Colorado's 'totalitarian' transgenderism bill sparks concerns from parents
"This is giving the authority to our state to take our children away if we don't agree with these gender transitions, so it's got huge ramifications for all parents, especially those in custody situations who are fighting with their ex-spouses to stop their children from being medicalized," Erin Lee, a mom from the Centennial State, told "The Faulkner Focus" on Monday.
She added, "It opens the door for all parents to potentially have their children forcibly removed by the state if they're not willing to affirm their child's mental health distress."
Concerned Parents Of Trans Kids Compared To 'Hate Groups' By Colorado Dem: Wouldn't 'Ask The Kkk' For Opinion
HB25-1312, which imposes state-mandated gender policies on schools and considers it "coercive control" in child custody cases when a parent does not affirm a child's gender identity, was among a slate of Democratic-led bills pushed through earlier this month.
More specifically, the bill states that, "when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control."
Read On The Fox News App
The Colorado bill, which would create the Kelly Loving Act, named after a transgender man who was killed in the 2022 Colorado nightclub shooting by a nonbinary gunman, also prohibits Colorado courts from enforcing laws from other states that remove children from parents who allow transgender treatments for minors.
For moms like Lee and California parental rights activist Erin Friday, the issue is personal. Both Lee's and Friday's daughters once identified as boys, but neither mom affirmed that belief and their daughters eventually stopped identifying as transgender.
Colorado Dems Ram Abortion, Transgender Bills Through On Limited Sunday Session Debate: 'Unprecedented'
"This bill will not only determine that parents like Erin and I are abusers — both of us had Child Protective Services come to our home when we refused to call our daughter males — but this bill also affects the press and its freedom of the press, and it will require them to use the chosen name of a child, how they choose it, and any adult," Friday warned, adding that, if implemented, the measure poses a "massive First Amendment violation."
Friday, a lifelong Democrat, insisted the issue should be "bipartisan," adding that parents need to fight back in the courts, in the public domain and through "standing up" at legislative hearings.
Both moms fundamentally oppose the idea that children can be born in the wrong body. The bill now heads to the state Senate.
At a contentious hearing last month on the bill, a Colorado Democrat likened concerned parents to hate groups like "the KKK."
Fox News' Jamie Joseph contributed to this report.Original article source: Colorado's 'totalitarian' transgenderism bill sparks concerns from parents
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
4 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Federal judge blocks parts of Mississippi ban on DEI in public schools
JACKSON, Miss. — A federal judge blocked portions of Mississippi's ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools from being enforced while a lawsuit against it is underway. The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate on Monday seek to prohibit public schools from discussing a list of 'divisive concepts' related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin. They would also prevent public schools from maintaining programs, courses or offices that promote DEI or endorse 'divisive concepts' and ban diversity training requirements. The law, which took effect in April , aims to prevent public schools from 'engaging in discriminatory practices' by banning DEI offices, trainings and programs. Any school in violation of the act could lose state funding. A group of teachers, parents and students is suing the state, alleging the law violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Wingate's ruling follows a temporary restraining order he granted to the plaintiffs in July . At an Aug. 5 hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued that the law is too confusing, leaving parents, teachers and students wondering what they can and cannot say and whether they could face consequences as a result of their speech. Cliff Johnson, a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School and Mississippi director of the MacArthur Justice Center, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered 'divisive topics.' In an exchange with Wingate, Johnson said he did not believe the law would allow him to teach about the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the court case that paved the way for the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII; portions of the Civil Rights Act; or the murders of Emmett Till and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. 'I think I'm in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and run the serious risk of being disciplined, or I could abandon something that's very important to me,' Johnson said. 'I feel a bit paralyzed.' The Mississippi Attorney General's Office argued that public employees do not have First Amendment rights. 'They are speaking for the government and the government has every right to tell them what they need to say on its behalf,' said Lisa Reppeto, an attorney at the state attorney general's office. She added that the First Amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school does or does not say. Reppeto also said the consequences of the law are aimed at the schools — not students or teachers — and that the plaintiffs' 'argument is not consistent with what is in the statute.'
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge hands Trump administration partial win in ‘Alligator Alcatraz' fight
A federal judge late Monday dismissed portions of a lawsuit brought by 'Alligator Alcatraz' detainees, handing the Trump administration a partial win in its pushback on allegations that the migrants aren't being given sufficient access to attorneys. U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz agreed the administration's new designation of a Miami-based immigration court to handle the detainees' cases makes their Fifth Amendment claims against the federal government moot. 'This is a classic case of mootness,' wrote Ruiz, who was appointed to the bench by President Trump. As for the detainees' separate First Amendment claims, which allege they aren't able to communicate confidentially with counsel, Ruiz said those remain a live controversy that can proceed. Still, the judge agreed with the administration that those issues should go before the federal judicial district in Florida that covers the 'Alligator Alcatraz' site, rather than Ruiz's courtroom in Miami. 'The job of the District Court is not to rule first and ask questions later,' Ruiz wrote. 'Instead, it must ensure that it is imbued with the ability to decide such a case in the first instance, pursuant to the limits on judicial power imposed by Article III and Congress's statutory limitations on venue,' he continued. Ruiz was assigned the case filed by a group of migrants detained at 'Alligator Alcatraz' and several immigration legal services organizations. They are represented by Americans for Immigrant Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union. They sued soon after officials opened 'Alligator Alcatraz' in early July to house thousands of migrants in the facility surrounded by the Florida Everglades. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has cast it as a model for state-run immigrant detention facilities elsewhere in the country. The plaintiffs urged Ruiz to issue an injunction guaranteeing that migrants can promptly communicate with their attorney confidentially as the litigation proceeds. Monday's ruling landed just hours after the judge convened a multi-hour hearing in the case. At the hearing, lawyers for both the Trump administration and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis's (R) administration contended that the detainees for weeks have been able to receive a meeting and there are now no complaints. 'Plaintiffs would have your honor go to 'Alligator Alcatraz' and become the warden,' Nick Meros, an attorney representing Florida, told the judge. Some of detainees had also claimed their Fifth Amendment protections were violated because the administration had failed to identify an immigration court with jurisdiction over their cases. The Justice Department over the weekend, however, designated Krome Detention Center in Miami to handle the migrants' cases. The detainees still raised alarm that the administration could change course again, but the judge declined to intervene by finding the matter moot. The lawsuit is one of two major legal challenges to 'Alligator Alcatraz.' Environmental groups convinced another judge to temporarily block new construction at the site over accusations it violates federal law, but that case hasn't impacted officials' ability to detain individuals.
UPI
7 minutes ago
- UPI
Texas House Rep. Collier to stay in statehouse until Wednesday session
Texas Democratic Rep. Nicole Collier will remain in the statehouse until Wednesday after refusing a law enforcement escort to leave. Photo b y Nicole Collier/X Aug. 19 (UPI) -- Texas Democratic state Rep. Nicole Collier spent the night in the Austin statehouse and plans to stay there until Wednesday's legislative session after she refused Republican leaders' demands that she go home via police escort. Monday night, state House Democrats were only allowed to leave if they signed a waiver allowing a police escort to ensure they stayed in the state. Collier, D-Fort Worth, refused, so she was not allowed to leave, sharing a photo of herself sleeping in the statehouse. The Democrats had just returned from out of state, where they had fled to prevent a quorum in the House. They objected to the Republicans' plan to redistrict the state to create more Republican U.S. House of Representative seats. Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows said Monday the Democrats who had arrest warrants issued against them could not leave the chamber unless they agreed to specific conditions. "Members who have not been present until today, for whom arrest warrants were issued, will be granted written permission to leave only after agreeing to be released into the custody of a designated [Department of Public Safety] officer appointment under the rules of the House," he said, adding that the officers would "ensure your return Wednesday at 10 a.m." All Democrats but Collier agreed to the terms. "I refuse to sign away my dignity as a duly elected representative just so Republicans can control my movements and monitor me with police escorts," Collier said in a statement in which she called herself a "political prisoner" for refusing Republican "surveillance protocol." "My constituents sent me to Austin to protect their voices and rights," she said. "When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents -- I won't just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination." Collier told CBS News Texas that like the new congressional maps, the situation is wrong. "I have a right to resist, I have a right to oppose, just like my voters do, just like Texans have a right to challenge government, and that's what I'm doing. I'm challenging these decisions that are being made. I don't agree with them," she said. "All the Democrats will be working together to get that legal record set so that we can take this fight to the court," she told CBS. At first, Collier was only allowed to be in the chamber, but later was allowed to go to her office in the statehouse. The Texas House Democratic Caucus said in a statement that the police escorts were the "latest Republican tactic to monitor and control Democratic lawmakers following their successful quorum break." Supporters cheered the Democrats as they walked from the rotunda to the House chamber before the session began Monday.
