A controversial bill advancing in Colorado has drawn national backlash for what critics call a dangerous overreach of state power. The legislation, which would allow courts to consider a parent’s refusal to affirm a child’s preferred gender identity as “coercive control” in custody cases, has prompted concerns over parental rights, free speech, and due process.
Colorado State Representative Chris Richardson (R-District 56) joined Chicago’s Morning Answer with Amy Jacobson and John Anthony to discuss the bill, which passed the state House before stalling in the Senate under intense public scrutiny.
“This bill weaponizes the court system against parents,” Richardson warned. “It opens the door for the state to intervene in some of the most personal family matters imaginable—all based on subjective emotional offense.”
Richardson, who represents the conservative eastern plains of Colorado, says his constituents are deeply disturbed by the bill’s implications. According to the bill’s language, misgendering—a parent referring to their child by their birth name or pronouns—could be deemed coercive behavior in legal custody disputes.
“It’s a Trojan horse,” Anthony said during the interview, voicing what many opponents suspect: that the bill is less about protecting vulnerable children and more about embedding ideological enforcement into state law.
Richardson agreed, pointing out that the bill is part of a broader legislative push by progressive lawmakers who have recently moved to Colorado from other left-leaning states.
“They’re bringing the failed policies they fled right into our legislature,” Richardson said. “The bill passed the House with limited debate—only two hours allowed for a topic of this magnitude.”
In the brief debate, Republican lawmakers attempted to raise alarms about the potential for the law to be misused in contentious custody battles and against parents struggling to understand their children’s identities. But their efforts were quickly cut off by legislative maneuvering, including the invocation of a rarely used rule to shut down floor discussion.
“This law mandates that a parent’s refusal to affirm a child’s gender identity must be considered in custody decisions,” Richardson said. “It’s not a suggestion. It’s a legal requirement. And it now sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which hasn’t scheduled a hearing—likely because of the blowback.”
Critics also point to another related bill mandating insurance coverage for a long list of gender-affirming procedures, including facial reconstruction, rhinoplasty, breast augmentation, and permanent hair removal. Proposed amendments that would have extended the same insurance access to those seeking to de-transition were rejected.
“The law only moves in one direction,” said Jacobson. “There’s no room for someone to say, ‘I made a mistake and want to go back.’”
Adding fuel to the controversy, Richardson noted that many lawmakers currently serving in the Colorado House weren’t initially elected by voters but were appointed by party committees to fill vacant seats.
“You have a situation where small groups of political activists are hand-picking legislators, and now they’re pushing aggressive, ideologically driven laws without full transparency or debate,” he said.
Richardson also confirmed that no mainstream family or parental rights groups were consulted during the crafting of the bill. When one legislator questioned why stakeholder input was limited, a Democratic colleague likened seeking opinions from dissenting voices to asking the Ku Klux Klan for input on civil rights legislation.
“That tells you everything you need to know about the mindset behind this bill,” Richardson said.
Despite the bill’s uncertain future in the Senate, its mere advancement has set off alarms nationwide, with observers warning of a chilling precedent for states like Illinois, California, and New York—places known for introducing sweeping social policies.
As the interview concluded, Richardson offered a stark assessment: “We are walking toward a future where the state dictates speech, thought, and parenting under the guise of progress. That’s not just bad policy—it’s a step toward tyranny.”
The bill remains under review in the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee. If it is brought forward for debate, it is expected to ignite further controversy both within Colorado and across the country.