Parents may face losing custody for opposing their child’s push to identify as trans
A think tank at a Christian college in Colorado is calling on the state’s Democrat-controlled Senate to reject legislation that could remove trans-identified children from their parents’ custody if they oppose trans medicalization, warning that it “sets a dangerous precedent by punishing those who live out their biblical convictions.”
Known as the “Kelly Loving Act,” the bill would add considerations for judges to review when determining child custody, including parents’ using a child’s birth name instead of their new, self-declared name and “misgendering” among several other trans-related topics to review.
In a statement provided to The Christian Post, the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University condemned House Bill 25-1312, a bill passed by the Democrat-controlled Colorado House of Representatives. The think tank also urged the Colorado Senate to reject the legislation. “HB25-1312 sets a dangerous precedent by punishing those who live out their biblical convictions,” said Greg Schaller, director of the Centennial Institute.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Subscribe to get daily/weekly email with the top stories (plus special offers!) from The Christian Post. Be the first to know.
“Religious freedom doesn’t end when someone disagrees with Scripture. The sacred rights of conscience, which is fundamental to the United States Constitution, guarantees that the state cannot interfere with the rights of parents to raise their children in a manner consistent with their faith,” Schaller said.
He added, “A government that claims to care for children while silencing parents and faith communities is not protecting liberty — it is directly violating it. Our laws must reflect eternal truth; not passing ideologies.”
Approved by the Colorado House in a 38-20 vote, House Bill 25-1312 defines “Coercive control” as “a pattern of threatening, humiliating, or intimidating actions, including assaults or other abuse, that is used to harm, punish, or frighten an individual.” The measure lists “deadnaming or misgendering” as examples of actions that amount to coercive control.
The legislation also defines deadnaming as “to purposefully, and with the intent to disregard the individual’s gender identity or gender expression, refer to an individual by their birth name rather than their chosen name.” It identifies misgendering as “to purposefully, and with the intent to disregard the individual’s gender identity or gender expression, refer to an individual by their birth name rather than their chosen name.”
The measure instructs courts in the state to “determine the allocation of parental responsibilities, including parenting time and decision-making responsibilities, in accordance with the best interests of the child, giving paramount consideration to the child’s safety and the physical, mental, and emotional conditions and needs of the child.” Courts are asked to take into consideration, “Any report related to domestic violence or coercive control” when making such a decision.
“It is against the public policy of this state for the law of another state to authorize or require a state agency to remove a child from the child’s parent or guardian because the parent or guardian assisted the child in obtaining gender-affirming health-care service,” the bill states.
What the bill refers to as gender-affirming healthcare involves procedures performed on individuals who experience gender dysphoria, including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries consisting of the mutilation of healthy body parts, such as a double mastectomy, hysterectomy and castration. Concerns about the long-term impact of these life-altering procedures have led more than two dozen states to ban minors from obtaining some or all of them.
Another section of the legislation implements requirements for school dress codes, stating that any dress code or uniform requirement implemented by a school board “must not create or enforce any rules based on gender, and must allow each student to abide by any variation of the dress code.”
The bill also establishes a new requirement for places of public accommodation, prohibiting it as a “discriminatory practice and unlawful to, with specific intent to discriminate, publish materials that deadname or misgender an individual.”
The fate of House Bill 25-1312 now rests in the hands of the state Senate.
Ryan Foley is a reporter for The Christian Post. He can be reached at: ryan.foley@christianpost.com
