversations continued. One Colorado has not shared any details on what it wants to see change in the bill, and nobody with the organization testified at the bill hearing. 'One Colorado is not testifying today because we want to continue our work with the proponents of this bill and community to make it stronger,' One Colorado spokesperson Cal Solverson said in a statement. Legislative staff said 726 people signed up to testify on the measure. Committee leadership limited debate to eight hours, four in favor of the bill and four against the bill, and asked those still in the room after witness testimony ended to stand to show if they were for, against, or seeking amendments on the bill. Does this bill do enough? No, and honestly legislation never will, but it does something ... It gives trans folks harmed across the state more access to legal protections than we have today. – Anaya Robinson, senior policy strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado Those in support of the bill said it will save transgender peoples' lives and make them safer. Anaya Robinson, senior policy strategist with the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said his organization has had concerns with how the bill could be challenged at the federal level, but continued engagement with bill sponsors and stakeholders have led to changes addressing concerns as they come up. As a trans man, Robinson said his community needs 'robust and clear protections that do not rely on federal law,' and the bill is a step in the right direction. 'Does this bill do enough? No, and honestly legislation never will, but it does something,' Robinson said. 'It gives trans folks harmed across the state more access to legal protections than we have today, and in a time where our literal existence is being questioned, our history being erased, the legality of our bodies and our autonomy is being decided by people who do not believe we have a right to live, we need our elected officials and our community organizations to step up and do something.' Since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has issued orders to recognize only two unchangeable genders, stop offering non-binary passport gender markers, and attempted to stop funding care for transgender people under age 19. Sybil Vane, a transgender woman from Brighton, described herself as an ordinary person who has led 'a typical American life,' and she said 'none of that has changed since I transitioned.' She said despite this, transgender people are not afforded the same respect as others. 'I hope that the members of the committee and all those in opposition to the Kelly Loving Act can see me not as transgender, but as a fellow American, deserving the same dignity we afford to all,' Vane said. 'Until such a day comes when we can see each other as humans first and transgender second, we need the Kelly Loving Act.' The bill is sponsored by Rep. Lorena García, an Adams County Democrat, Rep. Rebekah Stewart, a Lakewood Democrat, Sen. Faith Winter, a Westminster Democrat, and Sen. Chris Kolker, a Littleton Democrat. The committee voted to strike a portion of the bill that said Colorado courts 'shall not give any force or effect' to laws in other states connected to taking children away from parents or caregivers who allowed the child access to gender-affirming care. Winter said that change reflects concerns around the Constitution's full faith and credit clause and respecting laws of other states. But the shield provision retains other language that protects people in Colorado from other states' gender-affirming care restrictions. The amendment also clarified how a court should consider intentional, persistent deadnaming or misgendering as evidence of someone discriminating based on gender identity or expression, and it removed a provision around deadnaming and misgendering in a place of public accommodation. 'The language around this is not if you call someone the wrong name by accident,' Winter said. 'This isn't if someone shows up at your workplace and you call them the wrong name or misgender them. There has to be intentionality to cause harm, and so this is about the action to the individual and not just speech.' New additions to the bill include a provision that says someone does not need a court order if they want to change their gender marker on the driver's license or identification a second or third time. Winter said Colorado allows an 'X' gender marker on state IDs, but that has led to some people having trouble with student loans and passport applications, so some people may want to change their gender markers back. The bill now makes it so that a county clerk can issue a new marriage license to someone who has legally changed their name. Many who testified against the bill showed skepticism of gender-affirming care and denied that people can be transgender. Others questioned whether provisions of the bill would constitute compelled speech and violate the First Amendment. Wayne Williams, a former Republican secretary of state and attorney in Colorado Springs, expressed concerns with the shield law provisions of the bill and said it can create a 'coercive' situation if states 'do not give authority to the laws of others.' 'There are a number of issues remaining in the bill that need to be fixed before it could be passed, and it should therefore be killed,' Williams said. Sen. John Carson, a Highlands Ranch Republican on the committee, said 'it's pretty clear' that Colorado already has the laws it needs to prohibit discrimination. 'Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, extending protections beyond federal law, protects individuals from discrimination based on disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, religion, age, national origin and ancestry,' Carson said. 'My belief is when we have adequate laws, we should focus on enforcing those.' The bill will go through the Senate Appropriations Committee before it will be up for debate on the Senate floor. The House will have to approve Senate amendments to the bill before it could be signed into law. Democrats control strong majorities in both chambers of the Legislature. The 2025 legislative session ends on May 7. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Gov. Polis signs duo of Colorado reproductive rights bills into law
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signs Senate Bill 25-183 into law on April 25, 2025 at the Colorado Capitol. The bill implements Amendment 79, a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to abortion and lifts a prohibition on public funds for care. (Sara Wilson/Colorado Newsline) Colorado Gov. Jared Polis on Thursday signed a pair of bills into law that safeguard access to abortion and gender-affirming care as the national landscape grows hostile to such policies. 'Colorado is a state where people can look for the health care they want, and they can trust that in Colorado, health care is a very personal and private decision, not the business of the government,' the Democrat said during a bill signing ceremony in his office at the Capitol. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Senate Bill 25-129 builds on a 2023 shield law that protects out-of-state patients who come to Colorado for care and the providers who treat them. There have been multiple cases this year of states that outlaw abortion pursuing criminal charges against out-of-state doctors who prescribe abortion medication via telehealth. The bill allows providers to exclude their names from medication abortion prescription labels to protect their privacy. It also requires any subpoena requests to include an affirmation that it does not pertain to reproductive or gender-affirming care. 'There's fear from our health care providers about being able to provide the best health care they can and use their skills. There's fear from patients accessing care, especially if they're traveling from out of state. There's fear from parents and counselors. And we hope that this bill gives hope,' said bill sponsor Sen. Faith Winter, a Broomfield Democrat. There's fear from our health care providers about being able to provide the best health care they can and use their skills. There's fear from patients accessing care, especially if they're traveling from out of state. There's fear from parents and counselors. And we hope that this bill gives hope. – State Sen. Faith Winter Since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned of Roe v. Wade, which guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion, Colorado has become an island of reproductive health care as surrounding states criminalize abortion. In 2023, about 29% of people who got an abortion in Colorado were from another state, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. That share was a little over 10% in 2019. Polis also signed Senate Bill 25-183, which implements Amendment 79, a constitutional update that Colorado voters approved in 2024. It puts the right to abortion into the state constitution and removes a ban on using public funds to cover abortion care. Beginning next year, state employees and people on Medicaid will have the care covered by their insurance. Amendment 79 passed with about 62% of the vote. 'By signing these bills into law, Governor Polis reaffirms Colorado's role as a national leader for reproductive justice and freedom,' Dusti Gurule, the president of Colorado Organization for Latina Opportunity and Reproductive Rights, which co-chaired the Amendment 79 effort, said in a statement. 'But this achievement is truly a reflection of community power. Thousands of Coloradans from across the state organized, advocated, and mobilized to fight for these bills that allow them to lead safer, healthier, and more self-determined lives.' Another bill modeled after federal standards for emergency medical care, including abortion, passed the Senate and has been introduced in the House but does not have a committee hearing scheduled. The legislative session ends on May 7. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Proposed bill preventing officers from asking drivers why they were pulled over dies in committee
DENVER (KDVR) — A proposed bill that would have prohibited officers from asking drivers why they were pulled over died in committee. House Bill 25-1243, 'Peace Officer Questions During Traffic Stop,' was proposed in February and would've prevented peace officers from asking the common question when they pull over a driver: 'Do you know why I pulled you over?' Some argue that the proposed bill that would have required police officers to tell the driver the reason they were pulled over would've protected both officers and drivers. Skyler McKinley with AAA said the bill would have limited the time officers spend on the road while pulling someone over, which helps with safety. The less time spent on the open road, the less likely it is an officer would be hit by an oncoming car. 2 arrested after stolen vehicle spotted in Broomfield: Police Meanwhile, Sen. Faith Winter, a Democrat who co-sponsored the bill, said it would help with officer transparency and build trust, as many of her constituents didn't know that they didn't need to answer that common question. However, the bill was only proposed for two months before it died in committee. During the Judiciary Committee meeting on April 2, Rep. Mandy Lindsay, a co-sponsor of the bill, said the bill stems from roadside safety, and people shouldn't have to jump through 'intellectual hoops' while being pulled over, especially since officers have a vast knowledge of the law, while drivers may not. The discussion about the bill went on for almost two hours, with many representatives asking about the point of the proposed bill, as it didn't have any consequences for the officers if they broke the law. Rep. Cecelia Espenoza said she's struggling with the 'why' as there is no penalty, and she was hesitant as it would be restraining the words of a peace officer without a specific public safety issue other than the anxiety of being pulled over. FOX31 Newsletters: Sign up to get breaking news sent to your inbox Several people agreed with the idea of the bill, but they wanted more 'teeth in it' and punishment. The committee postponed the bill indefinitely in an 8-3 vote. The only representatives voting against the postponement were Lorena Garcia, Elizabeth Velasco and Javier Mabrey. The proposed bill's history said it was postponed 'indefinitely, using a reversal of the previous roll call.' The reverse roll call was used since no one objected. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
