Prostitution LEGALIZED – Dems Push Radical Bill!

Colorado Democrats just introduced legislation that would make the state the first in America to completely erase criminal penalties for prostitution, a move that separates their approach from every other jurisdiction in the nation.

Story Snapshot

Senate Bill 097 would fully decriminalize prostitution between consenting adults by July 2026, making Colorado the first state to eliminate all criminal penalties
The 16-page bill removes charges for prostitution, solicitation, and patronization while maintaining Class 3 felony penalties for pimping and Class 5 felonies for pandering with menacing
Democratic sponsors frame this as public health reform, claiming criminal penalties prevent sex workers from reporting crimes and accessing medical care
The bill preempts local governments from banning prostitution through home rule, forcing municipalities to comply with state decriminalization
Governor Jared Polis and Attorney General Phil Weiser remain conspicuously silent, suggesting hesitation despite Democratic legislative support

The Legislative Push Behind Complete Decriminalization

Senate Majority Whip Nick Hinrichsen and Senate Assistant Majority Leader Lisa Cutter lead the charge on SB26-097, introduced February 11, 2026. Hinrichsen admits he initially felt skeptical but changed his position after conversations with a constituent who works in the sex trade. The bill now sits in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Democrats hold a 5-2 advantage, though no hearing has been scheduled. The silence from Governor Polis raises questions about whether this bill will advance smoothly through the legislative process despite favorable committee composition.

How This Differs From Nevada’s Legalization Model

Sponsors emphasize their proposal represents decriminalization, not legalization like Nevada’s county-by-county regulated brothel system. Hinrichsen argues Nevada’s approach creates problematic two-tiered systems that push activity into underground markets where trafficking thrives. Colorado’s model would eliminate all criminal penalties while requiring light regulation of escort bureaus and massage parlors, with client-patron contracts becoming public records. The bill replaces the term “prostitution” with “commercial sexual activity” throughout state law, a linguistic shift that signals the philosophical reframing behind the policy.

The Public Safety Arguments and Their Weaknesses

Cutter contends the bill allows consenting adults to engage without legal consequences while enabling sex workers to seek medical care and report abuse without arrest fears. Proponents claim criminalization creates physical, emotional, and structural violence against workers who cannot vet clients or access police protection. This argument assumes removing criminal penalties will improve outcomes, but research cited by opponents shows sex workers experience worse results on practically every physical and psychological metric. The average trafficking victim enters prostitution at age 13, demonstrating the vulnerability decriminalization advocates often minimize in their public health framing.

Local Opposition and Preemption Conflicts

Cities including Fountain, Woodland Park, and Monument have voiced opposition to the measure, concerned about losing local control over community standards. The bill’s preemption clause prohibits municipalities from banning prostitution through home rule authority, forcing compliance with state decriminalization regardless of local preferences. This represents a significant shift in Colorado’s traditional respect for municipal autonomy on quality-of-life issues. Local governments would need to revise ordinances and licensing procedures, creating administrative burdens and potential enforcement confusion during the transition period following the proposed July 2026 implementation date.

The Human Trafficking Elephant in the Room

Supporters claim decriminalization will not increase trafficking, but critics point to direct correlations between prostitution and human exploitation. Statistics show the vast majority of trafficked individuals become prostitutes, with predators targeting vulnerable populations regardless of legal frameworks. The bill protects trafficking victims from criminal charges and maintains Class 3 felony penalties for pimping, suggesting sponsors recognize exploitation risks. However, removing criminal penalties for buyers creates demand without corresponding accountability, potentially incentivizing the very exploitation the bill claims to prevent through its trafficking protections.

Record Sealing and Implementation Timeline

Individuals charged or convicted of prostitution-related offenses before the July 2026 effective date could apply to seal their records, addressing past criminalization impacts. The bill eliminates provisions preventing convicted individuals from obtaining or maintaining massage therapy licenses, opening employment pathways previously closed. Committee members Dylan Roberts and Mike Weissman stated they have not yet reviewed the 16-page measure, indicating the legislative vetting process remains in early stages. The absence of scheduled hearings and gubernatorial comment suggests this proposal faces a longer road than sponsors might prefer, particularly given the controversial nature and national precedent-setting implications.

What Conservative Principles Reveal About This Approach

The fundamental problem with this legislation lies in its assumption that removing consequences improves outcomes. Conservative principles recognize that legal boundaries protect vulnerable populations from exploitation, even when some individuals claim to choose risky behaviors voluntarily. The bill prioritizes individual autonomy over community standards, forcing municipalities to accept commercial sex activity regardless of local values. Sponsors frame this as harm reduction, but the evidence suggests decriminalization simply relocates harm rather than eliminating it. Maintaining serious felony penalties for pimping while decriminalizing the entire commercial transaction reveals the logical inconsistency at the heart of this proposal.