Senate Judiciary [Apr 27, 2026]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for hearing Senate Bill 174 today. This is a bill concerning lead generation marketing for legal services, which you're going to hear from several witnesses, the challenge with that practice that we're having here in Colorado, and the consumer protection issue that it's posing to Coloradans. What this bill proposes to do is to prohibit these lead generation marketing for legal services practices that we've been seeing. How does this typically play out? This is when an individual who has recently experienced an accident or injury or needs to seek out legal representation for a variety of reasons, and they go to a common search engine like Google and type in a certain attorney or type of legal service that they are looking for. But then the results turn out something different. They give them a phone number or a website to visit that sends them not to the place that they were looking, not the attorney, not the law firm, or not the service that they were seeking. As described on page 3 of the bill, the lead generators are not licensed lawyers or law firm representatives, and they use approaches that are generic, nondescriptive, purposely deceptive, and don't clearly identify the advertiser. The injured consumer thinks they're getting the attorney that they were searching for and instead end up with someone completely different. These lead generation firms and affiliated entities are profiting from the goodwill, reputation, and advertising investments of established law firms without authorization or compensation. So to address this growing problem, this bill distinguishes between prohibited lead generation legal marketing and allowed traditional legal marketing. The definitions are on page 4 and 5 of the bill. The main difference between the two is the requirement for clear and overt disclosure for which Colorado licensed attorney, law firm, or licensed legal paraprofessional is advertising their services. As provided on page 6, these requirements do not apply to non-profit organizations that provide free or discounted legal services. Lead generation legal marketing is prohibited in the bill, and on pages 6 and 7, it provides that the attorney general or a district attorney's office may prosecute civilly and or criminally under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and under the Colorado Criminal Code, including but not limited to existing crimes of criminal impersonation, fraud, and racketeering. You all have received a multi-page amendment at the end of last week where we've been working closely with the judicial branch to make a few tweaks to make sure that we're not getting into the regulation of the actual practice of law itself and some other stakeholding that happened after the bill was introduced. But with that, Mr. Chair, I'd turn it over to you and would be happy to take any questions.

Sounds great.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think many of you know me as Frank Azar. I've been practicing law in Colorado for over 40 years. I've spent most of my career representing injured people and whose lives are turned upside down in just an instant and who needed somebody that could stand up for them. Today I'm here because I think that trust is being exploited by these lead-generating companies. across Colorado predatory lead generation companies are deliberately misleading injured and vulnerable consumers they use familiar law firm names like mine trademarking branding and deceptive online advertising to capture people who are specifically looking seeking or looking for a lawyer they trust then secretly rerouting them to call centers and then selling their information to other lawyers across the country. These are not marketing mistakes. These are calculated bait-and-switch tactics. A person injured in a crash searches for help and believes they're being contacted in a trusted Colorado law firm and ends up speaking with a non-lawyer in a call center who avoids very cleverly identifying who they really are. and once that person gets involved in this system, it's too late. This harms consumers and undermines the integrity of the legal profession. As you all well know, lawyers are strictly regulated by our bar. We must follow rules on advertising, solicitation, and fee sharing because our clients are often scared, injured, and reliant on us in their most vulnerable moments. But these lead-generating companies operate outside those rules and profit hugely from that deception. This bill closes that loophole. It protects consumers from misleading advertising. It ensures that when someone seeks legal help, they know exactly who they're dealing with. And it aligns the practices of lead-generating firms with the same ethical standards that lawyers must obey. This legislation isn't about limiting advertising. It's about honesty, transparency, and protecting injured Coloradoans from being deceived when they're at their weakest. I urge you to stand with consumers, with the ethical legal practice, and with fairness by supporting this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senators, people seek legal help when they are in times of great distress. They may have been injured, laid off, or suffered serious harm. They are often looking for an attorney or firm with a reputation for results or who is recommended to them by someone they trust. Lead generation firms prey on these people. These firms come into Colorado, pinpoint the top attorneys, and then run advertisements designed to make people think they are affiliated with a specific attorney The consumer then thinks that they are contacting the lawyer they searched for but instead their information is captured and sold to whichever attorney is willing to pay for that lead By hiring lead generation firms, some attorneys are working around ethics rules and then claiming that they are not familiar with the lead generation firm's deceptive practices. I have seen consumers deceived into calling lead generation firms and then becoming confused about who they're speaking with, and I've seen consumers who thought they were calling a specific law firm be turned away because the lead generator did not handle that type of case, and then they never corrected the caller. Well-known attorneys have a reputation that they earned through hard work, results, trial experience, and trust. Lead generators hijack that trust. The attorney-client relationship is one of the most important professional relationships a person can enter into. This is not fair competition. It is undisclosed paid client acquisition built on consumer confusion. Law firms have been fighting these deceptive practices for years. However, this is a matter of consumer protection, and it is time to become a matter of state enforcement. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wasaki. Yes. Good afternoon,

Just for planning, anyone else in the room wanting to speak to 174? Okay, Mr. Reister, go ahead.

Okay, thank you. If you'll all please hold the table, we'll go online. Mr. Norell, please go ahead.

OK, thank you. Miss Bopp, please go ahead.

All right, Miss Bob, thank you for sharing.

end if you want to unmute and continue you've got some time left i don't know how it unmuted i didn't even touch my screen but that's odd okay we're hearing you now please go ahead

Okay. Thank you. Committee. Are there any questions for any of our witnesses, either in the room or online? and record can reflect we are joined by Senator Wallace who came back from her other committee alright maybe there are no questions thank you all for taking the time to testify with us today thank you folks for being with us online final call for anyone wanting to speak to SB 174 seeing none witness phase is closed okay committee everybody should have L2 and then L3 which amends L2. Seeing no hands indicating contrary. Mr. Vice Chair, go ahead.

Very good. If you want to let us know a bit about the amendment. Yes.

Committee, any questions about L2? Any objection to the adoption of L2? Seeing no objection, L2 is adopted. Mr. Vice Chair, to L3.

Okay, much shorter. Anything to add on it, Mr. Chair?

Any objection to the adoption of L3? Seeing none, L3 is adopted. Further amendments, Mr. Vice Chair? No. Committee, any amendments to 174? Seeing none, amendment phase is closed. Wrap up comments, Mr. Vice Chair.

Okay, proper motion. Committee any closing comments on 174 Seeing none Mr Syed please call the roll Sanders Carson

Aye.

Yes. Okay. The vote is 4-2. Congratulations. Senator Hendrickson is presenting a bill in another committee. That kind of double scheduling is unavoidable at this point in session. Congratulations and thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. All right, we will move right on to 1283. I think we'll be in a brief recess in order that we can retrieve our sponsor. Judah shares in recess. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Judiciary will come back to order. We are now joined by Senators Marchman and Benavidez,

Thank you. Senator Benavides. Okay. I couldn't hear you. Yes. Senator Benavides, go ahead.

Thank you. So committee, are there questions for the sponsors? Seeing none, we'll go to witnesses. Okay, in the room we have Owen Brigner from the Municipal League Online. Can we look for Dr. Michael Neal, N-E-I-L? While we're at it, anyone else in the room wanting to speak to 1283 but who hadn't signed up? Anyone else online that we can tell? All right, Mr. Brigner, while we get the Zoom going, we'll start with you.

All right. Thank you. Dr. Neal, please go ahead.

Okay, Dr. Neal, thank you. Members, are there questions of either witness? Seeing no questions, thanks for being with us. Dr. Neal, thanks for connecting online. Last call for witnesses on 1283. Seeing none, we'll close the witness phase. committee everyone should have L24 from Mr. Syed I will invite a motion

Okay thank you and sponsors I think this was the one that Mr. Brigner spoke to if you want to say more

That it Thank you Members questions on the amendment Any objection to the adoption of L24 Seeing no objection 24 is adopted Sponsors, further amendments?

for the employer. Alright, thank you. I appreciate the heads up. Okay, so, but no further amendments today. I'll ask if the committee has any amendments to 1283. Seeing none, amendment phase is closed. Wrap up comments from the sponsors, if any.

with a favorable recommendation. Okay. Proper motion. Mr. Sayed, please call the roll.

Mr. Chair. Yes. Okay, the vote is 3-2. Congratulations. You're going to the committee of the whole. Thanks, committee. Thank you, sponsors. All right. Because both sponsors of 1290 are presenting a bill in another committee right now, we'll go slightly out of order and we'll pull up House Bill 1052 by Senator Carson. We'll give him just a moment to get around to the other side of the table. and Senator Wallace will also be joining Senator Carson. Sponsors, when you're ready, feel free to commence opening remarks on 1052.

Senator Wallace.

Thank you. Are there any questions of the sponsors on 1052? Seeing none we go ahead to witnesses I think we can do just one large panel if you willing to yield the table Do we have Melissa Leland Also Elizabeth Newman. Kazi Houston. Andrea Bradbury. And online, do we have David Carnes? And is there anyone else in the room who had not had a chance to sign up, but who would like to testify? And per usual, we'll start in the room, then we'll go online. We'll just move down the table, I think. Ms. Houston, please go ahead.

Thanks very much, Ms. Newman.

Thank you. Ms. Leland.

Thank you for sharing. Ms. Bradbury, please go ahead.

Ms. Bradbury, thank you. If you'll all hold the table, we'll go to our online witness, then we'll see if there are questions. Ms. Bradbury, your testimony reminded me of something I heard someone else say in a hearing like this. You know, you don't just become a survivor, you work at being a survivor every day. Thanks for sharing. Mr. Carnes, please go ahead.

Mr. Carnes, thank you. Committee, questions for any of our witnesses? Everyone is worn out from a long floor debate this morning. All right, no questions. Thank you all for taking the time to testify with us. All right, last call for witnesses on 10-5-2. Seeing none, we'll close the witness phase, and we will invite the sponsors back to the table. Sponsors, have you any amendments on 10-52? Seeing none, committee amendments on 10-52.

Thank you. Senator Carson.

Very good. Committee, are there any closing comments on 1052? I'll just say briefly, sponsors, I had a conversation about this very early in the session. The number, obviously, was introduced in the House early. I know there was a fiscal concern about part of the bill, which has since been removed. I'm just glad that we could get to a place where the fiscal constraints this year did not completely inhibit the rest of the policy from going forward. With that, the motion belongs to either review, and it's to the Committee of the Whole. Senator Carson.

All right. Proper motion. Mr. Sayed, please put the roll. Senators, Carson.

Doherty.

I heard it's excused. Wallace.

Samoa Wilson.

Roberts.

Mr. Chair. Aye. All right. Six to zero. Congratulations for another motion. Senator Wallace.

Members, objection to consent? Seeing none, 1052 will be on the consent calendar. Thank you, sponsors. Okay, we will loop back around to 1290 now that our sponsors are available and have wrapped up in the other committee. This will be House Bill 1290 by Mr. Vice Chair Roberts and Senator Frizzell. Sponsors, when you are situated, whoever would like to start with the opening comments.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Senator Frizzell for her leadership on this topic and partnership on this bill. We talk about domestic violence and crimes of violence a lot in this committee, and prosecuting domestic violence cases is something I have personal experience with during my time as a deputy district attorney. And when you see cases that involve strangulation, those are often some of the most difficult cases to deal with, but also can potentially be a warning indicator for future violence and future heightened levels of crime. As Senator Frizzell noted, Strangulation is a strong indicator for future potential assault and homicide of the same victim. You learn that strangulation in a domestic violence case is not just an act of violence. It's a communication. The abuser is telling the victim, I can end your life, but I'm choosing not to right now. That message lands, and it changes how the victim moves through the world. what they tell police, whether they cooperate with the prosecution, and research tells us clearly that the abuser often follows through. A prior strangulation conviction is one of the strongest predictors of future homicide in a domestic relationship. Why we're here today with this bill is in part because of that terrible statistic and grave reality, but also because in 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court held in a case called People v. Lee that prosecutors cannot charge the same act of strangulation under both the deadly weapon enhancement and the strangulation subsection of the assault statute. So the court resolved that legal question, but the practical consequence is still that strangulation is now structurally positioned as less aggravated in our statutes than other assaults with a potentially deadly weapon So this bill in front of you House Bill 1290 does not attempt to overturn People v Lee but what it does is take a targeted step It says that for repeat offenders so people who have already been adjudicated for the crime of strangulation, and do it again and are convicted a second time, that they would be sentenced under the aggravated sentencing structure. This is a response to say that the law is meaningful when it comes to strangulation cases of repeat offenders, and we ask for your aye vote to help us potentially help victims from experiencing even more grave crime. Thank you.

Yeah, the citation we have is 2024 Colorado 21.

2024 CO21?

Good afternoon, committee members, Mr. Chair. Elizabeth Newman with the Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault. We are a leading voice for the anti-sexual violence movement in our state, and we are here today in support of House Bill 1290. because strangulation is a growing and serious issue in sexual assaults, and it should be treated as such. In the last 15 years, rough sex has become more mainstream but disconnected from the norms of consent, safety, and boundaries present in kink and BDSM communities. Often this is linked to media, memes, and porn influences, and while it can be consensual, we also see it feeding into wider patterns of power and dominance over a sexual partner. One study found that 38% of women under 40 had been choked, with 42% of them saying it was unwanted. Another recent study found that almost 2 in 10 college-age women, 7% of men, and about 10% of trans and non-binary students had been choked during recent sexual encounters without their consent. It also has been found that sexual assaults linked to dating apps have a higher rate of strangulation than other sexual assaults. Whether someone is consenting to sex but not strangulation or not consenting to either, strangulation is one of the deadliest harms. Even if someone does not have tangible, visible physical injuries, that does not mean that they are unharmed. The impact can be both immediate dangers and long-term injuries to victims. These include loss of consciousness, loss of voice, difficulty in swallowing or breathing, bruising, redness, hemorrhages, headaches, brain damage, PTSD, depression, increased risk of stroke, suicidal thoughts and death, including delayed death that occurs days or weeks after the strangulation. Strangulation is also a strong predictor of future homicide in intimate partner situations, including during sexual assault. additionally perpetrators of violence who use strangulation to control and harm their victims have shown a greater propensity to kill law enforcement officers than those who do not strangle their victims this strong link to lethality makes the issue important to treat seriously through law enforcement and prosecution SICASA has worked over the years to help support access to forensic and sexual assault nurse examiners, to document and treat strangulation injuries, and increase awareness among sexual assault advocates of the harm of strangulation. But in addition to the medical response, the legal response must also rise to what we know about the danger. Strangulation is too often minimized and misunderstood. This bill recognizes the very real harm of strangulation and helps to challenge the normalization of it. Taking strangulation seriously can save lives and prevent future harm. And we urge you to vote yes on House Bill 1290.

Hello again. Andrea Bradbury. I am testifying on behalf of myself. And this bill is a little bit different than normally the ones I testify on, but because it had the strangulation piece in it, I felt it was really important. So a couple of things that I do like about the bill. I love that it expands the definition of the emergency medical care provider. I feel that all the providers who are performing any function related to medical care should be afforded that extra protection. I love that the bill changes intentionally to knowingly. I do struggle with the piece of if the person has strangled before, because I feel like strangulation is such a lethal act. I wish that it was just once that we could do this. But if this is how we can get the bill passed, then I want to do that. I want to expound on the part of strangulation that, you know, 15 years ago, training law enforcement in Victim Rights Academy, having them understand that it doesn't matter if you don't see anything. And then we had the inventive ALS pictures. And when we had these pictures and photographs of people's neck, you could see tread marks from tennis shoes. You could see finger marks that you couldn't see with the naked eye. We had victims that came back a month later that had hoarseness in their voice, that had other things, other symptoms that came up. With the county that I was in, we used the lethality assessment protocol. And one of those questions on it had to do with, had you been strangled before? And many of the victims would say, choke. Yes, he's tried to choke me before. So that would have been a previous strangulation.

my name is David Carnes, and I'm the Public Policy Director of Violence-Free Colorado, the state's anti-domestic violence coalition, and I'm here today in support of House Bill 1290. In domestic violence work, we pay close attention to patterns, not just individual incidents, but what behavior over time tells us about risk and potential for escalation. You've already heard that strangulation stands out as one of the most serious warning signs of lethality. Even so, it bears repeating. What we consistently see in both research and fatality review work is that when a survivor has been strangled by an intimate partner, their risk of being killed by that partner increases significantly. Some studies have found that survivors who've experienced strangulation are more than seven times more likely to later be killed by that same partner. That is a level of risk that we cannot afford to overlook. Strangulation often marks a shift in the severity of abuse. It reflects a level of control that can quickly become lethal. When that behavior is repeated, it signals a pattern that is strongly associated with the most dangerous outcomes. House Bill 1290 responds directly to that reality. By clarifying sentencing for individuals with prior convictions for second-degree assault by strangulation, this bill ensures that repeat offenses are addressed in a way that reflects the seriousness and risk involved. Strangulation also has impacts that extend far beyond what's immediately visible. Survivors may experience traumatic brain injuries, memory loss, difficulty concentrating, and long-term physical and mental health effects. These impacts are often misunderstood or not immediately connected to the assault, which can delay care and complicate both recovery and legal response. How we talk about this violence matters as well. The distinction between strangulation and choking is not just semantics. Strangulation is an intentional act that restricts airflow or blood flow and carries a high risk of serious injury or death. Using precise language helps ensure that this behavior is recognized, documented and responded to appropriately across systems. When someone commits strangulation and then does so again, it's a clear indication of escalating harm. Aligning our legal response with that reality is a critical step in prevention. If we are serious about reducing domestic violence homicides in Colorado, we have to respond clearly and consistently to the behaviors we know carry the greatest risk. For those reasons, we respectfully urge your support for House Bill 1290. Thank you.

No.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. this is one of those bills that you kind of learn some things that you maybe didn't want to know. That it only takes five to ten seconds for someone to lose consciousness if they're being strangled. And less than a minute to sustain serious brain injury, that is shocking to me. The medical literature is just clear that injuries can be catastrophic and invisible at the same time. And you can have oxygen deprivation severe enough to cause brain damage, but literally happening without a mark on the victim's skin. And this bill is about aligning or sentencing structure with that documented danger. You know, protecting victims of domestic violence. We kind of talked about this earlier today on the floor. It's not a Democratic issue. It's not a Republican issue. It's a Colorado issue. And when evidence tells us that we have a gap in how we respond to the most dangerous repeat offenders in this category, I believe that this legislation has the obligation to close that gap. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the folks who came to testify. And this bill was a little bit more broad in the House, and so there was a little bit more of an extensive testimony over there, including from the district attorneys who do support this bill, as well as other organizations across the spectrum. I don't think there's any registered opposition anymore after some of the amendments they made in the House. What we see here is we're addressing a gap between what the law allows and what justice requires for victims, and I believe this bill helps us close that gap and would appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill 1290 to the Committee of the Whole and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We're good. Yeah. I don't think we need any further amendments.

Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, the committee. I apologize for you having to wait on me to do this. Excited to bring 1312 to you. This bill really addresses four distinct areas in law enforcement policy. One, it updates law enforcement academy training programs to the Attorney General mandate. Two, it restructures the composition of the post board. Three, it establishes a minimum of age requirements for post certification. and then lastly it expands training and grant eligibility for Peace Officer Academy instructors. And so that's what the bill does and I would ask for a yes vote.

Thank you, Senator Weissman, members of the committee. My name is Jeffrey Reister. I'm here on behalf of the Department of Law to speak in support of 1312. Our office was very involved from the beginning in helping craft this cleanup related to the post board and some other technical improvements. Overall, the intent as the administration gets towards its end, we want to make sure that the next administration, whoever that might be, is set up for success, that any lessons learned are incorporated into statute to ensure those are carried over, and ultimately to ensure that there is a proper balance between management and line officers when we're having these discussions at the post board to ensure that the backgrounds that play into these decisions ultimately consider the officers that are typically in front of the post board. Because there are so many more line officers than management, we see them and their issues a lot more, and so we thought it was important to ensure that there was more representation for them on the post board. also ensuring that we have diversity of opinion in terms of bringing in reserved officers, academy directors, and also higher ed chiefs. Again, they all have different jobs and responsibilities, and we want to make sure that the kind of full scope of peace officers are considered as there is any disciplinary actions, but also any rules or other governance changes that might impact the practice of being a peace officer. Other than that, we appreciate your consideration and hope for a yes vote. Happy to answer any questions, and thank you.

Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Reister, for the work on this bill. I had a question about the timing, and maybe your answer explains a little bit with the changeover administrations, but the effective date of the report or of the standards is still, like, over four years from now, December 31, 2030. Is there a reason why it's going to take so long? Is it just allowing the new administration to have almost two years in office?

Thank you, Senator Westman. Senator Roberts it a great question So the redesign has been a project that our office has been working on for about four years now When other states have undertaken this type of update it usually in the eight to ten year range And so it's just to allow for the scope of that project to occur. But to your point, there's going to be some catch up of what have you done, where do we want it to go as an administration, and then being able to make it very clear that our office can submit that to the post board for approval. if it's denied for any reason, giving that office another chance to update, change it based off of the post-board direction, and then be able to resubmit and hopefully approve it at that point. Thanks.

Yep.

Chair, I have one minor one, if you don't mind.

Yeah.

Members, this just does not make the teaching component of it or the instructor and component of it, retroactive is just going forward. And so after September 1st, 2026, rather than making any changes retroactive for instructors, it's just a going forward thing. Would I ask for a yes vote?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move L10. Proper motion.

This is a good bill. I think you heard from Mr. Reister. I would ask for a yes vote. All right. Thank you.

1312 as amended to the Committee of the Whole.

No.

Yes.

Wallace? Yes.

No. Roberts?

Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you guys again. Excited to be here to be presenting 1322 to you today with my co-sponsor, Senator Cutter, who's put in a lot of work on this bill. House Bill 1322 is about ensuring that when a licensed professional causes harm, survivors have a fair opportunity to seek justice. Let me start with what this bill does HB 1322 gives people who have been harmed by conversion therapy more time to bring a civil claim against licensed mental health practitioners Licensed mental health practitioners It removes the statute of limitations for those claims, recognizing that the harm caused by these practices often takes years to fully understand and process. It applies only to licensed mental health providers and responsible entities. It does not create criminal penalties and it does not create a new cause of action. These claims already exist under Colorado law. What this bill does is make sure those existing pathways to accountability are actually accessible. And that matters because of how this harm shows up. Conversion therapy today is not what many people picture. It most often takes the form of talk therapy, sessions with licensed professionals that can look like legitimate care. But what defines it is the premise that a person's sexual orientation or gender identity is something to be changed. That premise is not supported by science and it causes real harm. Peer-reviewed research and every major medical and mental health association have documented increased risks of depression, anxiety, suicidality, and long-term psychological distress. We also see lasting impacts on a person's sense of self, their relationships, and their trust in care systems. And importantly, we see delay. Survivors often do not immediately recognize what happened to them as harm. Many spend years trying to understand depression, anxiety, or relationship challenges before connecting those experiences back to the care they received. That delay is not incidental. It is a direct result of the shame and authority embedded in these practices. Under current law, survivors generally have a limited window after discovering harm to bring a claim. But by the time many are ready to come forward, the window is already closed. HB 1322 corrects that. It aligns our legal framework with what we already recognize in other areas, that some forms of trauma take time to process and disclose, and ensure survivors are not denied justice simply because healing takes time. This bill also stands independently of any ongoing legal challenges to Colorado existing law. Regardless of what happens in courts, survivors who have already been harmed deserve access to justice. HB 1322 is about fairness, accountability, and making sure our laws reflect the reality of people's lives. We respectfully ask for your support, and I will now hand it over to my co-prime, Senator Cutter.

Thank you. Committee, are there questions of the sponsors before we get into witnesses? Seeing none, we'll proceed. Okay, we have over 40 witnesses signed up. For that reason, we will use our usual large witness count protocol. We'll invite testimony from everybody for two minutes. Questions from members of the committee will be limited to five minutes per panel, and we will alternate. We'll do some proponents. We'll go to opponents. We'll go back to proponents. with that said the first panel of witnesses and this will be hybrid do we have Jax Gonzalez online Joyce Calvo C Also online Lee Brookins In person Anastasia Cole And online, Rick Ginsberg. Okay, thanks for being patient as we work through the prior bills on a late start. Whoever would like to begin.

Thank you. Ms. Cole, please go ahead.

The Colorado General Assembly recognized the reality of delayed disclosure and the need to remove arbitrary barriers to justice in 2021 with the passage of Senate Bill 73 and Senate Bill 88, which removed the civil statute of limitations for sexual misconduct and child sexual abuse, respectively. At its core, House Bill 1322 seeks to address these same concerns. recognizes the deep harm caused by conversion therapy, which has been widely discredited and seeks to increase access to justice and healing. Much like survivors of sexual violence, survivors of conversion therapy often take decades to truly understand the impact of the trauma they've experienced and to feel safe enough to come forward. They also experience high rates of depression, anxiety, suicidality, PTSD, and substance use. Given these direct parallels, it's critical that our state statutes reflect the severity of a harm caused and increase access to avenues of accountability. Disclosure is a personal journey, and survivors of conversion therapy deserve the time to come forward when they are ready. House Bill 1322 not only supports survivors, but also supports sexual violence prevention, because when we challenge harmful practices that seek to control and suppress identity, expression, and bodily autonomy, and seek accountability, we're working upstream to dismantle those systems. CECASA, urgency yes vote. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Please hold. We'll hear from our online witnesses, then we'll invite questions. Lee Brookings, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Judiciary Committee. My name is Lee Brookings. I'm a non-binary person living in Boulder County. I'm a survivor of conversion therapy, a licensed clinical social worker. at my practice, the Umbrella Collective and a World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care, eight certified member. And I'm here in support of HB 26-13-22 to ensure convergent therapy survivors have access to justice against their licensed providers conducting medical malpractice. I was diagnosed with gender identity disorder when I was only eight years old. my licensed provider practiced conversion therapy with me three times a week for over four years and I nor my parents were engaged in this conversation until treatment was ended. I found when I was 25 this letter, it's a treatment summary from my licensed provider only to my parents, where I discovered when I was 25 that the whole treatment conflates my gender identity with my potential future sexuality. He writes that the treatment resulted in a renegotiation of my role as an early adolescent girl, including appropriate interest in boys. And it took me almost 20 years to discover that that was not me renegotiating my gender. It was me learning to repress my true self. The most important point I hope to make is that conversion therapy, which is medical malpractice, fraudulent and harmful, has long-term psychological harm on its survivors. From guilt and shame to isolation, many struggle with anxiety and depression, and in severe cases, suicidal thinking and attempts and successes with suicide. So let's protect the survivors of conversion therapy today who need more time, in my case decades, to disentangle the psychological harm and heal as a strong empowered survivor. These lasting harmful impacts fueled me to become a mental health therapist to help empower the voices and inner knowing of my clients. Thank you so much for listening and your vote in favor. Thank you. Ms. Calvo, please go ahead. Hi, my name is Joyce Calvo and I am Alana's mother. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today in support of this bill. Alana was precious. She was an artist a poet and a writer Alana spent many hours helping people experiencing homelessness She worked tirelessly to get a woman into a treatment center find housing and reconnect with her children Alana's many journals shed light on the conversion therapy she received that started when she was just a teenager. She was sent to licensed therapists chosen for her that ultimately caused extreme depression. She was told that living a gay lifestyle was a disordered desire that could be healed. This contributed to her feelings of deep sadness, shame, and depression. Alana was told that being gay and having impure thoughts were mortal sins that could lead to hell. When she could not change who she was, her condition ultimately worsened. And in December of 2019, Alana took her life. Alana told me she was going to write a book one day. She said, everyone needs to know how bad it was. It was really bad. I'm going to read an excerpt from one of Alana's writings. I have so much to say. I want my voice to be heard. I never said anything to a fault. I wanted to let you be you. You never let me be me. Don't you want to see me? You don't want to know me? It's not hard. You don't realize how you contributed to my immense suffering in the name of love. I worry if you ever meet someone like me, you will try to love them in the same way. You will hurt them. I struggled so hard. I wanted it to be easier. I tried, but I couldn't shake it. I don't understand how you could see me struggle and not intervene or question the process. I was playing a dangerous game. I was messing with the person God made me to be. This is who I am. It is me. As I sought out legal justice before and after Alana died by suicide, there were many roadblocks. This bill would have given our family a chance at justice. I wish it had been in place when Alana was alive. Thank you for listening to me and Alana, and please support this critical bill. Thank you for sharing. Mr. Ginsburg, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Rick Ginsburg, and today I'm speaking in strong support of Colorado House Bill 1322 on behalf of the Colorado Psychological Association, which is the largest professional organization of psychologists in the state. I've been a licensed psychologist in Colorado here since 2002. I've been in private practice for 24 years, providing psychotherapy to a wide range of clients, including many from the LGBTQ plus community. HB 1322 offers a critical tool to people who have been psychologically harmed by conversion therapy to get the justice, healing, and peace they so greatly deserve. Seeking mental health treatment and going to therapy is hard. It takes guts, as evidenced by some of the witnesses here today. For people from historically oppressed communities, such as the LGBTQ plus community, can take 10 times that courage. And when doing so, a client puts faith and trust in licensed practitioners to help them ethically, accurately, and with compassion. A client stepping into a therapy room is by nature vulnerable to the process. Sadly, sometimes that process can go wrong and clients are hurt. We don't always know why or how this happens. But with conversion so-called therapy, we know exactly why this has and can happen for those who identify as being LGBTQ plus or are questioning their sexual orientation It is because conversion therapy has been proven by research to be deleterious and pernicious It damages and does not help The psychological harm caused by conversion therapy can be profound, long-lasting, and delayed. Due to confusion, depression, and anxiety caused by such interventions, social stigma, and the power therapists have on clients and in society, it can take time for these difficulties to come to a client's awareness. It often takes longer for a client to trust yet another clinician with this issue, let alone dress it in a legal or administrative setting to seek damages, justice, and access healing. Members of the committee, you must give clients that time. Time to recover, to heal, to access resources, and seek justice. HB 1322 gives clients that time. CPA, representing hundreds of licensed psychologists in Colorado and the thousands and thousands of clients they serve. strongly request that you support this bill. Thanks so much for your time. Okay, thank you, sir. Committee questions for any of our witnesses? Senator Carson. Yes, this question is for Dr. Ginsburg. I just want to know what the... Senator, I'm afraid he might have just... Hold on, we're going to try to get him back on the Zoom. Please hold your question for just a moment so he can hear you. All right. Mr. Ginsburg, looks like we had a Zoom hiccup. There is a question specifically for you. Please indicate you can hear us in the room. Mr. Ginsburg, if you can hear us, feel free to unmute or flash a thumbs up icon on Zoom. There is a question for you. Senator Carson, did you have any questions for other witnesses while we're... Oop, looks like you fell off again. Okay. We're ready? Okay, but... Not sure if we're ready. I'll give it a try, Mr. Chairman. Sure, go ahead. For Dr. Ginsburg, because I think he might know the rules. Earlier it was suggested that a parent wouldn't necessarily know if their minor child was getting counseling. What are the guidelines or rules around that parental notification? Mr. Ginsburg, if you're able to hear us, we were... You're invited to speak about guidelines for parental notification. Senator, valid question. We may have to run at it again later, just given tech issues here. That works. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any members of the committee have questions for other witnesses? All right. We'll let you off the hook. Thank you. Okay. We'll see if we can reconnect Dr. Ginsburg later, but in the meantime, Ms. Calvin, Ms. Brookins, you're free to go. Thank you. All right. As noted, we'll be alternating. We will go now to some folks who signed up in opposition. I'll try to start with people in the room. Mr. Fisher, do we have Patty McKernan, and do we have Jonathan Helvoit? any other witnesses in the room who wanted to speak in opposition to 1322 Okay we start calling online witnesses I'm just going to go down the list here. All of these witnesses indicated signing up online. Colleen Enos, E-N-O-S. Brittany Vesely. Becky Pesky Maria Pesky Joel Miller Okay, we'll stop there while those folks get connected. We'll start in the room. Mr. Fisher, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Nathan Fisher, and I serve as the Associate Director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, which is the united voice of the bishops of Colorado. I'm here today testing in opposition to House Bill 1322. This bill will have the same result as previous laws, which the Supreme Court recently held in Childs v. Salazar was unconstitutional because it violated the free speech clause by selectively silencing only the viewpoints Colorado disagreed with. Section 1245202, subsection 3.5b2, purports to address the ruling from Childs v. saying that conversion therapy does not include directing a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome. This, however, does not solve the issue. This fix still presents counselors from expressing a view that supports biological reality. Under this definition, even if a client explicitly asks a counselor to help them gain comfort with their biological sex, the counselor cannot do so without risking lawsuit. 1322 still discriminates based on viewpoint and blatantly ignores the court's decision and Childs, Section 1220-1302, subsection 2 of this bill. Again, explicitly includes from the bill, speech that Colorado approves of, counseling that encourages SOGI exploration. The speech that Colorado dislikes, the speech that affirms biological reality and helps individuals gain comfort with their sex, 1322 will chill that speech by making the cost so high that no one will engage in it. Under this statute, people could target and set up counselors by engaging their services, then turning around and suing them for the same and repeating the process until there are no such counselors left in the state. This bill also has grave implications for parental rights. The Supreme Court has held for decades that parents have the right and duty to make medical decisions for their children. This bill, however, will prevent parents from getting their child the best care for this situation. Even if a child wants to align their life with their biological reality, parents will not be able to take their child to a counselor to do so. Between this bill and others like 1309 this year, We have seen an alarming attack on parental rights. The state has been clear. Any resistance on state-sponsored audiology will be met with financial strain and or potential custody loss. On behalf of the bishops, please vote no. Ms. McKernan, please go ahead. Mr. Chair, members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for hearing my testimony. I have a surgical wound on my head, so I apologize for wearing a hat. My name is Patty McKernan, and I live in Centennial, and I serve on the board of both Protect Kids Colorado and Catholic Charities, but I'm here to represent myself in opposition to 1322. There is no doubt that there is human suffering, and whether it is caused by sexual identity or by human relationships, there is truly a God that loves each and every one of us. But when it comes to therapists, the Supreme Court spoke loud and clear that the Colorado legislature cannot legislate speech over and over and over again. But here they are again trying to do just that. Stop. Just stop. I do not know what wounds the sponsors and supporters carry. that drive this behavior, but they must be deep. No one who is healthy would ever want children to be sterilized by cutting off body parts or ingesting wrong sex hormones. Thank God there are therapists who have not bought into this destruction of children's lives. One of them is a friend of mine, and her heart has been hurting for the children she sees who have been unable to hear the truth. A former 20-plus-year counselor at Littleton High School had to leave her job behind because she was unable to speak truth to the students. These counselors are mothers with mothers' hearts and truly care for the souls of these children. This bill allows for suing parents and placing blame on therapists when you disagree with truth. Just because you're carrying your own wounds should not mean that you have to project those deep wounds on others. For the love of humanity, please vote no on this bill. Be the defenders of children. And if you're so wounded that you believe others should be wounded too, please check yourselves right here and right now. Vote no on this bill. Please check yourselves and vote no on this bill. Okay, thank you. Please hold the table. We'll hear from our online witnesses, then we'll invite questions. Colleen Enos, please go ahead. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. Can you hear me okay? We're hearing you fine. Please continue. Great. My name is Colleen Enos, and I represent Christian Home Educators of Colorado. We support home discipleship that is Christ-centered, parent-directed, and free from government control. We would urge a no vote on HB 26-13-22. Licensed mental health providers with sincerely held religious beliefs who offer counseling to individuals according to those beliefs are punished by this bill. And that is the point of this bill, to punish those who disagree and to monitor their monitor therapist speech. The U.S. Supreme Court found in Chavez v. Salazar that Colorado violated First Amendment speech protections for licensed counselors by regulating their speech and forcing them to promote same-sex attraction and gender confusion when counseling minors. The law banning those conversations has been found unconstitutional on an eight-to-one decision, and yet here we are again. This bill is overtly anti-faith and designed to be used against people hiring counselors for their loved ones because it removes the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits against those counselors. It even extends beyond the death of the client. Speech that you disagree with is not violence. It is the foundation of our country. Anyone who commits suicide is a tragedy. Painful interactions with faith, however, do not justify making conversations illegal. Disagreement is not a criminal offense. This counseling censorship law only permits counselors to agree with the state. It is a violation of First Amendment free speech and religious rights. It is unconstitutional on its face. Please vote no on HB 26-13-22. Thank you for your time. Okay, thank you. And for all of our Zoom witnesses, if you'll please stay on the Zoom after your comments so that we can hear from everybody on the panel, and then we'll invite questions. Maria Pesky, please go ahead. I apologize if I'm not stating your name correctly. Yes. Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Ma'am, there's some feedback on your end. Can you check your sound? Yes. Let me move to a different room JOHN MCWHORTER OK Tell you what we come back while we getting that We good Okay see what going on there All right ma do you want to try again Yes. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. My name is Maria Pesch. I'm a Colorado resident and student, and I oppose this bill. There are many things wrong with the bill, but I believe the worst is this. It only goes one way. Definitions are vital to any conversation, and the definitions here show a covert ideal for how all gender identity therapy should go. This bill defines conversion therapy to be any practice or treatment by a mental health care provider that seeks to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual or gender identity outcome. It, however, excludes counseling or therapy that assists a patient in exploring or aligning with their gender identity. The key phrases here are a predetermined sexual or a gender identity outcome and gender identity. In this use, gender identity would be the gender a patient feels to be regardless of their biological sex. The definition allows litigation to go in only one direction. This bill protects any counselor who helps a patient transition from their biological sex to their preferred gender. If a patient so helped later decides they were harmed by their counselor, this bill would protect the counselor at the expense of the victim. The bill, however, opens the door wide to lawsuits against any counselor who attempts to help a patient become comfortable in their own body. even if the patient themselves sought out such help. If the patient or anyone closely associated with the patient even after they died, besides they were harmed by a therapist trying to help them, then the individual could sue for damages with no limitations forever. In addition, they would not have to prove very much to win any case. The bill states that the plaintiff need only, by expert opinion or scientific literature, prove that the form of therapy given the patient is capable of developing or exacerbating any of a variety of mental health issues, and then that the patient's particular issue was probably caused by the therapy, but without showing proof of the specific mechanism by which the harm occurred. This bill goes against the well-known and universally accepted idea that there is no one-size-fits-all path in therapy. Instead, it places one acceptable path before every person, convert. The bill's own definition contradicts itself and is obviously shielding one specific group. Because of this, I urge you to vote against House Bill 26-13-22. Thank you. Okay. Becky Pesce, I'm sorry. Please go ahead. Hi there. Can you hear me? Hearing you fine. Please continue. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. My name is Becky Pesce, and I'm a Jefferson County resident representing myself in opposition to HB 26, 1322. In a decisive eight to one decision, the state of Colorado recently lost the Childs versus Salazar Supreme Court case. The opinion of the court reads, the First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views, reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth. Laws like Colorado's, which suppress speech based on dew point, represent an egregious assault on both commitments. HB 26-13-22 is an attempt to continue violating these commitments. First, this bill uses semantics to reclassify protected speech as conversion therapy while explicitly shielding from litigation counselors who actually do aid in transitioning patients. Childs v. Salazar was never about the coercive conversion therapy practices every major medical group and Childs herself condemns The case determined whether a licensed Colorado counselor can provide talk therapy to a willing patient who desires a predetermined outcome on gender or sexuality consistent with their beliefs. Yet this bill does not distinguish between willing and unwilling and forbids traditional gender views by essentially redefining them all as conversion therapy. Second, in a blatant Sixth Amendment violation, the bill lowers the burden of proof of harm for plaintiffs holding the state approved view. It states, Colorado law should allow plaintiffs to establish causation without requiring proof of the precise mechanism by which the harm occurred. There is noticeably no mention of the growing body of detransitioners seeking damages. Instead, this bill once again uses semantics to ignore detransitioners and shield the professionals who harmed them. Colorado has made Supreme Court losses an expensive state pastime. The silver lining to this is that the First Amendment gains strength nationwide every time Colorado is handed another Supreme Court loss. Respect the First Amendment, let counselors do their jobs, and please vote now on HB 26-13-22. Thank you. Mr. Miller, please go ahead. The Pacific Justice Institute strongly opposes House Bill 26-13-22. The bill creates an unlimited civil cause of action against licensed mental health professionals for so-called sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts. It eliminates any statute of limitations, allows lawsuits even decades later, and permits claims of up to five years after the plaintiff's death. It also imposes a liability on supervisors, employers, and clinics while authorizing unlimited economic, non-economic, and punitive damages. The legislation directly threatens the First Amendment rights of counselors. Just weeks ago in Childs v. Salazar, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1, a very rare decision when it comes to First Amendment jurisprudence, that Colorado's previous ban on conversion therapy constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. We have it here. Now Colorado is trying to give their orthodoxy the opportunity to be enforced by private litigants instead of the state itself. The court made clear that the government cannot prohibit counselors from exploring certain viewpoints about sexuality and gender identity while allowing the opposite viewpoint. The bill suffers from the exact same constitutional defect. It singles out and punishes one side of a deeply contested debate while leaving automatic affirmation untouched. By creating a massive financial liability, the bill forces private clinics, and supervisors to enforce the state's preferred orthodoxy. The danger with medical consensus is that it often is a disguise for orthodoxy. If allowed to prevail, we'd still be using leeches for blood disorders. It chills free speech, burdens religious liberty, and undermines parents' fundamental right to direct the mental health care of their children consistent with their beliefs. It's also practically unworkable. Its vague definition of prohibited efforts, the word efforts sweeps in ordinary talk therapy, exploratory counseling, and faith-based guidance with no time limits and ease causation standards. It invites abuse and makes fair defense nearly impossible. Please vote no on this bill. Let's not have Colorado be on the center stage and struck down and shot down once again attacking liberty of Colorado residents. Thank you. Vote no. Committee, questions of our witnesses? Seeing none, we'll let you all go. Thanks for being with us this evening. All right the next panel will also be folks who signed up indicating an opposition position Everybody online Do we have Jeanne Rush Erin Lee? Rebecca Smith? Brian Kelsen, K-E-L-S-E-N? Lauren Ball, B-O-L-L? Ball, B-O-L-L, Lauren Ball. Okay. And do we have Pamela Garfield Yeager? All right. We'll stop there. I will call on folks as I see you getting connected here. Ms. Rush, please go ahead. Thank you. This is a threat I heard at a parade. We're here. We're queer. We're coming for your children. I didn't make this up. tens of thousands of parents are aching from head to toe because they don't know where their kids are somebody took them and trans them and harmed them just remember that you have poked one mama bear too many this bill is malpractice i find it utterly offensive that in the time when you all have asked for more money more security you've passed bills that bend us over backwards while Well, in broad daylight, you have stripped parents' children's rights, forcing them to bow down to sick, twisted butchery, mutilation of healthy children, body parts and drugs and chemicals into their bodies, hyper-sexualization in the schools, dialogue forced on teachers and schools, and the subject of this bill, the counselors. The massive body of harm to minors by the current false care is a crime. More detrans youths are harmed, aching, and not supported. They also deserve justice from malpractice. Then you have parents don't know where their kids are like Cindy Stein and me and many of us. Don't tell mom and dad you invaded every aspect of our life with total impunity and callous criminal tyrannical intent. There's no way any of you voting for this garbage understand the Constitution, laws of man or God or anybody. and you're forcing the therapist to stuff all this garbage, social contagion and everything in their children's heads, and then you want to give them forever prosecution? How about all the doctors ripping their body parts off? And the Supreme Court backs, the counselors backs us. I think you all should all get in line and have your body parts cut off first, and then you'll see how you like what you're doing to our children under the guise of safety. And the safety clause should be dumped in the toilet. it. You guys have lost your minds. You have just ripped off humanity, and it's going to come back epically to haunt all of us, and we will never quit fighting. This is Garfield Yeager. Please go ahead. Hi, my name is Pamela Garfield Yeager, and I'm a licensed therapist. I come to you today with 25 years of clinical experience. I'm not Christian. My views come from professional experience, and I oppose 1322, which forces therapists to immediately affirm all and any identities without any questions. Therapy is rendered useless if a person cannot openly explore feelings and identity. The message to counselors is clear. They must affirm everything, no matter how ridiculous and insane the circumstances are. By mandating affirmation only, Colorado lawmakers will be the ones who are depriving the most vulnerable people from getting help with pregnancy. underlying issues. As a mental health professional, I am so tired of the term conversion therapy being conflated and weaponized. There are already systems in place for people to see their therapist for unethical practices. If a therapist recognizes that their patient is a victim of sexual trauma and they help that person connect with their trans identity, to connect, if their trans identity is related to trauma, that person is considered a conversion therapist. If the therapist knows that a medication has a common side effect of low libido and advises that patient to discuss it with their doctor instead of affirming an asexual identity, this is conversion therapy. If a therapist observes a young person with severe social deficits suddenly find a new sense of belonging as a trans person and mentions they may not benefit from lifelong hormones and surgeries, that therapist is now a conversion therapist. Plus, no reasonable person can say that a patient with active psychotic symptoms has the judgment to know that they need to take permanent hormones and get healthy body parts removed. And if a therapist states this obvious fact, they're considered a conversion therapist. And it's clear this is not truly about patient welfare. It's about a certain ideological persuasion, because if it were really about patient well-being, this bill would also allow for the growing numbers of detransitioners and people who have suffered great, great harm. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And again, And please, everyone, stay on the Zoom until everyone's had a chance to testify so we can see if there are questions. Ms. Lee, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Erin Lee. I'm a Colorado mom representing myself and all the other children and families who have been harmed by secret school transition and forced affirmation. Five years ago, my daughter was secretly transitioned into a boy in her sixth grade classroom. She was urged to keep this a secret from us, her parents. By the time we found out, she was in extreme distress. She had been told by trusted adults that she was born in the wrong body and that her anxiety and discomfort would vanish if she would just identify as trans. When we found out that we'd been left in the dark about this psychosocial medical intervention being performed on our little girl, which had caused her distress, we sought professional help. We soon learned that under your laws, counselors are obligated to only affirm wrong sex confusion. For my daughter, affirmation made her worse. She eventually begged us for help to be comfortable as a girl again. But because of the state's so-called conversion therapy laws, we couldn't find a therapist willing to address the root of her distress. Four months of therapy affirming and ignoring her distress led our 12-year-old daughter to leave us a suicide note, citing that she was desperate for help and couldn't get it. Then her pediatrician just threw Zoloft at her depression without addressing the underlying issues. Everyone we turned to had their hands tied by your mandates. They treated her symptoms instead of the distress, and it only got worse. Thank God she is alive and thriving today that we didn't lose her to CPS or suicide. No thanks to the medical professionals whose hands were forced by this law. You've created a classroom-to-clinic pipeline, plant seeds in the schools, mandate affirmation therapy, force doctors to medicalize, leave parents out of it, bully parents who find out what the suicide myth, transition or die. and the end result is irreversible medical harm to our kids healthy bodies and increased suicidality the impossible pursuit to be the opposite sex harmed my child this law forbid anyone from helping her be comfortable in her body even when she begged for it this isn't theoretical these laws are harming real families like mine scotus has already ruled that you cannot force this viewpoint on counselors it unconstitutional and it hurts people yet you doing it anyway I urge you to stop All right Ms Smith please go ahead Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm a licensed professional counselor, and I've been licensed for 21 years. I'm here to express concern about legislation that would limit a therapist's ability to provide thoughtful, exploratory care to clients who are experiencing questions around identity, gender dysphoria, or deep emotional distress. Therapy is not meant to be a place of pressure, shame, or predetermined conclusions. It should be a space that is supportive, safe, and exploratory. A responsible therapist helps a client slow down, reflect, and better understand the full context of their life experiences, emotions, relationships, trauma history, and sense of self. When a client is experiencing gender dysphoria, it is clinically responsible to explore identity with care. That includes helping the client deepen insight, experience congruence with themselves, and examine life experiences that may have shaped their distress. It may also include exploring whether trauma, loss, abuse, bullying, family dynamics, or other painful experiences are contributing factors. This is not about denying or invalidating somebody's identity. It is about reducing the risk of deeper or additional harm by making sure treatment is comprehensive, ethical, and individualized. If this law were to pass, it could interfere with a therapist's ability to best serve clients in a safe and meaningful way. It could discourage necessary questions, limit clinical judgment, and replace thoughtful care with fear-based practice. Best friends are meant to affirm you unconditionally. Therapists are meant to challenge you thoughtfully. Just as athletes and students grow when coaches and teachers push them beyond their current abilities rather than simply affirming whatever it is that they believe, our minds and relationships must be challenged and exercised in order to broaden our horizons and experience true growth. Athletics and academia would never progress if coaches and teachers were limited to only affirming whatever the person believes is in existence. I urge you to protect the ability of licensed professional counselors and mental health professionals to provide this exploratory care so that we can continue serving our clients with integrity and compassion. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Ms. Bala. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am speaking today as a representative of the Colorado chapter of Fair for All, where a grassroots organization dedicated to upholding and advancing constitutional rights and civil liberties of every American, regardless of viewpoint or identity. Fair strongly opposes HB 2613-22. It is deeply troubling that so many of my fellow Coloradans must now tear themselves away from work, from caring for their children, or from family time, just to come here and beg their elected representatives to uphold the Constitution that those same officials swore an oath to defend. The sponsors of this bill and any legislators who vote for it are knowingly attempting to override the U.S. Supreme Court's clear 8 to 1 ruling in Childs v. Salazar just weeks ago. That is a direct breach of their oath of office. This bill creates a new private right of action with no statute of limitations, allowing unlimited lawsuits against counselors, their employees, supervisors, and even those who hired them, parents, all for engaging in protected talk therapy that explores a client's own beliefs and goals It is textbook viewpoint discrimination designed to intimidate professionals who will not affirm a single state approved ideology The bill minimal fiscal note is also concerning Colorado has already lost three major First Amendment cases at the Supreme Court, including 303 Creative, which cost taxpayers more than $1.5 million in legal fees. Alliance Defending Freedom has warned that they are ready to sue again. I respectfully urge you to reject this bill and honor your constitutional oath. protect free speech, conscience, and the rights of all Coloradans. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Kelson, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I speak in opposition to HB 26-13-22. I am a pastor and I serve as a pastor in Pueblo West, Colorado, and I want to come at this a little bit differently this evening. I have heard some of the testimony and I am very much impressed by much of the wisdom that has been shared against this bill this evening. But what I would like to share with you is that last May, I found myself in the exact chamber that you are in to testify for a bill, actually against a bill, that has a very similar number. it was 25-13-12, and I came to testify. I got on the list, and I sat for 11 hours and never, ever was called to testify, and one of the things that happened in that time that I found, I was looking at a lot of the community around us, a lot of the community in our state that are hurting and struggling and broken, and it broke my heart. I can tell you that I know that God had me there because he wanted me to see. He wanted me to see how much the people in our state need mental health. And I can tell you right now, we are in a mental health crisis. And to be able to not allow our counselors in our country, in our state, in our communities to tell young people or even adults the truth is absolutely ridiculous. We have to be in a place where we can share with people what the truth really is. And guys, puberty is not something that needs medication or surgery. We need to love on our neighbors. We need to be available and we need to be able to explain to them and allow counselors to explain to them that men cannot become women and women cannot become men. We were made the way we were by our God. Thank you for this time. Please vote no. Okay. Thank you. Committee questions for any of our witnesses. Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this is for Ms. Garfield Yeager. So what do you say to those who argue if you don't affirm someone's wrong sex confusion that they will commit suicide? Ms. Garfield Yeager. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, please go ahead. Yes, I would say that that question is a very irresponsible question, especially to ask a child that or a minor who has had a history of suicidal attempts or thoughts. When we continue to keep asking that question, we are actually reinforcing those thoughts. Also, many people before had said there are studies that show that this leads to suicide. But we also if you look at these studies, they are all debunked. They are not true. if you look at the sample sizes they're very small if you look at the way they collect the data it is done with self surveys and we have no control groups so there no way to determine this We don have two groups of people that show people who identify as trans, and we give them one treatment track, which is affirmation, and another group where we do exploratory and then check the results in a long-term study. That doesn't even exist. So to say that the data backs all this up is completely false. It's a lie, and it's manipulation. Members, other questions? Senator Samoa Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. For Ms. Smith, Rebecca Smith, how do counselors affirming a child's gender confusion play into them being physically transitioned? Smith. A social transition in the counselor's office is really the platform to catapult them into medical transition. And so I would urge counselors to use extreme caution before practicing what has been identified as affirmation therapy for their gender confusion, because it could potentially lead to and most likely lead to medical intervention as well. Further questions, Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, with Ms. Smith, how do you think this bill will affect the foster youth? Yes, ma'am. That is actually one of my specialties, working with the youth that are in the system for foster care. And one case in particular that was very eye-opening for many members of my team. We had a young man that came into our treatment and he was from another state and identified as being female. And as we were working with him, he has been he had been sex trafficked in California. And because he made more money for four years while he was sex trafficked, he identified as a female. And because we did not practice the what's called gender affirming care based on his professed identity, he was able to come out of that. And with many, many tears shed, being able to recognize that he only had worth as a female is not true. It gave him gave him an opportunity to find a very happy version of himself. He was absolutely saved from the nightmare of human sex trafficking and thinking that he only had worth as a female. Members, other questions? Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question goes to Ms. Lee. For the people that affirmed your child's gender confusion, did it make them happier, and did it solve their mental health distress? please go ahead oh thank you mr chair thank you for that question um no affirmation only made my child worse and you know when she we first found out that she was feeling this way we didn't push her into it or away from it we went immediately to professional help because we didn't know how to talk about it and it was through forced affirmation in the therapy office that she spiraled into more confusion, a deeper depression. We then saw a therapist who would not affirm, but who was afraid to talk about it. and it was ignoring the issue that led her to keep trying to fit this square peg into a round hole. And we watched her spiral. It had nothing to do with us, her parents, whether we affirmed or not. It was the professionals who she turned to desperate for help, being unable to do their job and help her the way she wanted to be helped that spiraled her into such a depression that she almost killed herself. The opposite is true. And I don't think conversion therapy means what the state is trying to mandate here. Telling a child that something's wrong with them, that they need to change themselves, is conversion therapy. And that's what my daughter experienced, which was forced by the state. All right. Time has expired for questions of this panel. Thank you all for being with us. All right. I'm going to call another group of witnesses who signed up opposed. everyone here is indicated online. Ready? All right. Loretta Huff. Daniel Frick. Lori Gemellstein. G-I-M-E-L. Okay. Sven Sharpen. Aaron Friday. Missy Espinoza, Lydia McLaughlin, and Heather Fitsky. Okay, we'll go from there. Mr. Frick, looks like you're ready. Please go ahead. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Daniel Frick. I live in Fort Collins. I'm representing myself. I'm here today to urge you to vote no on HB 26, 1322. This bill isn't balanced protection. It's a lawsuit trap that swings both ways and will make our mental health crisis even worse. You remove the statute of limitations completely so someone can sue a therapist decades later when memories have faded and evidence is gone. Think about that. many crimes here in Colorado, including vehicular homicide, including unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. They have time limits. Yes, this bill says talk therapy from 20 or 30 years ago can be litigated forever. That's not reasonable. That's reckless. And let's be straight about who gets caught in the net. This doesn't just target one side. A conservative therapist exploring discomfort with same sex attraction could get sued. But so could a progressive counselor who leans hard into, you might be gay, or maybe you're actually a girl in a boy's body. Both are pushing predetermined narratives. Both can be accused of damage years later if the client grows up, changes their mind, detransitions, and decides the therapy caused deep harm. This law pretends to be neutral, but opens the courthouse door for anyone with regret and a good lawyer. Imagine it's your own kid or grandchild sitting in that office. One day they're affirmed, the next they're devastated and looking for someone to blame. And the therapist who is just trying to help gets financially destroyed. With our mental health system already collapsing under record anxiety, depression, and medication overload, the last thing we need is therapists practicing in fear becoming lame duck professionals who check boxes and avoid real exploration This bill doesn fix harm It multiplies fear and reduces honest care for everyone Colorado families, regardless of politics, deserve therapists who can actually help without living under the constant threat of retroactive lawsuits. Please vote no on HB 26-13-22. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Aaron Friday, please go ahead. Erin Friday, our duty attorney. My daughter was influenced by her school and her school counselor to believe that she was really a boy. She was told that everything about her body was wrong, from the shape of her face to her breasts to the way she spoke. She was affirmed by her therapist that her brain could be male and her body female. And the only way to fix her ugliness, her wrongness, her imperfections was to alter her body. That was the only pathway offered. My husband and I refused to play along and showered my daughter with love, letting her know how perfect she was. We engaged out-of-state therapists and programs. Were they practicing conversion therapy? No, they were talking to her. They were helping her to come to terms with the fact that she can pollute her body with wrong sex hormones and have healthy body parts amputated, but she will always be female. She learned that changing her body would not fix her mental health issues. Every single systematic review of the evidence has confirmed that fact. Even the biased NIH study showed that sex-rejecting interventions do not improve mental health. Recently, the Finnish published a study about those undergoing sex-rejecting interventions. the males had an increase of serious mental health issues from 9.8% to 60% afterwards. For the females, it rose from 21% to 54%. My daughter dropped her trans identity, and lo and behold, her suicidality, cutting, anxiety, and depression also disappeared. She's an adult now who embraces her female body. The author talked about justice. Where is the endless statute of limitations for the detransitioners? Where's the compassion for those who live with sterility and missing body parts? I can answer questions related to the legality of this bill, too, if you would like. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Lydia McLaughlin, please go ahead. Good afternoon, committee and chairman. My name is Lydia McLaughlin. I represent myself in a nation of mothers who have been harmed by well-intentioned but misguided politicians creating laws that are harmful to our children and our adult children. I come to you as a lifelong Democrat who believes deeply in compassion, fairness, and protecting our vulnerable people. But I've been disappointed in the party when the well-intentioned efforts turn into misguided and ultimately harmful policies. I oppose HB 261322 because it removes basic legal guardrails that protect fairness in our civil system. My daughter was secretly socially transitioned in school without my consent. My daughter struggled with gender identity during a time of her life when she was vulnerable. Like many kids, she was influenced by peer groups trying to find her way and where to belong and fit in. There was also a broader societal pressure right now that pushes children toward a gender identity before they're ready to fully understand it. Our family walked through a difficult time emotional decisions trying to get her to help she needed Like many families we relied on mental health professionals during this time doing our best to with the information that we had. What I want you to understand is through love, support, and time, my daughter has come through that period and has desisted. That matters because it shows how complex these situations are and how important it is for families and professionals to be able to navigate them carefully without fear. It is not conversion to help somebody make peace with their body. I understand the intent of this bill to address harm, but the intent alone is not enough when the consequences create new problems. This bill eliminates the statute of limitations entirely exposing professionals to lawsuits decades after the fact, when records are gone and memories are unreliable. It expands who can sue, allowing claims even after an individual has passed away. That raises serious concerns about due process and fairness. Policies like this don't just target bad actors. They affect every professional. I urge a no vote. Thank you. Heather Fitsky, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Can you hear me? We're hearing you fine. Please continue. Okay. My name is Heather Fitzgain. I'm a mother in Colorado. I had a child who was seeing therapy, a professional licensed therapist from 2019 for suicidal ideology and depression which had actually nothing to do with gender ideology but in the year 2025 my daughter was socially transitioned in school without my knowledge and i was very involved with the therapy and the therapist that she was seeing since 2019 but then in 2025 it took one session for my daughter to sit down and tell that counselor I am a boy and that counselor immediately told me that I had to affirm that and take my daughter to the Truth Center in Colorado. I did not have a chance to know any of this or prepare or talk. Within a year of this therapy I lost custody of my child in the Colorado court because I did not affirm her identity as a boy. I lost it because I wouldn't use her new name, but I also never had a chance to speak to her. She left home. She got involved with a group of people who took custody of her, complete strangers from me who took her, And I could not amend, talk, have counseling or anything with my daughter because of this law. And the judicial system was turned against me because I didn't have a chance. This infringes on parental rights, HB 261312, I vote against. And it takes away counseling freedom. By creating a sweeping cause of act, this bill prevents parents from seeking professional guidance for their children in alliance with their families' deeply held values. It effectively dictates that only one viewpoint on gender identity is legal In a counseling room stripping families of their right to choose the care that helps their children grow comfortable with their biological reality. Finally, this bill disregards First Amendment. Just last month, the Supreme Court reminded this state in Childs v. Salazar that the government cannot censor counseling conversations based on viewpoint. HB 2613-22 is a transparent workaround that attempts to punish via civil liability the very speech that the High Court has ruled protected. Please vote no on this bill. Thank you. Committee questions for any of our witnesses. Senators Amore Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Fitzke, regarding your daughter, did people affirming your child's gender confusion make them happier, and did it solve their mental health distress? Ms. Fitzke. People were affirming her gender behind my back until that counseling session that I had. It did not help her. She was becoming more suicidal. She also reverted to like a devil worshiping where she was cutting herself and making sacrifices to spirits and doing drugs, some drugs and drinking. And she was only 16 years old. So it did not help. Senator Samora Wilson. I'm so sorry to hear that. I have another question for Ms. Friday. This bill seems to be bidirectional, meaning that it could find mental health providers who suggest that the patient might be trans to also be liable. Can you talk about this aspect of the bill, how it might affect lawsuits against school counselors or other affirming counselors? Ms. Friday. Thank you. Yes, thank you for the question. Yeah, so my read of the bill is that this bill is actually bi-directional. So that means that a therapist who plants the seed into a child saying that maybe you're potentially transgender or talks about it with the child, like happens all the time at our public schools, and this child then adopts that trans identity and then suffers greatly thereafter, they're going to be liable also. So it actually goes both ways. And so Colorado better think long and deep about the number of lawsuits that parents are going to be filing against these school counselors and any of the government at the government schools, both at universities also, because it does go both ways. And this was a way that this legislature tried to skirt what the eight to one Supreme Court case said, which is that viewpoint and content based First Amendment applies to bills like this. So they tried to thread the needle, but you're going to have a lot of detransitioners also suing on the basis of this bill. And I hope Aaron Lee sues and I hope Heather, you sue. Because I know I will. Senators are more well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Friday, You also mentioned a little bit about evidentiary proof. Can you talk about what that looks like under this bill? Yeah, so this bill is probably one of the most absurd bills that I've ever read in my 30 years of practice. It actually flip-flops the responsibility of proving the case. So all the plaintiff has to do is is to have one piece of evidence, whether it's a policy that says that a conversion therapy, you know, or trying to change somebody's gender identity back to match their sex is harmful. That's all they need. And then the defendant needs to prove by a preponderance of evidence that they did not hurt this patient. And that is the opposite. That is antithesis of American law, that the defendant actually has to prove their innocence. That is going to be found unconstitutional, also besides the First Amendment. Senators Amora Wilson. Okay, members, other questions? Seeing no further questions, we'll let this group of witnesses go. Thanks for being with us. Okay, next group of witnesses will be those who indicated an opposed position. Catherine Vogel, V-O-G-E-L. Nancy Eason. Aaron Meshke. Laura Haynes. Jody Nickerson. Travis Morell Garrett Mayberry Bernadette Broyles Mary McAllister Tom Thiessen. Kelly Notarfrancesco. Okay. And we also had Mr. Gregory Baylor signed up neutral. Can we see if we can add him to this panel as well? Okay. Okay. Looks like we are getting folks connected. I'm going to try to go around the screen in the order that I see folks in the room here. Ms. Eason, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Nancy Eason. I live in Fort Collins, represent myself, and I'm opposed to the bill for these reasons. I'm deeply disturbed that our House, Colorado House, has approved this bill, now that it's before you in the Senate, despite the Supreme Court's ruling, because this bill will have a chilling effect on the free speech of Colorado's mental health therapists. And I think that that's been presented very well earlier and the need to be able to really explore and be free to help how they see fit. It's their job. This bill is an end run around the SCOTUS ruling. I don't know what the statute of limitations is, so I'm wondering if under this bill, you know, the current statute of limitations, as it's delineated page 10 lines 7 through 10, but it doesn't say how many years the current statute of limitations is. So I wondering if a therapist could be sued for conversion therapy that was performed before so conversion therapy before 2019 This bill repeatedly states that any therapy that tries to direct a client toward a predetermined outcome is grounds for a civil suit. But what if the client has a desired outcome in mind? This has also been brought up. Under this bill, a therapist would have to decline therapy in such cases. So where then can that client turn for help? And then how does a court decide what was said in these private counseling sessions? As was just said, the defendant has to establish their innocence. That sounds like this is going to be a he said, she said problem and guilty until proven innocent. Just on that ground, this bill needs to be killed. There's no exception for religious institutions or counseling. Again, another First Amendment right problem. At a time when so many people are struggling with their mental health, an unintended consequence of this bill is that mental health professionals will choose not to practice here because of these kind of lawsuits. It's a disaster waiting to happen. Please vote no on this bill. Okay, Ms. Haynes, please go ahead. Ma'am, you are muted on your end. Please check your sound. How's that? Okay, please go ahead. Okay, just a moment. I've lost my comment. There we go. My name is Laura Haynes. I'm a Democrat, an atheist, and a CASA for foster youth since 2015. The bill forbids challenging LGB or TQ identities, even if that's why the client sought therapy. Both are made untouchable, so normal questions that might provoke a changed mind could later be deemed conversion. but conversion therapy actually refers to abusive practices used in the past to attempt to change sexual orientation and long ago made illegal. Here, conversion is used to imply that trans is an innate and permanent condition, so only violent conversion tactics could change a person's gender identity. But historically, over 90% of the kids who once strongly rejected their sex naturally outgrew this notion via puberty. Two-thirds were gay as adults. Reaching self-acceptance is not conversion. Change is not conversion. Realizing you're autistic is not conversion. Remember, gender, we are told, is fluid, not fixed, as all the detransitioners continually prove. How can a therapist determine if autism, OCD, or trauma is at the root of a client's sex self-rejection if they're walking on eggshells not to jostle trans? What about when the kid is not trans? Imagine a 12-year-old girl molested at summer camp who comes home insisting she's trans and needs top surgery. This bill would have her therapist affirm as identity a trauma response. That's absurd. Trans ID people have a very high number of other mental health disorders. If ethical therapists are effectively gagged with relevant topics placed off limits, who will help them? Please vote no. Thank you. Erin Meschke please go ahead Chair members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to speak My name is Erin Meshke I live in Boulder and represent myself During the opening and first panel proponent stories echoed the experiences of parents whose children have been secretly transitioned in their schools. Regardless of the letter of this proposed law, the spirit of HB 26-13-22 leaves uncertainty of application since Colorado's legislature and courts only advocate for wrong sex affirmation. the legislature claims injury from people who will not affirm delusions or work to help people heal mental health and identity issues while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge those who have been irreparably harmed by gender transition counseling treatments and surgeries work to reconcile any person to their biology is not on its face abuse no matter how someone reframes it decades later beyond that the blanket legal threat and open liability proposed in this bill is against almost everything I have heard in this committee for the last five sessions. The bigger elephant in the room is that gender transition is a form of conversion therapy that has the predetermined end of mandatory affirmation. Telling a feminine boy or masculine girl who is very often same-sex attracted that they need to change their sex or gender is the ultimate homophobia and can have devastating physical consequences on top of the mental toll. Telling a parent their confused child must convert to the opposite gender to stay alive is manipulation that leads to conversion therapy for many deceived families. The words on the page and intent presented in both this hearing as well as in the House must be reconciled, especially since previous attempts for detransitioner protections have been quickly killed. Because HB 26-13-22 is based on a hypocritical precedence, has uncertainty of protection against transgender conversion therapy and has almost no statute of limitations, I ask for your no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Is Jody Nickerson on? I'm here. Thank you. I do have problems. Thank you, Chair and Committee members. While I agree that all children deserve the protection from harm, this bill goes too far in restricting the ability of parents and mental health professionals to support the minors who may be questioning their gender identity or sexual orientation. The bill defines conversion therapy so broadly that it could include any therapeutic approach that does not affirm a child's self-identified gender or sexual orientation, even if the child or their parents are seeking help to explore all options. Many families have children who experience gender dysphoria but later come to identify with their birth sex. Under this bill, any therapy that helps a minor explore returning to their original gender identity could be labeled as conversion therapy and expose professionals and parents to lawsuits, even if it is the child's wish to explore these feelings. This bill removes the ability of parents to choose the best care for their children and puts mental health professionals at risk for simply helping a child explore all aspects of their identity. It could have a chilling effect on open, honest conversations in therapy and may ultimately harm the very children it seeks to protect by denying them access to the full range of therapeutic options. I really don't believe the fiscal notes just can't be correct. But think of the ramifications of the courts. Increased caseload and complexity It lowers the bar for causation and admissibility of expert testimony which Aaron Friday killed it It expands damages and survival actions There no statute of limitations. Think of that one. And broad interpretation mandated. I urge you to consider the unintended consequences of this bill and to protect the rights of parents, minors, and professionals to pursue the care that is best for their children, their individual child. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Travis Morrell. Hi, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you so much for allowing me to testify in opposition to HB 26-13-22. I was listening earlier to Senator Mullica and Senator Cutter, and it's amazing how much we all really have in common in this room. I actually thought it A lot of what they said was good. I was impressed that Senator Cutter said it's a red flag if a therapist says that kids shouldn't share the results of their therapy or share their therapy with their parent. And I wonder if this body would want to move to repeal bills like HB 24, 1039 that basically pushes those sexual or gender-related private discussions to be independent of the parent. I think we all agree on certain values, but I know that we don't agree on certain facts. So I'd like to quote the American Psychiatric Association in their DSM-5 that was published actually even more recently than the American Psychiatric Association's quote in the bill. And it says that on page 516, their DSM-5 TR, it says that somewhere between 61 and 98% of males that suffer gender dysphoria, somewhere between 50% and 88% of females, they end up having that gender dysphoria or gender discomfort resolve on its own by the time they're an adult. Now, this is kind of a problem because if we treat them during the age that Medicaid here pays for, starting at Tanner Stage 2, well, Dr. Bowers of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health says that, quote, every single child or adolescent who's blocked at Tanner Stage 2 has never experienced orgasm. I mean, it's really about zero. So if you put together what the American Psychiatric Association says in WPATH, that our current medical treatments actually are, if anything, they're converting boys and girls into possibly adults who can't actually enjoy intimate intercourse, many of whom are gay. So who are we really converting into what? And this bill will encourage that, and I'd encourage a no vote. Okay, thank you. Garrett Mayberry, please go ahead. Thanks for this opportunity. My name is Garrett Mayberry. I'm a gay man, a husband, a lifelong Coloradan, and a survivor of sexual abuse. I live in Summit County, and I'm here to oppose HB 1322. Listening to the sponsors, I understand the desire to protect people from harm and coercion. Empathy for those who have felt pressure to hurt in therapy is understandable. However, the state cannot show empathy for one group by discriminating against the viewpoints of another or chilling free speech. This bill ignores my lived experience by mandating a one-sided state-approved worldview that threatens my ability to pursue my own spiritual and personal goals. For over a decade, faith-based counseling has been a lifeline for me. It's allowed me to navigate the intersection of my sexuality and my faith and have really challenging conversations with my therapist without the government looking over our shoulders. Those nuanced conversations, which the definitions in this bill would effectively criminalize are open to legal action have undoubtedly saved my life. And today I'm a happily married gay man. The Supreme Court reminded Colorado the state has no business policing private conversations between patients and counselors. This bill would violate that patient autonomy by assuming that I, as a gay man and many other like people like me, am incapable of directing my own mental health journey. And hypocritically, by aiming to prevent one specific outcome of therapy, the bill's sponsors are stripping away mental health options and pushing people towards a different state mandated outcome. And as a survivor of sexual abuse, I was also saddened to hear the bill's sponsor equate consensual counseling with sexual abuse in her opening remarks, especially when the sponsor's colleagues recently declined to mandate prison time for actual child sex abusers. By allowing lawsuits at any time without limitation, you aren't protecting victims. You're driving therapists away from people who need help like me. I ask you, respect the choices of Coloradans and vote no. Okay. Mary McAllister, please go ahead. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. I am senior litigation counsel at Child and Parental Rights Campaign. We're a national nonprofit law firm that represents parents whose fundamental constitutional rights related to their children have been violated by those who are promoting the transgender agenda. And I'm urging you to vote no on HB 26.13.22. It's, as others have mentioned, it's a direct attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's 8-1 decision that declared that when you ban talk therapy related to sexual orientation and gender identity change, it's a violation of the right to free speech under the First Amendment. And this bill, similarly, would violate the First Amendment by punishing not only mental health professionals, but also potentially parents who seek therapy for their children. Because included in those who could be sued under HB 26.13.22 are people who employ, supervise, or otherwise exercise authority over a licensed mental health professional. Well, parents, if they employ the mental health professional and they pay that person to do therapy for their child, those parents could be liable under this bill. And so here, parents would be seeking help for their children, and they would have to decide between getting that help or facing lifelong potential liability from lawsuits that someone could bring decades into the future. So parents would have to decide to give up their free speech and free exercise rights to get help for their children or face an uncertain future that they could be sued at any time. And this is the kind of Hobson's choice the Supreme Court has repeatedly said is impermissible under the Constitution. You cannot make somebody sacrifice their First Amendment rights in order to get help for our child or in order to get any kind of government benefit or anything else. And so, with doing away with the statute of limitations, then decades after things have happened, circumstances have changed, evidence and witness memories are gone, perhaps witnesses have gone away. That just unconscionable Studies have shown that talk therapy is the most effective intervention for children experiencing gender dysphoria and this bill would deprive children of that intervention So it should be rejected. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Kelly Notar-Francesco, please go ahead. Thank you very much. Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Kelly Notter-Francesco, and I represent myself, and I'm here to oppose 1322. Coloradans of all racial and economic backgrounds want every child in our state to grow up healthy, supported, and living free, healthy, authentic lives. And that's a value we share across every race and every neighborhood. We want our kids to be able to face life's challenges without falling apart. And we value that sacred trust between a person and their counselor, a trust built on the promise that we can work through our deepest struggles, without the government or trial lawyers standing in the room with us. But today, a handful of these politicians and special interests are trying to pull us apart, using our differences to distract us while they undermine our basic rights. By pushing HB 26-13-22, wealthy national organizations and billionaire donors are attempting to turn the private, vulnerable space of a therapist's office into another cultural war battlefield. Instead of fixing the real crisis, the mental health toll that hits working-class families the hardest, This bill creates an endless system of litigation that will drive providers out of our communities and make it impossible for people to find the very specialized care that they need. They know that when they pit parents against counselors and divide us by identity, we stop demanding the things that actually unite us. Good jobs, affordable health care and community support that respects every family's right to guide their own children. They're banking on us being so divided that we won't notice that they're stripping away the statute of limitations, a protection that ensures fairness for everyone. just to score political points. We don't have to fall for these divisive tactics. We can choose a Colorado where we protect the freedom to seek help and keep the government out of private lives. We can ensure our legal system remains a place for justice, not a tool for political agendas. I urge you to stand with Colorado families and providers. Please vote no on HB 261322. Let's protect our freedoms and our care for all of us. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Missy Espinoza, please go ahead. Missy Espinoza representing myself. This is the second time speaking on this bill. I'm just going to repeat what I said in front of the house when I spoke on that. I'm speaking on this bill because I spoke on another bill, Ken DeGraph's bill, that had one single function, whether individuals who received certain medical interventions as minors should still have meaningful access to the courts once they reach adulthood. That bill had a limit. This is unlimited in every way. Every way anybody can catch a stray, grandma, uncle, pastor, cousin, whoever. And the only thing, from what I'm reading, the only thing mental health professionals are allowed to do under this is affirm nothing else. The detransitioners that needed a remedy, if malpractice and harm occurred, they didn't get a chance. This assembly killed that bill. I think it pretty obvious to us that you have favorites when it comes to survivors You should probably kill this bill Okay, thank you. Mr. Baylor, please go ahead. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Gregory Baylor, and I serve as Senior Counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. And I'm here today to offer a legal assessment of certain aspects of HB 1322. HB 1322 would significantly alter the rules governing malpractice claims against mental health care providers. It also amends the existing definition of the term conversion therapy in the statute the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated as applied to talk therapy in Childs v. Salazar. In our opinion, both of these aspects of HB 1322 violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause. The bill discriminates on the basis of content and viewpoint and is thus unconstitutional. The bill is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. In the Child's litigation, Colorado's expert materials conceded that the state could not prove that talk therapy causes harm. Using malpractice liability to punish and shill protected speech does not immunize a law from First Amendment scrutiny. The Child's Court stated that imposing malpractice liability for speech is only permissible where there are, quote, exacting proof requirements. HB 1322's distortion of the means for proving causation is about as far from an exacting proof requirement as you could imagine. Most tragically, the bill's primary consequence will be to chill and punish the sort of much needed help counselors like Kaylee Childs provide to hurting children and adults. It will channel patients towards medical interventions that the evidence increasingly shows don't help but actually harm patients. The finished study published just 23 days ago in the publication Active Pediatrica is perhaps the most compelling proof. Thank you, and I'd be happy to entertain any questions you might have. Okay, thank you. Committee, are there questions now for any of our witnesses? Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is for Mr. Baylor. Can you speak to the fact that this bill is trying to create a right of action against parents just for trying to raise their children in the manner they feel best for the health and well-being of their child? Yeah, the bill identifies who can be the defendant in a malpractice case. And it refers, of course, to counselors themselves and to the organizations that employs them. But if it talks about people who hire or retain a counselor, well, I'm quite afraid that that language would be interpreted to reach the parents who, out of good intentions, they try to get help for their child who is hurting, and they can turn around and face an expensive, potentially devastating court case. So I think that's a real risk here that the drafters of the bill did not take into account. Senator Samora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And again, Mr. Baylor, what about evidentiary proof under this bill? Can you speak on that? Yeah, it's a very unusual proposal. And I think the sponsors of the bill understand that it's very difficult to prove that talk therapy causes harm. In fact, like I said, the Supreme Court evidentiary materials indicated Colorado couldn't prove that. So how do you solve that problem? You put the burden of proof on the doctor. The bill essentially says as long as the plaintiff can like point to some ideological organization whose work has been discredited but still has some stature as a professional organization and say that they said something about this they satisfied their burden of proof what they call general causation And at that point which is very easy frankly for the plaintiff to do the burden of proof switches to the defendant They have to prove that what they said to a patient didn't cause whatever they're experiencing now and that brought them into court. You know, trying to determine what causes someone's mental anguish or other difficulties is extraordinarily hard. I'm very concerned that there will be unfair judgments and liability against counselors who are simply trying to help their patients, often at the direct request of their patients. Senator Zamora Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this is for Dr. Morrell. With your experience in the medical arena, do all medical organizations really agree this is good to do? Mr. Morrell. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Senator Zamora Wilson. Well, as far as this bill specifically, well, the issue here is that you're being told that all medical organizations support the medical and surgical transition of children. And so I think you feel very justified. This body might feel very justified in passing this kind of bill, which will lead to increased medicalization of minors. The problem is that not all medical organizations agree. If you go to Norway, Sweden, Finland, or the UK, countries where they have, number one, keep much better track of their patients through national registries, but also we're ahead of us on rolling this out on kids. They're coming back and saying, we're not going to do this to kids. So these states have restricted or banned, say, puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to kids. in our own country, the American Society of Plastic Surgery, which is very prestigious, has found that the evidence for not only surgical but also hormonal treatments in minors is weak, and they've specifically recommended not to do surgery, which is definitely legal with no age limits in our state. So I think this is a very bad time to be passing a bill like this as medical organizations are coming out across the world against this kind of treatment of minors. senator zamor wilson thank you mr chair and again dr moyle um if speech is restricted how will medicine sort good from bad treatments dr moyle thank you chairman and thank you senator zamor wilson i think it's important to realize that for our culture as well as for medicine and specific free speech is kind of our immune system of getting bad ideas out i think it's also So it's also my duty to humbly tell you that physicians aren't perfect. In the past, it's taken us usually around 20 years to get really bad ideas out of our system, even when we have the evidence available. It took around 20 years to quit doing frontal lobotomies in the 50s. It took around, it depends on how you count, 20 or 30 years to quit telling people to put their baby down on the belly to sleep. Just so you know, back to sleep is safe, back to sleep is safe. And that was in the 90s, even when other countries turned around. The American Academy of Pediatrics was slow to turn around. And even in the 2000s, there's 18 years where the American Academy of Pediatrics, who's one of the ones kind of pushing this sort of bill, said, you know, don't give your kids peanuts. And what that did is lead to increased lethal peanut allergies in children. That was I mean, that really didn't end until 2018, eight years ago. So it takes a long time to kind of get some of our bad ideas out, to get the evidence out there to the public. I'm sorry. for that on behalf of my profession. But it's something to keep in mind. And if you have laws that say, hey, if Dr. Merrill speaks against peanut allergies, he's breaking the law, could get sued for life, you're going to have less doctors speaking out. It's going to have chilled speech, just as Gregory Baylor testified and the other attorney, Aaron Friday, testified. So I think you're putting our state in a very dangerous situation if you're going to slow down the natural immune system of ideas. And so I really strongly oppose this bill for that reason. All right. Thank you. We have run to time on this panel. Thank you all for taking your time this evening to speak to the committee. I will give the VMC a minute to reset our panel, and then I'll call some additional names. These are folks I believe we've now called everybody who had signed up against. We'll alternate back to a handful of folks who signed up indicating a supportive position. Do we have Olivia Compton? Alex Floyd. Casey Pick. Okay. Anyone in the room who wanted to speak to the bill who has not already had a chance, seeing none, we'll go online. All right. Casey Pick, I'm seeing you ready first. Please go ahead. Casey Pick, I'm seeing you ready first. Please go ahead. Good evening, members of the committee. My name is Casey Pick, and I am the Senior Director of Law and Policy for the Trevor Project, the leading suicide prevention and crisis intervention organization for LGBTQ plus young people. I'm proud to testify tonight in support of HB 26-1322. As part of our mission to end LGBTQ plus youth suicide, the Trevor Project has worked for more than a decade to protect young people from the harms that come from the abuse of a professional license to push young people toward a predetermined outcome related to their sexual orientation or gender identity, what is commonly known as conversion practices or conversion therapy. We do this because we know the reality of the harms that these practices cause. Our peer-reviewed research has found that youth who reported being subjected to these practices reported twice as many suicide attempts in the past year and were two and a half times as likely to report multiple suicide attempts compared to youth who had not experienced conversion therapy. Our crisis counselors who talk to young people in crisis 24-7, 365 days of the year, regularly hear from youth who have suffered from conversion therapy or who have been threatened with it. And since the decision in Childs v. Salazar, young people are very much afraid of what this decision means for them now. Thankfully, in its ruling, which was focused exclusively on First Amendment doctrine, not on the effectiveness or safety of conversion therapy. The Supreme Court took pains to make clear that other traditional remedies for harms inflicted through words by licensed professionals do remain available, including explicitly mentioning bringing malpractice claims. Unfortunately, conversion therapy, by its nature, often leaves those subjected to it silenced by shame, self-loathing, and stigma. If you listen to survivors, you learn that it often takes years to work through the pain and the belief that conversion therapy didn't work because they didn't try hard enough, rather than being because it was never going to be able to work at all. I so often hear people tell me about having to go to therapy because of therapy. By the time survivors have healed enough to find their voices again a short statute of limitations all too often turns to that promised chance to hold the therapist who failed to meet what every major medical and mental health organization has declared to be the accepted standard of care into an illusion What this bill does is very simple It extends the statute of limitations for malpractice enough so that unethical therapists cannot be protected by the silence and shame they inflict. The Trevor Project strongly supports HB 26 1322. What a young person calls our crisis line in the middle of the night in their darkest moments, we answer. Tonight, you have the chance to answer too by helping survivors hold conversion therapists accountable. We urge you to pass this bill. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I've been informed a few witnesses we called earlier, but who weren't available have popped back up. Can we please add, and this will be the last call for online witnesses, can we please add back to the Zoom, Brittany Vesely and Sven Sharpen. One moment here. Ms. Vesely, hoping you can hear us. Please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Brittany Vesely. I'm the Executive Director of the Colorado Catholic Conference, the United Voice of the Catholic Bishops of Colorado, and I'm testifying in opposition to HB 1322. HB 1322 is an unconstitutional workaround of the recent Supreme Court decision in Childs v. Salazar that will harm families, counselors, and other faith-based institutions in Colorado. This bill allows counselors, parents, and schools to be sued for providing care in accordance with the biological reality of the human person, that they are born either male or female. In the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Childs v. Salazar, the court decided that Colorado's ban on conversion therapy was unconstitutional because it violated the free speech clause by selectively silencing only viewpoints that were not consistent with Colorado's definitions of sexual orientation and gender identity. HB 1322 yet again attempts to codify discrimination against anyone with a different belief of sexual orientation and gender identity and blatantly ignores the court's decision in Child's. Section 12 of HB 1322 even explicitly excludes speech that affirms biological reality and helps individuals gain comfort with their sex. There is no religious exemption in HB 1322, which makes the bill even more vulnerable to constitutional scrutiny, especially because it allows private action lawsuits against faith-based schools and counseling practices for their well-founded and constitutionally protected beliefs. Furthermore, this is the third bill this year that attacks parental rights in Colorado. Whereas HB 1309 targets parents for normal parenting decisions and risk their custody rights for not affirming their child's gender ideology, HB 1322 allows parents and or counselors to be sued for not affirming a child's gender ideology. It is both a constitutional and natural right for parents to offer compassionate care for their children suffering from gender dysphoria, including seeking counseling and to address this distress. Indeed, longstanding research showed that children do not need life-altering medical intervention for gender dysphoria, and by and large, they grow out of their distress. Charles v. Salazar provided Colorado lawmakers with a timely directive. Colorado's law is targeting the speech of counselors and parents harm children and violate the First Amendment. HB 1322, therefore, is equivalent to the fallacious statement that we must pass a bill to see what's in it. It is poor governance that will cost the state millions of dollars to pass a bill that so clearly violates the First Amendment rights of parents, counselors, and faith-based institutions in our state, and the Supreme Court already gave the judicial review less than a month ago. On behalf of the Colorado bishops, we ask the committee to vote no on HB 26-13-22. Sven Sharpen, please go ahead. Yeah Thank you chair and committee members My name is Sven Sharpen and I the founder and executive director of the Autistic Freedom Network whom I represent alongside the autistic population I'm here in total opposition to HB 26-13-22, which was very clearly created in reaction to the Supreme Court's termination of HB 19-11-29, which forced therapists to affirm without – like with threats of losing their therapy license. And now instead of forcing counselors to affirm directly, you're forcing them indirectly with the threat of lawsuits from, quote unquote, conversion therapy survivors, which in reality are just trans extremists and without even a statute of limitations, meaning you could just be sued decades down the line. which and considering you're saying conversion therapy survivors it's not a surprise because you think getting a child to accept themselves in the body that god gave them makes them suicidal which is just a straight-up lie and this tactic has been used to parents who don't affirm as we've seen from other witnesses who have lost their kids many of whom have autism like me due to the rigged justice system in favor of these radical trans activists. So, and I also went through some of this bill, which defines conversion therapy as any effort to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity, which means that if parents and therapists are doing this, then that means the trans activists online who are actively encouraging young, mostly autistic children to be trans, that is also conversion therapy by your very definition. So, and we're talking about people who are most like me, who are already going without any support, whether they're diagnosed or not, and going through something I can only describe as a Holocaust. If trans activists are allowed to sue innocent parents and therapists for conversion therapy, then we should add an amendment to this bill that allows detransitioners to sue trans activists without a statute of limitations either. But if we want to make this easier, I highly urge a no vote. We must stop the transgender jihad that has ruined this once great state. Thank you very much. Olivia Compton, please go ahead. Thank you, Senator Weissman and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Olivia Compton. I have a PhD in economics, and I am a board member and the vice chair of the policy and advocacy committee at Inside Out Youth Services, which works with LGBTQIA2 plus youth in Colorado Springs. The body of existing empirical evidence unanimously points towards conversion therapy causing harm. On behalf of Inside Out Youth Services, I urge the committee to vote in favor of HB 26-13-22. Most evidence on gender identity change efforts has come from non-random samples and surveys of trans individuals conducted in China, Colombia, South Korea, and the United States, consistently associating change efforts with elevated psychological distress in adulthood. Campbell and Rogers 2023 exploits retrospective information on exposure timing to implement event study comparison. Five years following exposure, the probability of attempting suicide increased by 17 percentage points and the probability of running away increased by 7.8 percentage points. The harm was greatest when exposure began during early adolescence. Overhaige et al 2025 addresses identification concerns related to non sampling and treatment assignment problems by exploiting policy variations in bans on sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts in the U.S. Using youth risk behavior survey data from 2011 to 2019 and a stacked difference in differences design, they found conversion therapy bans for minors were associated with a 2.9 percentage point reduction in the probability of high school students seriously considering suicide in the prior year. Across research designs, countries, and levels of analysis, the evidence is consistent with conversion effort generating harm rather than benefits. For these reasons, I urge the committee to vote yes on HB 26-13-22. I'm happy to answer any questions and pass along my sources. Okay, thank you. Alex Floyd, please go ahead. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Alex Floyd. My pronouns are they, them. I'm the Health Equity Director for One Colorado. I'm also a licensed clinical therapist who practiced for eight plus years specializing in working with complex trauma in children, teens, and young adults. I'm here to ask you to vote yes on HB 1322. Majority of my clinical work was done in New Mexico, a state that has a similar conversion therapy band of colorados Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . .