The plaintiffs say Colorado’s antidiscrimination law would force them to provide or promote treatments that conflict with their medical judgment and Christian beliefs; the state has not yet answered the new complaint.
The Christian Medical & Dental Associations and a Colorado family practice have filed a federal lawsuit challenging how the state applies its antidiscrimination law to medical care involving gender transition.
The complaint was filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of CMDA and Button Family Practice. No judge has ruled on the claims.
What the Plaintiffs Argue
Button Family Practice is a primary-care clinic in southern Colorado operated by Dr. Marcus Button, a CMDA member. The plaintiffs say they treat every patient but decline to prescribe transition-related hormones or participate in certain procedures because of their religious beliefs, ethical commitments and medical judgment.
According to the federal complaint, recent state-court interpretations of Colorado law could expose providers to enforcement if they offer hormones or procedures for some diagnoses but not for gender transition.
The plaintiffs also challenge restrictions they say could prevent providers from explaining publicly why they decline those services. They argue that applying the law in this way violates the First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise and speech.
Those assertions are the plaintiffs’ legal position. Colorado officials have not yet filed an answer in the new federal case.
The Broader Dispute
Supporters of gender-affirming care describe it as medically necessary treatment for some transgender patients and argue that antidiscrimination rules protect equal access to care.
The plaintiffs dispute the evidence supporting some interventions, particularly for minors, and say professionals should not be compelled to provide treatment they believe may cause harm.
The lawsuit therefore asks the court to weigh two serious interests: patient access to medical services and the conscience, speech and religious-liberty rights of healthcare professionals.
Why It Matters
The case could clarify whether Colorado may require a clinician who provides a drug or procedure for one condition to provide it for gender transition despite a stated religious or medical objection.
It may also address how far the state can regulate what a practice says on its website about services it does not provide.
THRIVE! Perspective
Healthcare requires both compassion for patients and integrity from professionals entrusted with their care. Patients should be treated with dignity, and clinicians should not be forced to affirm or perform procedures they sincerely believe are harmful.
The court should examine the record carefully, including the exact reach of Colorado law and the medical evidence presented by both sides. Until then, the complaint is an allegation and request for relief—not a final determination that state officials acted unlawfully.
