DENVER — A new bill making its way through the Colorado legislature seeks to protect the rights of people with disabilities to live and receive care in their own homes, a move advocates say is long overdue.
House Bill 25-1017 would codify into Colorado law the protections established by the landmark 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case Olmstead v. L.C., which ruled that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
While the decision set a federal precedent more than two decades ago, Colorado has struggled to meet its obligations, according to a 2022 findings letter from the U.S. Department of Justice.
That DOJ investigation found that Colorado was failing to provide adequate community-based services, often forcing people with disabilities into nursing homes or institutions due to a lack of support for in-home or community care. A lawsuit related to those findings was settled by the state in 2024.
Now, HB 25-1017 — sponsored by Democratic legislatures Rep. Chad Clifford, Rep. Meg Froelich and Sen. Dafna Michaelson Jenet — aims to ensure those protections remain even if federal precedent shifts.
The bill passed through the House Appropriations Committee last Friday and is scheduled for a full House vote on Tuesday.
For advocates like Molly Kirkham, the bill is both personal and essential.
“It’s about human rights and dignity,” said Kirkham, a self-advocate and disability rights leader with The Arc of Colorado. “Even if someone can’t speak or is nonverbal, that doesn’t mean they don’t know what’s going on. It’s about making sure we see the person in front of us.”
Kirkham, who lives with a rare disability known as ACTB, is a passionate advocate for inclusion and autonomy.
If federal protections were rolled back, Kirkham said there wouldn't be protections in place at the state level to prevent the institutionalization of people with disabilities.
“If the Supreme Court overturns Olmstead, we don’t have anything in Colorado law,” Kirkham explained. “That means we could lose at-home services and be forced into institutions again. This bill is a safety net.”
The stakes are more than theoretical for Kirkham. She shared the story of her great-aunt Kippy, who was institutionalized in the 1950s because of her disabilities, a common practice at the time.
“She didn’t get treated like a human,” Kirkham recalled. “She always associated the word 'Sunland' — the name of the institution — with something bad. It stayed with her.”
Kippy was eventually brought home by her mother, but the impact of her time in the institution lingered. For Kirkham, the story is not just a painful memory but a motivation.
“She’s my inspiration,” Kirkham said. “Even though she went through that, she still enjoyed life. And I just think, what would her life have looked like if this kind of law had existed back then?”
At a recent hearing for the bill, Kirkham was among many who testified in support, and she was encouraged by the bipartisan response.
“There was so much support from both sides,” she said. “It was amazing to see how many people showed up and spoke up. That gave me a lot of hope.”
Kirkham’s message to legislators and the public is simple: don’t forget our community.
“People with disabilities are just people,” she said. “We may face challenges, but we also have strengths. We want to be seen, heard, and included — not hidden away.”
However, opponents could argue that the bill and its estimated $500,000 associated cost are unnecessary because of the federal protections already in place.
