Colorado’s House of Representatives recently passed a bill creating a new legal avenue for those harmed by conversion therapy, a practice widely condemned by medical and mental health professionals. This action arrives swiftly after the Supreme Court halted enforcement of the state’s existing ban on the controversial method.
House Bill 26-1322 would empower Coloradans to pursue civil claims against licensed therapists accused of inflicting damage through attempts to alter someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The legislation extends accountability beyond individual practitioners, allowing legal action against the organizations that employ and oversee those who conduct conversion therapy.
The bill now moves to the state Senate, where Democrats also hold a majority, for further consideration. If enacted, it could open a window for lawsuits to be filed long after the therapy occurred, potentially exposing providers to substantial financial repercussions.
This legislative push follows a recent Supreme Court ruling that prevented Colorado from enforcing its ban on conversion therapy involving conversations between therapists and LGBTQ+ minors. The court, in an 8-1 decision, suggested the original law potentially violated the First Amendment by favoring certain viewpoints.
The court’s reasoning centered on the idea that the law permitted therapists to affirm a minor’s identity but not to assist them in exploring or changing it. This sparked immediate backlash from some lawmakers who viewed it as an overreach of constitutional protection for a harmful practice.
One Republican representative characterized the new bill as a direct challenge to the Supreme Court’s authority, arguing that the legislature was attempting to circumvent the ruling before it had even fully taken effect. He expressed concern over the potential for undermining the highest court in the land.
Supporters of the bill, however, reaffirmed their commitment to protecting LGBTQ+ Coloradans from the damaging effects of conversion therapy, emphasizing its ineffectiveness and potential for harm. They vowed to continue safeguarding the rights of the LGBTQ+ community within the state.
The Supreme Court case originated with a lawsuit filed by a licensed Christian therapist who maintained her conversations with young clients constituted protected speech. Colorado countered that these conversations fell under professional conduct subject to state regulation.
A key difference between the original 2019 law and the current bill lies in the statute of limitations. While the previous law imposed a two-year deadline for filing claims, HB26-1322 would eliminate any time restrictions, and allow representatives to seek damages for up to five years after an individual’s death.
Critics of the bill have raised concerns about the lack of limits on recoverable damages, suggesting therapists could face lifelong financial liability. This aspect of the legislation has fueled debate about fairness and the potential impact on mental health professionals.
