Four new bills focused on protecting abortion care and “gender-affirming health care” are currently working their way through the Colorado legislature.

One such bill, H.B. 25, is focused on protecting “access” to this gender-affirming health care.

“Whenever you see that word 'access' used by progressives, what they mean is that they are forcing you to pay for something. They’re forcing the taxpayer to pay for something, to pay for transition so-called or to pay for abortion, and this grants access to people who maybe wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford it without the help of taxpayer dollars,” Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable” explains.

"This bill codifies protections for gender-affirming health care in state law. It mandates that all health insurance plans in Colorado cover 'medically necessary gender-affirming care,'" she adds.

“No gender-affirming care is medically necessary,” Stuckey says.

However, while concerning to begin with, there’s another part of H.B. 25 that puts parents and their custody of their children in jeopardy.

One part of the bill, known as the Kelly Loving Act, was passed by the Colorado House on April 6 and now awaits review in the Colorado Senate.

“This is a very scary part of this bill,” Stuckey says. “The courts must consider deadnaming, all these euphemisms, misgendering, threats to publish material related to gender-affirming care — so like outing someone — as coercive control when determining parenting time and child custody.”

“They must look at all of these things when they are determining parental custody, like a divorce custody battle, when it comes to how these parents treat their children,” she explains.

“So, they could accuse a parent of coercive control if a parent, for example, threatens to publish the individual's sensitive personal information, including sexually explicit material or material related to gender-affirming health care services or make reports to the police or authorities or deadnaming or misgendering the individual or individual’s child,” she continues.

An example Stuckey uses is a woman who is in a custody battle and is getting divorced from her husband who has now declared that he’s a woman. If she continues to call him Frank when he wants to be called Sally, the judge has to consider this in the custody battle when awarding custody to parents.

“So, the parent who acknowledges reality, acknowledges the reality of their ex-spouse’s gender or acknowledges the reality of their child, refuses to affirm these newfound identities, then that parent could be punished and should be punished, really,” Stuckey explains.

“Basically, the state will steal your child from you, will take away your custody rights from your child, if you affirm biological reality,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.