Colorado House Passes Bill to Allow Lawsuits Against Conversion Therapy
The Colorado House of Representatives, controlled by Democrats, voted on Thursday to approve a bill enabling individuals harmed by conversion therapy to sue therapists. This move comes shortly after the Supreme Court blocked the state from enforcing its conversion therapy ban.
The proposed legislation, known as HB26-1322, would let Coloradans file civil lawsuits against licensed mental health professionals accused of inflicting damage while trying to alter a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. It also permits legal action against organizations that hire and oversee these therapists. The bill is now headed for the state Senate, which shares a Democratic majority.
This legislation potentially opens pathways for lawsuits long after the treatments were conducted, which might expose healthcare providers to substantial financial risks.
The bill was introduced just days following a ruling that Colorado cannot enforce its conversion therapy ban in conversations between therapists and LGBTQ+ minors. The ruling indicated that the law likely infringes on the First Amendment by supporting certain viewpoints while excluding others.
In an 8-1 ruling, the court noted that the law allows therapists to affirm a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation but prohibits them from facilitating a change if the minor desires it.
Colorado House Republican Matt Soper expressed criticism towards the new bill, characterizing it as a “slap in the face” to the Supreme Court. He remarked, “This really resonates with the average American: the Supreme Court can’t even keep its decision under wraps before Congress attempts to counter it.”
Soper added that there seems to be a disconnect regarding the law’s interpretation from the Supreme Court, especially with some states actively working to overturn their decisions.
The sponsors of the bill, Rep. Alex Valdez and Rep. Karen McCormick, reiterated it aims to protect Colorado’s LGBTQ+ population from harmful conversion therapy practices, emphasizing its ineffectiveness.
The Supreme Court’s decision arose from a case initiated by Kaylee Childs, a licensed Christian therapist, who argued that her discussions with young people constituted protected speech. The state contended that these discussions represented professional conduct subject to regulation.
Regarding the specifics of the previous law enacted in 2019, which mandated that claims against providers be filed within two years, HB26-1322 eliminates that deadline, allowing victims’ representatives to pursue damages within five years of a victim’s death. Soper expressed concerns over the lack of damage caps or statute limitations in this new bill, pointing out that therapists could face ongoing responsibilities related to their practices.
