admin
Colorado voters face a clear choice this election: vote “Yes” on Proposition 135 to ban gender-changing surgeries for minors in the state, or leave the question to a messy mix of federal rules, hospital policies and private insurers. The fight is about more than headlines. It is about who decides whether a child can be put through irreversible surgery and who pays the bill.
What Proposition 135 would do and where the federal government already stepped in
Prop. 135 would ban surgeries that alter a minor’s biological sex characteristics and bar public funds or insurance from paying for those procedures in Colorado. That is the plain meaning of the ballot language in the state Blue Book. At the same time, the Department of Health and Human Services finalized a rule this summer that prevents federal Medicaid and CHIP dollars from being used for certain sex‑altering procedures for minors. In short: Washington has limited federal funding, but Prop. 135 would lock in a state law prohibition and affect state insurance rules too.
Why the two actions matter together
The HHS rule matters because it cuts off federal Medicaid funding for these procedures nationwide. But it also leaves a gap: states could, if they chose, use state-only money or private insurance to keep paying for treatments. Marc Williams, Public Information Officer at the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, says Colorado could consider state funding, but any move would need lawmakers to write the checks. That’s the key point: federal action does not remove the need for a state law if you want a firm, enforceable ban in Colorado.
Hospitals, numbers and the messy debate over data
Supporters of the ban point to medical risks, with Kurt Miceli, Chief Medical Officer at Do No Harm, warning of lasting side effects and loss of fertility. Do No Harm also published counts of procedures it says took place in Colorado. Hospitals push back. The Blue Book notes Children’s Hospital Colorado, Rocky Mountain Children’s and Denver Health told state officials they do not perform these sex‑based surgeries on patients under 18. Denver Health has publicly questioned Do No Harm’s method and says some billed procedures were misclassified. That disagreement matters. If you’re going to change law and live by it, you need clear numbers and transparency — not fuzzy claims that can be spun both ways.
Why voters should care and what’s at stake
This is a common-sense issue that cuts through partisan noise. Do you want irreversible surgery on children locked in by insurance rules or left up to shifting federal guidance and hospital memos? Prop. 135 would put a state lock on a practice many parents and doctors consider too risky for minors. If you believe in protecting kids and keeping major medical choices with families and legislatures — not activist bureaucrats or hospital PR teams — then voting “Yes” is the responsible option. The polls show the race is tight, which means every vote will matter.
