These 5 “bad bills” are a result of having one party rule in our state. We need your voice and participation to help friends, neighbors and acquaintances know what’s happening in Denver at our capitol! Share this information, have discussions and write letters to the newspapers to help others become informed!  This is WHY WE MUST work diligently to create balance in our state governance!

Senate Bill 21-132 EFFECTS OF THE BILL:

  • Create two new government offices to register social media sites and collect fees (amounts unspecified).
  • Empower state government to punish social media for permitting citizens to post information that the government bureaucrats deem to be “incorrect”, “fake news”, “conspiracy theories” or critical of how elections are conducted.


• Do you want state regulators monitoring what you say online?

• Is it in your interest to create incentives for social media sites to censor what you say online?

• Do you trust a tribunal of state bureaucrats to hear complaints about your posts on social media? • Do you trust state bureaucrats to decide whether something you posted online is “intentional disinformation,” “fake news,” “conspiracy theories,” or undermining “election integrity?”

You and I are the targets of this bill! The real targets of this bill are not the social media sites. The targets are you and I, members of the public. Is it the state government’s role to censor what we can say to each other online?

House Bill 21-1103 EFFECTS OF THE BILL:

• Involves the state government in telling public school students which media sources are good or bad.

• Requires the state to adopt academic standards under the guise of “media literacy” for public schools and create a “media literacy” resource bank of state-approved sources.


• Is it advisable to transfer authority over academic standards from locally elected school boards to the state General Assembly?

• Is it good to remove the voices of local communities, parents, and teachers?

• When Colorado students are faring poorly in important subjects like reading, math, science, social studies after the pandemic, should resources be put into the vague subject of “media literacy,” or into core academic subjects?

• Should a legislative body impose a new course standard on students and teachers struggling to catch up from COVID?

 • Would the “Media Literacy Resource Bank” be hijacked as propaganda for a particular point of view? Would it be used to undermine the student’s family and religious values?

• Are the effects worth permanently increasing workloads and expenses of the government and teachers?


• Requires all firearms to be locked away when not in use.

• Makes it a crime to disobey the bill.


  • The reason stated for this bill is to reduce injuries or deaths when youths and others gain unauthorized access to firearms. If that is a rampant problem, why haven’t the proponents produced facts supporting the claim?
  • It appears it’s a crime under this bill only if the firearm wasn’t locked away, and if possession of the firearm by another person was unauthorized. (That’s because the bill describes the duty to store the firearm as being to prevent unauthorized possession.)  But many family members, including minors, are provided authorized access to the firearms owned by other family members (e.g., a parent allowing a minor to use the firearm for hunting or target practice).  If an accident occurs in such situations, wouldn’t the bill cause prosecutors to claim (counter to the facts) that the possession was unauthorized just so they could get a conviction in a situation that isn’t an actual crime? Wouldn’t this bill encourage prosecutorial misconduct?
  • Many people keep firearms for personal protection. The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that requiring firearms to be inaccessible creates a hazard for the citizen attempting to protect himself or his family. If an emergency occurs in the home requiring a firearm for defense (e.g., home invasion, robbery), will honest citizens be harmed or killed because they won’t have ready access to their protective firearms?
  • Wouldn’t it be better to expand the availability of firearm safety education? Might that not save more lives than this invasion of privacy?
  • The law already creates liability for a person who is negligent in storing his firearm, resulting in harm or death to another. Is this additional measure necessary? If this restriction becomes law, will it encourage the adoption of more restrictions on firearm ownership?


State government would design a health care plan, then require insurers of small groups and individual policies to offer that plan as a condition of doing business in Colorado. Providers also would be required to reduce their costs by 20% or whatever percentage finally makes it into the bill (it has been changed a few times). There is no analysis of the actual costs of providing care that supports that arbitrary figure. It appeared from thin air. When it proves impossible to offer the required plans at the mandated prices, the state would create its own medical plan, subsidized by taxpayers.


  • Do programs designed by state bureaucrats usually operate efficiently and under budget?
  • Can state bureaucrats, who haven’t run any health care plans themselves, design a plan that won’t generate losses, driving health plans out of business?
  • Will you be better off than you are today when private providers can’t stay in business under this legislation, forcing the creation of government-run health care?
  • Do you trust bureaucrats to promote personal choice in health care providers, or do you suspect they seek to force everyone onto one plan controlled by the government?
  • Why would the citizens want this plan today, when they rejected a similar ballot issue (amendment 69) five years ago four to one?
  • When the government becomes the only source for health care, do you trust the system to offer the care you need when you need it? Think about the long waiting times in the U.K. and Canada.
  • Do you believe Colorado can make this scheme work for the people when similar schemes failed in other states like Vermont and Washington?

Senate Bill 21-009 EFFECTS OF THE BILL:

  • At an estimated annual cost of $4.2 million, this bill would provide contraceptive and reproductive health services to “individuals who are not citizens of the United States.” That is the bill’s language.
  • Citizens would not be eligible for the subsidy of their contraceptive and reproductive health services provided by this bill.


  • We absolutely care about contraceptive and reproductive health services being available to everyone, regardless of immigration status.
  • Should persons who are “not citizens of the United States” receive benefits at public expense not provided to tax paying citizens?
  • At a time when our public schools are desperate for funding, students can’t get in person instruction and are falling behind, is funding these services for “individuals who are not citizens” a higher priority than public education?
  • Among all the demands on a limited state budget, is this something you, as a taxpayer, wish to pay for today?

For more information on these and other bills, please visit:

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.