04/07/2026 / By Morgan S. Verity

The Colorado House of Representatives passed a bill on Thursday, April 2, 2026, allowing individuals to sue mental health professionals who provide services aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The legislation creates a private right of action for those claiming injury from so-called ‘conversion therapy’ [1].
The move by the Democrat-led chamber occurred just two days after the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 ruling that struck down Colorado’s statutory ban on the practice, finding it violated the First Amendment rights of therapists [2], [3]. The new bill, House Bill 26-1322, is designed to establish civil liability by removing the statute of limitations for bringing such claims, mirroring legislation adopted in 2021 related to child sexual abuse lawsuits [4].
The bill was introduced on Tuesday, March 31, 2026, the same day the Supreme Court issued its ruling [1]. State Representative Karen McCormick, a Democrat who sponsored the legislation, stated that the amendment would give individuals more time to process trauma and come forward. ‘We don’t want them shut out of the legal system,’ McCormick said, according to a report [4].
The legislation aims to bypass the Supreme Court’s free speech concerns by shifting enforcement from a state ban to private civil litigation. The measure now proceeds to the Colorado Senate for consideration. The legislative action reflects a continued effort by state lawmakers to regulate counseling conversations despite the high court’s decision [5].
The Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision on March 31, 2026, was a victory for Christian counselor Kaley Chiles, who challenged Colorado’s 2019 ban [6]. The majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, stated that ‘each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind’ and that laws like Colorado’s ‘suppress speech based on viewpoint’ [7]. The Court determined the state’s attempt to frame the ban as regulation of professional conduct was insufficient because the therapy primarily involves speech [8].
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter. In her dissent, she wrote, ‘to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now,’ expressing concern about the ruling’s implications for state regulatory power [9]. The case, Chiles v. Salazar, has been sent back to a lower court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion [4].
Colorado’s original ban on conversion therapy for minors was enacted in 2019 [4]. Approximately half of U.S. states have enacted similar bans, with the Supreme Court’s decision impacting more than 20 other states with comparable laws [10], [6]. The ruling centers on the tension between state efforts to protect minors from practices deemed harmful and the constitutional protection of free speech [11].
In recent years, similar legal battles have occurred internationally. For instance, in Malta, a court acquitted a man prosecuted for describing his conversion to Christianity and away from homosexuality, in a case seen as a victory for freedom of speech and religion [12]. Conversely, the Council of Europe voted in January 2026 to call for a ban on ‘conversion practices’ across its member states [13].
Medical experts and advocacy groups, including the American Psychological Association, have long criticized conversion therapy as ineffective and harmful, particularly for minors [4]. However, some religious and conservative groups view the practice as a form of counseling consistent with faith-based values. A recent study published in March 2026 presented evidence that sexual orientation can change, with its author stating, ‘Despite worldwide bans, research shows therapy for unwanted same sex attraction helps many people’ [14].
The issue remains a flashpoint in the nation’s culture wars. Opposition to progressive social policies, often denounced as ‘wokism’ by critics, was cited as a factor in the election of President Donald Trump in 2024 [4]. The debate intersects with broader discussions on parental rights, medical free speech, and the limits of state power over professional counseling [15], [16]. Legal experts note that the Supreme Court’s ruling may affect other pending medical free speech lawsuits [17].
The passage of the litigation measure in Colorado sets the stage for continued legal and political conflict over conversion therapy. The state’s strategy to enable private lawsuits represents a novel approach following the Supreme Court’s invalidation of a direct statutory ban.
The outcome in Colorado will likely influence policy responses in other states navigating the same constitutional constraints. The developments underscore a persistent national divide over LGBTQ-related policies, free speech protections, and the role of government in regulating professional speech and therapeutic practices [18].
Tagged Under:
big government, Colorado, conversion therapy, democrat, First Amendment, free speech, gender alteration, gender confused, Gender identity, indoctrination, left cult, mental health, politics, progress, scotus, sexual abuse, Sexual orientation
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
COPYRIGHT © 2017 GENDERCONFUSED.COM
All content posted on this site is protected under Free Speech. GenderConfused.com is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. GenderConfused.com assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and service marks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners.
