| Published April 29, 2025
Colorado House Bill 25-1312, known as the “Kelly Loving Act,” has ignited significant controversy due to its provisions concerning parental rights and gender identity. The bill proposes that “misgendering” or “deadnaming” a child—referring to them by their birth name or pronouns inconsistent with their gender identity—could be considered forms of “coercive control” in child custody cases.
House Minority Leader Rose Pugliese has strongly criticized the bill, labeling it a “huge violation of parental rights.” She argues that it could penalize parents for not affirming their child’s gender identity, potentially impacting custody decisions. Pugliese contends that the legislation overreaches by involving the state in deeply personal family matters and undermines the rights of parents to make decisions in their children’s best interests.
The bill has passed the Colorado House and is currently under consideration in the Senate. It has sparked a broader debate on the balance between protecting transgender youth and preserving parental rights. Supporters assert that the bill is necessary to safeguard transgender children from emotional harm, while opponents view it as an infringement on free speech and parental autonomy.
According to the bill’s summary, the legislation would direct courts making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child “for purposes of parenting time” to consider “deadnaming,” “misgendering,” or threatening to publish material related to an individual’s sex change services as types of “coercive control.”
The bill would additionally define “deadnaming” and “misgendering” as discriminatory acts in the “Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act,” which would essentially prohibit calling sex-confused individuals by their real names or biological sex in places of public accommodation.
The bill would further prohibit Colorado courts from complying with orders or laws from other states mandating that a child be taken from parents or caregivers who allow them access to mutilating sex change drugs and surgeries — which transgender activists euphemistically call “gender-affirming care.”
The legislation would direct schools that establish policies related to “chosen names” to include all reasons why a student may choose to go by a name other than their legal name. Schools would also be barred from including rules based on “gender” in dress code policies.
The bill also directs public entities that require individuals to disclose their names to have options for both legal and chosen names. The public entity would be required to use a chosen name on all subsequent forms if it differs from the individual’s legal name.
The outcome of this legislation could set a precedent for how states navigate the complex intersection of gender identity, child welfare, and parental rights. As such, it is being closely watched by advocates and critics nationwide.
Here are the key implications of Colorado’s House Bill 25-1312 (“Kelly Loving Act”):
-
Erosion of Parental Rights:
The bill could redefine the traditional boundaries of parental authority by allowing the state to intervene if a parent does not affirm a child’s gender identity. Critics warn this may discourage parents from expressing concern, asking questions, or guiding their children through complex issues, fearing they could lose custody. -
Legal Precedent for Other States:
If passed and upheld, this legislation could inspire similar bills across the U.S., especially in states already expanding protections for transgender youth. It may contribute to a nationwide legal trend where parental objections to gender transitions could be treated as harmful or abusive under the law. -
Increased Legal Conflict:
Custody battles could become even more contentious and complex. Disagreements over gender identity could be weaponized in family court, turning personal, sensitive issues into legal battles with high stakes for both parents and children. -
Impact on Free Speech:
Labeling “misgendering” or “deadnaming” as “coercive control” introduces concerns about free speech within families. Some argue it could criminalize or penalize language choices rooted in religious, philosophical, or medical beliefs about gender, further fueling First Amendment debates. -
Psychological and Social Impact on Families:
The bill could increase stress, division, and alienation within families. Rather than fostering open dialogue, it might lead to secrecy, fear, and resentment, harming the very children the bill aims to protect. -
Shift in Child Welfare Standards:
By tying gender affirmation directly to child welfare decisions, the bill would mark a significant cultural and legal shift in what constitutes a safe and supportive home environment.
Overall takeaway:
Colorado’s House Bill 25-1312 represents a major shift in how the law may treat parental authority when it comes to issues of gender identity. By classifying “misgendering” or “deadnaming” as forms of coercive control in custody cases, the bill prioritizes the affirmation of a child’s declared gender identity over traditional parental rights and discretion.
While supporters see it as a necessary protection for transgender youth, critics argue it opens the door for government overreach into private family matters, threatens free speech, and could reshape custody battles nationwide. Ultimately, this debate reflects a broader cultural and legal struggle over who has the final say in a child’s upbringing—the parents or the state.
Be the first to comment