Colorado has a long history, since being taken over by strategic Democrat billionaires supporting Democrat politics two decades ago, of pushing extremist agendas, like the LGBT beliefs and abortion.
It’s been run for years now by homosexual Gov. Jared Polis, and has repeatedly attacked Christians and their beliefs.
Now a lawsuit is charging that the leftists in the state are forcing physicians to harm children with their demands for transgenderism.
“Colorado is not allowed to conscript those who have sworn to do no harm into harming the very children and adults entrusted to their care,” charges the lawsuit, by the ADF, on behalf of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and more.
The fight is over a Colorado law that “forces” healthcare professions to participate in “so-called gender transition procedures for children and adults, even when doing so violates their religious, ethical, and medical judgment.”
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are representing the CMDA and a Christian medical practice in the federal lawsuit.
CMDA is a group of Christian healthcare professionals, with members in Colorado, who practice consistent with their faith. The Button Family Practice P.C. is a family-owned primary care clinic serving patients in a small town in southern Colorado by providing patient-centered medical care. Marcus Button, M.D., is a physician and CMDA member who operates the practice according to his religious beliefs.
Lawyer Bryan Neihart explained, “Colorado is once again at war with common sense, sound science, and religious freedom. Forcing doctors to perform dangerous, unproven gender-transition procedures against their medical judgment, their oath to do no harm, and their faith is unconstitutional. … The First Amendment trumps Colorado’s mandate to embrace the lie of gender ideology.”
The ADF confirms that the all-leftist Colorado Supreme Court, which dove deep into political bias that it tried to keep President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot, “recently interpreted the state’s anti-discrimination law to force medical providers who prescribe hormones and or perform procedures for other conditions to also provide gender-transition drugs and surgeries for children and adults or risk prosecution.”
Stunningly, “the law prohibits medical providers from explaining their reasons for declining to provide gender-transition procedures on their websites or to the public,” the ADF confirmed.
Further, the lawsuit points out that systematic scientific and medical reviews and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have concluded that no reliable evidence exists to support the benefits of these interventions, while there are numerous documented and serious risks.
More than half of the states in the United States and many European governments ban or limit these procedures for children.
Defendants are state officials Aubrey Sullivan, Sergio Raudel Cordova, Geta Asfaw, Mayuko Fieweger, Daniel Ward, Jade Kelly, Eric Artis, Phil Weiser, and Gretchen Hammer.
The court filing, in federal court in Denver, cites the harms from the transgender “treatment” dozens of times.
Those “treatments” “have not been proven to improve mental health or physical outcomes, can harm healthy tissue without known benefits, and have many adverse potential side effects—including potential sterilization—or contradict other aspects of medical ethics,” the lawsuit charges.
“Medical providers have historically been exempted from participating in non-emergent, controversial, or harmful medical interventions based on their religious, ethical, and medical judgments,” it explains. “Today, most states, including Colorado, have conscience clauses for non-emergent, controversial medical interventions that cause harm, including abortion, assisted suicide, or sterilization.”
It continues, “Beneficence means a physician is ethically obligated to act for the patient’s benefit. Nonmaleficence means a physician is ethically obligated not to harm the patient. Autonomy means a physician must respect the patient’s right to make their own decisions about healthcare, which requires the physician to provide adequate information to the patient. Cross-sex hormones and medical procedures to facilitate a gender transition have a significant risk of harm. The risk of harm outweighs the benefits because there is no high quality evidence demonstrating that transition leads to long-term improved mental or physical health outcomes.”
WND has reported on the most recent Colorado attack on Christianity, under the direction of Polis and Weiser, the attorney general who also has participated in dozens and dozens of lawsuits against Trump.
It’s on Catholic preschools – depriving them of participation in an otherwise generally available public benefit of subsidized tuition for preschool students – because they won’t compromise their faith.
The case, now pending before the Supreme Court, involves St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy, with the school represented by Becket.
It’s over Colorado’s “universal” preschool program that is discriminating against Catholic parents and preschools.
The program was supposed to offer “all Colorado families 15 hours of free preschool per week at the public or private preschool of their choice, a benefit worth about $6,000 per child.”
But the state created a hook in the program, in that it demands faith-based schools to live within the boundaries of the state’s LGBTQ beliefs.
Secular schools are allowed to impose their own registration requirements, but not the Catholic schools.
Earlier, the state attacked a Christian baker for refusing to adopt the state’s LGBT faith and compromise his own beliefs.
The state lost at the Supreme Court.
Then it attacked a web designer for the same issue: Refusing to compromise her Christian beliefs and accept the state’s LGBT beliefs.
It lost again at the Supreme Court.
Then the leftists in Colorado attacked Christian counselors.
And again they lost at the Supreme Court.
The failed attacks on Colorado Christians have resulted in millions and millions of dollars in expenses that must be paid by Colorado taxpayers.
The new action seeks injunctions stopping the state’s discrimination against Christians, a declaration its agenda violates the First Amendment.
Further, the case asks for the court to retain jurisdiction of this matter so that the state must follow its orders.
And it makes clear the anti-Christian agenda of the state, “Defendants do not advance any compelling or even valid interest in a narrowly tailored way by infringing plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourtheenth Amendment’s Due Process and Privileges or Immunities Clauses.
