March 26, 2015
Today, the Colorado House Committee on Health, Insurance, and Environment heard testimony on HB 1265, the Birth Certificate Modernization Act, which would enable transgender individuals to more easily change their birth certificates to reflect their identified gender.  ACLU of Colorado Policy and Outreach Associate Sarah Spears testified in support of the bill. Below is her prepared testimony. For more information on the importance of HB 1265, please see the Birth Certificate Modernization Act Fact Sheet.

Thank you Madame Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Sarah Spears and I am here on behalf of the ACLU of Colorado as Policy and Outreach Associate. The ACLU is a not for profit, non-partisan organization with approximately 10,000 members statewide.
The ACLU strongly supports HB-1265, which sets medically appropriate guidelines for changing the gender designation on one’s birth certificate and helps to ensure fairness for the transgender community.
The current method for changing the gender designation on one’s birth certificate is outdated.
It is out of line with the current medical consensus that surgery is not appropriate or necessary for every transgender person.
Contrary to common misconception, many transgender people do not want surgery, and even among those for whom surgery is desired, many cannot receive it because such care is prohibitively expensive, not covered by their insurance, appropriate providers are not available, or they have a medical condition that prevents them from undergoing the medical procedure.
Colorado’s surgical requirement is unduly restrictive and prevents many transgender individuals from obtaining consistent legal identity documents. This can have a serious impact on issues related to employment, education, travel, and safety. Individuals who are unable to receive documents that match their gender identity and presentation face increased discrimination and are unfairly robbed of their privacy. Under current law, if asked to present a birth certificate, a transgender person who has undergone full transition but has not opted for surgical change, is forced to out themselves to a potential employer, school administrators, and more.
Transgender people with incongruent identity documents frequently experience violence and discrimination. The National Transgender Discrimination Survey found that 40% of transgender people with incongruent documents experienced harassment.
Many other states and federal agencies have already changed their laws and policies to allow for the changes proposed by HB-1265. California, New York State, New York City, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, along with the U.S. Department of State and the Social Security Administration, have already adopted standards comparable to the proposed bill requirements to ensure that transgender individuals can obtain accurate identification without proof of surgery.
HB-1265 will bring Colorado in line with the medical community’s understanding of gender transition, it will ease unnecessary financial and social burdens faced by transgender Coloradans and will further demonstrate Colorado’s commitment to ensuring respect and fairness for the transgender community.
I urge a yes vote on House Bill 1265.

March 18, 2015
DENVER – A bipartisan package of ten bills was introduced yesterday in the Colorado legislature to increase transparency and accountability in police practices and to rebuild trust between law enforcement and the local communities that they serve.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado issued the following statement:

“The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado applauds members of the Colorado legislature for coming together in a broad, bipartisan fashion to introduce a set of measures aimed at increasing transparency and accountability in police practices and rebuilding trust between Colorado communities and their law enforcement agencies.
“The ACLU of Colorado has been a long-time proponent of many of the policies introduced in the package, including improvements to police training, increased proper use of body-worn cameras, more public disclosure, oversight, and accountability for use of force incidents and officer-involved shootings, and prohibition of profiling in all forms and against all people.
“While recent high-profile events, settlements, and judgments in Colorado have increased public awareness of the growing confidence gap between police and their local communities, particularly communities of color, problems with excessive use of force and racial bias, whether conscious or not, are widespread and long-standing, not limited to a few isolated incidents or ‘bad actors.’  Again, we applaud those lawmakers who have recognized the size and scope of these issues and have responded with an impressive initial set of solutions.  We will be tracking these proposals closely and encouraging their passage in the strongest possible form.”

March 9, 2015
DENVER – Today, the State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee of the Colorado House of Representatives will hear testimony on House Bills 1161 and 1171, two “right-to-discriminate” bills that would eviscerate long-standing protections against discrimination by allowing individuals and businesses to claim their religious beliefs as an excuse to refuse to follow laws they don’t like – including domestic violence, public safety, and nondiscrimination laws.
The following is the prepared testimony of ACLU of Colorado Executive Nathan Woodliff-Stanley on HB 1161 and HB 1171:

HB 1171:

Thank you Madame Chair and members of the committee.  My name is Nathan Woodliff-Stanley, Executive Director of the ACLU of Colorado, and I speak in opposition to House Bill 1171.
This bill would tear a huge hole in the principles of equal protection under the 14^th Amendment, as well as public accommodation and anti-discrimination laws in Colorado.  It would open the door to many forms of discrimination that would undermine the fabric of civil society and harm countless Colorado citizens simply because of who they are.  And it does this in the name of religious liberty, which is what I would like to address right now.
The ACLU strongly upholds the principle of religious liberty, and what that means is that you have the freedom to believe as you choose, to personally say what you believe, to worship as you choose and assemble with others to worship, and to participate in public life or run for office with no religious test, regardless of what you do or don’t believe.
What religious liberty does not mean is the “freedom” to enforce your religious beliefs or practices on other people, to use the power of government to favor or promote your religion, or to discriminate in business or the public arena against customers or employees.  The ACLU has no opposition to religion, but the religious freedom we uphold has to apply to all religions and must respect equal protection laws.  We would uphold the rights of Christians if they are denied service, denied housing or employment or medical care, or otherwise discriminated against in public accommodations simply because of who they are, just as we protect people of any religion, race or gender identity in the public arena.
Don’t be confused by the language of religious freedom in this bill—in a land of many religious perspectives, we know what real religious liberty looks like, and this isn’t it.
HB 1161:

Thank you Madame Chair and members of the committee.  My name is Nathan Woodliff-Stanley, Executive Director of the ACLU of Colorado, and I speak in opposition to House Bill 1161.
This bill is yet another that would tear apart Colorado public accommodation and nondiscrimination laws.  The ACLU of course upholds freedom of speech and expression for all persons in this nation, but the idea that businesses should be exempt from equal protection, public accommodation or nondiscrimination laws if the business is “expressive” in some manner is just a way to allow virtually any form of discrimination in nearly any business against anyone the owners don’t like.   Any form of writing, cooking, assembling, advertising, decorating, or displaying could be considered “expressive”, so it’s hard for me to think of a business that would not be allowed to discriminate under this bill.
Because of religious freedom and assembly rights, we give enormous latitude in this nation to houses of worship or genuine religious bodies, but businesses or organizations in the public arena interact with employees and customers of any or no religion and they have to abide by public laws.  We could not function as a society if businesses could discriminate against anyone they want just by saying their religion lets them do it.  That’s what this bill would allow, so I urge you to vote against it.