In April 2023, the Colorado House of Representatives took up House Bill 23-1135 (“Penalty For Indecent Exposure in View of Minors”), a bipartisan measure aimed at strengthening legal protections for minors. The bill sought to elevate the crime of indecent exposure in view of a child from a class 1 misdemeanor to a class 6 felony, increasing both sentencing guidelines and public safety measures. Yet in a surprising move, 27 Democratic lawmakers voted against the bill—citing concerns that its language could be construed to target drag shows or transgender individuals. As conservatives, it is vital to assess the consequences of weakening child protection laws and reconsider the prioritization of ideological concerns over safety.
Details of the Bill (HB23-1135)
Under current then Colorado law, indecent exposure in view of a child—defined as a person under 15 years old, with the perpetrator being at least four years older—was classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. HB23-1135 amended this by elevating such offenses to a class 6 felony. The enhancement ensures offenders face up to 18 months in prison, heavier fines, enhanced probation oversight, and mandatory registration as a sex offender—measures that reflect the seriousness of these crimes. (Colorado General Assembly, Colorado Politics)
Sponsors, including State Representative Shannon Bird, emphasized the critical need to align in-person offenses with online equivalents: exposing oneself to a minor over digital platforms already classified this crime as a felony. The existing legal discrepancy, critics argued, left children unprotected in physical encounters—an unacceptable disparity. Attorneys and victim advocates shared devastating examples: children exposed in parking lots, playgrounds, and even Walmart aisles, with offenders quickly released due to misdemeanor charges.
The 27 Democratic “No” Votes
Despite bipartisan sponsorship—Dafna Michaelson Jenet and Shannon Bird among them—the final House vote revealed deep divisions: 37 in favor, 27 opposed. All Republicans supported the measure, while Democrats split. Notably, Representative Leslie Herod argued on the House floor that the bill’s language could be weaponized to ban drag shows and target transgender individuals, particularly those using restrooms aligning with their gender identity. Herod warned:
“These types of laws have been used to ban drag shows… to target individuals who use the restroom of the sex that they identify with—a public restroom—to charge them with felony charges. I am very concerned about the attacks against the transgender community that are happening across the country.” (The Post Millennial, Blaze Media, Must Read Alaska)
While others like Rep. Mary Young expressed concerns about criminalizing those with mental illnesses or neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., individuals with autism, mania, or homelessness-related behavior), the felony threshold as written required knowledge and intent—narrowing the scope to deliberate acts, not involuntary episodes. Despite amendments proposed to limit the felony to isolated contexts without other adults present, those measures failed.
Conservative Perspective: Child Safety Should Be Paramount
From a conservative standpoint, the first duty of government is the protection of society’s most vulnerable—our children. The decision by nearly three dozen Democrats to oppose greater penalties for indecent exposure to minors over ideological fears undermines that responsibility.
- Prioritize Child Protection Over Ideology
Drag shows and transgender rights deserve respectful and separate policy discussion—not at the expense of safeguarding children. There’s no evidence this bill aimed to restrict performances or target gender identity. - Don’t Reason Around Criminal Law
Laws must be clear, narrowly tailored, and applied consistently. Fear of misapplication should prompt enhancements like humane exceptions—not outright rejection. - Mental Illness and Special Cases Can Be Addressed Through Discretion
The felony requirement that the offender “knowingly” exposed themselves and was significantly older narrows its application. Prosecutors and judges retain discretion; exceptions for mental health can be built into practice—rather than sacrificing public safety. - No Double Standards
As liberals push for broad protections for vulnerable groups, they shouldn’t simultaneously diminish protections for children. All forms of vulnerability deserve equal respect and legal consideration.
Broader Implications in America Today
This incident reflects a growing trend: ideology outweighing common-sense reforms. When political correctness scares lawmakers into opposing well-intentioned safety measures, we all lose—particularly children. In contrast, conservatives advocate:
- Stronger enforcement: Combat sexual predators proactively.
- Cultural balance: Recognize evolving social norms while upholding core moral tenets.
- Policy clarity: Legislation should explicitly address concerns (e.g., safeguarding performance art), rather than derail protective reforms altogether.
Aftermath and Legislative Outcome
Despite Democratic opposition and hours of filibustering, HB23-1135 eventually passed and was signed into law by Governor Jared Polis on June 7, 2023, becoming effective immediately. (Colorado General Assembly, Colorado Politics) The law now ensures that exposing oneself to a minor is treated with the seriousness it demands.
Conclusion
Colorado’s legislative episode serves as a cautionary tale: ideological fears must not hinder policies that protect children. While adults should enjoy freedom in expression and identity, that freedom ends when it puts kids at risk. The failure of 27 Democratic lawmakers to support a reasonable upgrade in criminal penalties highlights the urgent need to return to common-sense policy-making over performative politics. In preserving liberty, we must not lose sight of our most basic responsibility—the safety and innocence of children.
Featured image credit: DepositPhotos.com
