USA: Colorado forces doctors to medically transition patients or risk prosecution
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on September 9, 2026 on behalf of Christian medical professionals challenging a Colorado law that requires healthcare providers to participate in gender transition procedures for children and adults. The lawsuit argues that the law violates the religious, ethical, and medical judgment of Christian healthcare providers, including the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and a family practice in southern Colorado. It specifically targets the Button Family Practice P.C., a family-owned clinic whose physician, Marcus Button, is a member of the group. The case seeks to protect providers from being compelled to perform procedures contrary to their beliefs. The lawsuit is filed in federal court and seeks to overturn the Colorado law mandating participation in gender transition procedures.
19 days ago
A federal lawsuit filed in Colorado challenges the state’s interpretation of its anti-discrimination law, which plaintiffs say requires healthcare providers to offer gender-transition drugs and surgeries—even when those treatments conflict with their religious beliefs, medical judgment, or ethical obligations. The case was brought by the Christian Medical & Dental Associations and a Christian family practice represented by Alliance Defending Freedom.
The Christian Medical & Dental Associations, whose Colorado members provide care consistent with their faith, joined Button Family Practice P.C. in filing Christian Medical & Dental Associations v. Sullivan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The practice is a family-owned clinic in southern Colorado operated by physician Marcus Button.
The plaintiffs are challenging what they describe as state requirements to participate in gender-transition procedures for both minors and adults. The case was filed on September 9, 2026, with local counsel Shaun Pearman assisting ADF attorneys.
According to the article, the Colorado Supreme Court and another state court recently interpreted the state’s anti-discrimination law to require providers who prescribe hormones or perform procedures for other medical conditions to also provide gender-transition drugs and surgeries. Providers who refuse could face prosecution, the article reports.
The law also reportedly bars healthcare professionals from publicly explaining—including on their websites—why they decline to provide gender-transition procedures.
ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart argued that the law unconstitutionally compels doctors to perform treatments they consider inconsistent with their medical judgment, professional oath, and religious beliefs. He characterized the challenged procedures as dangerous and unproven and said the First Amendment prevents Colorado from forcing doctors to provide them.
The lawsuit further asserts that systematic medical and scientific reviews, along with a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report, found no reliable evidence supporting the benefits of the interventions and identified serious risks. These claims are presented in the lawsuit and summarized by ZENIT; the article does not provide a response from Colorado officials or medical organizations defending the state’s policy.
The plaintiffs point to restrictions in more than half of U.S. states and in several European governments concerning gender-transition procedures for children.
The available report focuses on the plaintiffs’ constitutional and medical objections and does not state whether a court has issued an injunction, ruled on the merits, or determined what penalties would apply to individual providers.
Catholic doctrine opposes compelled gender‑transition medical procedures
Yes—with an important distinction. Catholic teaching rejects medical interventions intended to transform a person’s bodily sex characteristics into those of the opposite sex, while requiring compassionate care for people experiencing gender incongruence.
Therefore, Catholic institutions and healthcare workers should not be compelled to perform, prescribe, or directly cooperate in such procedures. The Church recognizes conscientious objection when medical practice conflicts with divine or natural moral law.
This opposition is not a rejection of the person. Catholic healthcare must seek appropriate means to alleviate suffering while respecting the body’s sexual differentiation and the unity of body and soul.
The supplied materials do not establish a complete legal or political framework for every form of government compulsion; they support the moral principle of non-cooperation and conscientious objection.