Let’s get one thing straight: this column isn’t about judging personal decisions. If an adult wants to make significant changes to his body, that’s between him and his conscience. My personal opinions aren't part of this column.
But when the state government signs a bill requiring those procedures to be covered by insurance, which inevitably spills over into taxpayer-funded programs, we need to ask some hard questions.
And Colorado just gave us the perfect reason to do so.
Last week, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signed House Bill 25-1309, legislation that mandates health insurers cover what it calls “medically necessary gender-affirming care.”
That phrase alone should raise eyebrows.
Why?
Because the term “medically necessary” is now a political football. What once meant lifesaving interventions now includes procedures like hair removal, facial surgery, chest augmentation, and hormone treatments, all under the flag of public health.
A Bill Wrapped in Euphemism
Let’s break it down.
HB25-1309 doesn’t allocate a checkbook directly from Colorado taxpayers to the operating table. But by mandating that all health insurance, including public options like Medicaid, cover these elective procedures, it circumvents that step.
It turns insurers into middlemen for social engineering. If Medicaid must pay, the taxpayer must pay.
Simple math.
The bill’s authors insist this is about “access to healthcare,” but that’s a shell game. Healthcare, in the classical sense, is supposed to treat illness and injury.
Yet under this new law, it now stretches to include “gender-affirming” services like voice therapy and cosmetic surgeries, items no one would demand insurance cover if not bundled under the progressive umbrella of identity politics.
A Soft Redirection of Public Funds
Supporters will claim this doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime because it doesn’t create a new fund.
That’s smoke.
When you expand what Medicaid must cover, you stretch the budget. Those funds must be replenished either by cutting other services, raising taxes, or both.
You don’t need to be Paul Krugman to grasp the concept. If the state mandates coverage, premiums increase. When premiums rise, subsidies rise. And when subsidies rise, so do taxpayer obligations.
Meanwhile, the bill exempts testosterone prescriptions from Colorado’s Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, a move allegedly intended to protect privacy.
But again, that’s a clever dodge. The exemption makes it more difficult to detect potential abuse or fraud.
Imagine if opioids were given this kind of bureaucratic cloak.
Related: The Forgotten Casualties of the Opioid War
The Legislators Behind the Curtain
This was no accidental victory.
The bill was spearheaded by Rep. Brianna Titone, Colorado’s first openly transgender state legislator, and Rep. Kyle Brown. It cruised through both chambers, 40-20 in the House, 23-12 in the Senate, because of Colorado’s current political alignment.
But political arithmetic isn’t moral math. What’s popular in a legislative body isn’t always what’s right.
This bill never faced the scrutiny of a public referendum, nor was there any effort to poll Coloradans on whether they wanted their tax dollars underwriting elective cosmetic surgery.
Imagine the Backlash Elsewhere
Now, imagine a conservative state doing the inverse.
Picture Florida passing a law requiring insurers to cover Christian counseling services or elective fertility treatments for married heterosexual couples only.
The media would combust.
Lawsuits would pour in.
Activists would chain themselves to the courthouse steps.
But when it’s a progressive cause, it’s labeled “equity.”
And that’s the heart of this column, not the individual decisions or identities involved, but the selective morality of government funding.
Where Is the Line?
Let’s ask the question that too few will pose: if we accept that gender-affirming care is a civil right worthy of taxpayer support, what else qualifies?
Should taxpayers pay for elective breast implants for body dysmorphic disorder?
Facial reconstruction for people with low self-esteem?
Hair transplants for the balding?
Don’t laugh. All could be argued under the banner of mental health.
The line between need and desire becomes blurrier every time lawmakers pander rather than legislate. The state’s job isn’t to fund people’s identities; it’s protecting life, liberty, and public safety.
And as any rancher or tradesman in the Colorado Rockies will tell you, this ain’t it.
The Other Side of the Coin
To be fair, there are genuine stories of transgender individuals facing hardship and discrimination.
No one’s denying their right to seek medical care.
But rights don’t require a subsidy.
Free speech is a right; the government doesn’t buy you a microphone.
The right to bear arms exists; the state doesn’t buy you a Glock.
What Colorado has done is conflate compassion with coercion. This bill doesn’t just say, “We won’t stop you.” It says, “We’ll help you pay for it, and we’ll make everyone else chip in too.”
Let’s Talk Budget Priorities
Ask yourself: could this money have been better spent?
Colorado faces pressing needs, including crumbling roads, skyrocketing housing costs, teacher shortages, and a water infrastructure system on the verge of collapse.
And yet lawmakers prioritized this.
At what point does virtue signaling become a vice? When state coffers go toward optional surgery while veterans go without timely care, when rural schools close while urban hospitals expand gender clinics, and when taxpayers who object are dismissed as bigots, the answer becomes apparent.
A Simple Principle: Voluntary Should Mean Voluntary
If someone wants to undergo a procedure that changes their body in deeply personal ways, they should have the freedom to pursue that.
But freedom requires responsibility. The rest of us should not be handed the bill for someone else’s personal journey.
Because if elective becomes collective, we’re no longer a state governed by reason but by emotional hostage-taking.
And government by emotional ransom is not a government at all. It’s extortion in progressive wrapping paper.
Final Thoughts
I've visited Colorado. I loved it. I’ve seen its wild beauty and met the kind of people who’d give you the shirt off their back.
But most of them didn’t sign up to pay for this. They didn’t ask their lawmakers to step between them and their doctor or their wallet.
This isn’t about hate or fear. It’s about fiscal sanity.
Elective surgeries, no matter how deeply felt, should not be public expenditures.
Because once the government decides that identity comes with a price tag, and you’re the one paying it, you’ll quickly realize that freedom doesn’t just disappear all at once.
It bleeds out, procedure by procedure.
