These private right of action laws are a bad idea. No surprise for a "conservative" legal innovation, I suppose. They allow private citizens to use the courts as a weapon to restrict others' behavior just because they don't like it (often in the name of "freedom"), even when the state has no business restricting such behavior and federal and state laws and constitutions explicitly prohibit the government enforcing those restrictions.
But in the wake of egregious decisions like Chiles, I'm in favor of any legal strategy that protects trans kids from conversion therapy. When the other side fights dirty, we don't have much choice but to retaliate.
"The bill uses a private right of action, a tactic previously used by Republicans to target abortion providers."
And I hope that works!
Is it not a definitely 1st Am. compliant provision that as conversion therapy is known not to work, that it cannot be billed for as being any medical care of any sort without that being itself fraud?
If counseling and direction about gender identify and sexual orientation are the lanes of health professionals, then what about the countless people who’ve abusively done that to most of us our whole lives without them being health professionals? Why is that not considered practicing without a license if they’re doing something that’s considered a clinical treatment but don’t have a license (and usually don’t have our consent, making it even more abusive)?
This is where my head went - pastoral counseling, and religious camps and the like - none of that falls under mental health treatment by licensed providers, but I’m sure it will continue to happen. Still, I’m glad to see the pushback in my field and hopefully it erodes the perceived legitimacy of conversion efforts.
To say “Anti-trans activists won’t be accepted as experts” is a bit overconfident. Courts don’t exclude experts just because of ideology. An expert just has to be a doctor with experience in this field and that could technically include doctors with fringe views who are affiliated with groups like SEGM.
I also don’t think instructing courts to weigh "the nature, duration, and intensity" of the efforts, "the age and vulnerability of the plaintiff at the time," and “the relationship between the plaintiff and the mental health professional," necessarily helps prevent misuse. I think that could equally be used against it since lots of detrans activists who want to sue their providers like to play the victim and already try to use things like their “age and vulnerability” to justify their lawsuits.
As someone who is very concerned about the bill being weaponized against gender affirming therapists, yes, the carve out shields counseling that provides “acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient”, BUT only if it’s not seen as “directing a patient”— a term which the bill doesn’t define.
Much more explicit protections for gender affirming care providers, such as a line that would have protected therapists who “help patients align with their gender identity” without it being conditional on whether it was “directed”, were removed.
Fwiw, I support extending the statue of limitations for conversion therapy, but I’m really worried that the lack of definitions for key terms like “directing” on top of the fact that the bill also says it applies regardless of which way a patient is directed AND it explicitly instructs courts to interpret the language broadly, could lead to bad faith anti trans people accusing therapists of directing them by pushing them towards transitioning (a very common anti-trans claim), in which case the carve out may not apply since it’s dependent on not “directing”….
Colorado’s HB26-1322 is being talked about a lot right now—especially in LGBTQ+ spaces—so here’s a clear, honest breakdown 👇
This bill allows survivors of conversion therapy to sue providers, even years later. There’s no statute of limitations, which means people who were harmed finally have a path to accountability.
On its face, that’s a protection. Conversion therapy has been widely criticized as harmful, and this gives survivors legal power they didn’t have before.
But there are also concerns worth paying attention to:
Because it deals with therapy and speech, it could face First Amendment challenges
If courts expand those arguments, it could impact how LGBTQ-related protections are enforced more broadly
Opponents argue the law could be stretched or misused in edge cases (though it’s written specifically to target conversion therapy)
It may trigger larger legal battles around religion, parental rights, and LGBTQ protections
So what’s the reality?
The bill itself is designed to protect LGBTQ people
The bigger risk isn’t the bill—it’s how courts might interpret it in future cases
Like a lot of legislation right now, the long-term impact depends less on what’s written, and more on what happens when it gets challenged.
I am very concerned that this bill will open the door to more conservatives avenues to go after the LGBTQ comunities
Regarding this: "It may trigger larger legal battles around religion, parental rights, and LGBTQ protections."
I keep wondering where are the parental rights of parents of transgender children. I don't understand how they can so easily have taken away these parental rights to do what is best for their own children.
This should honestly be passed for children raised in religious homes. When you brainwash children from birth into a belief system that is harmful to the child or others: the child should be able to sue.
These private right of action laws are a bad idea. No surprise for a "conservative" legal innovation, I suppose. They allow private citizens to use the courts as a weapon to restrict others' behavior just because they don't like it (often in the name of "freedom"), even when the state has no business restricting such behavior and federal and state laws and constitutions explicitly prohibit the government enforcing those restrictions.
But in the wake of egregious decisions like Chiles, I'm in favor of any legal strategy that protects trans kids from conversion therapy. When the other side fights dirty, we don't have much choice but to retaliate.
"The bill uses a private right of action, a tactic previously used by Republicans to target abortion providers."
And I hope that works!
Is it not a definitely 1st Am. compliant provision that as conversion therapy is known not to work, that it cannot be billed for as being any medical care of any sort without that being itself fraud?
Thank you for the reporting, Erin.
Fight fire with fire.
If counseling and direction about gender identify and sexual orientation are the lanes of health professionals, then what about the countless people who’ve abusively done that to most of us our whole lives without them being health professionals? Why is that not considered practicing without a license if they’re doing something that’s considered a clinical treatment but don’t have a license (and usually don’t have our consent, making it even more abusive)?
This is where my head went - pastoral counseling, and religious camps and the like - none of that falls under mental health treatment by licensed providers, but I’m sure it will continue to happen. Still, I’m glad to see the pushback in my field and hopefully it erodes the perceived legitimacy of conversion efforts.
To say “Anti-trans activists won’t be accepted as experts” is a bit overconfident. Courts don’t exclude experts just because of ideology. An expert just has to be a doctor with experience in this field and that could technically include doctors with fringe views who are affiliated with groups like SEGM.
I also don’t think instructing courts to weigh "the nature, duration, and intensity" of the efforts, "the age and vulnerability of the plaintiff at the time," and “the relationship between the plaintiff and the mental health professional," necessarily helps prevent misuse. I think that could equally be used against it since lots of detrans activists who want to sue their providers like to play the victim and already try to use things like their “age and vulnerability” to justify their lawsuits.
As someone who is very concerned about the bill being weaponized against gender affirming therapists, yes, the carve out shields counseling that provides “acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient”, BUT only if it’s not seen as “directing a patient”— a term which the bill doesn’t define.
Much more explicit protections for gender affirming care providers, such as a line that would have protected therapists who “help patients align with their gender identity” without it being conditional on whether it was “directed”, were removed.
Fwiw, I support extending the statue of limitations for conversion therapy, but I’m really worried that the lack of definitions for key terms like “directing” on top of the fact that the bill also says it applies regardless of which way a patient is directed AND it explicitly instructs courts to interpret the language broadly, could lead to bad faith anti trans people accusing therapists of directing them by pushing them towards transitioning (a very common anti-trans claim), in which case the carve out may not apply since it’s dependent on not “directing”….
Colorado’s HB26-1322 is being talked about a lot right now—especially in LGBTQ+ spaces—so here’s a clear, honest breakdown 👇
This bill allows survivors of conversion therapy to sue providers, even years later. There’s no statute of limitations, which means people who were harmed finally have a path to accountability.
On its face, that’s a protection. Conversion therapy has been widely criticized as harmful, and this gives survivors legal power they didn’t have before.
But there are also concerns worth paying attention to:
Because it deals with therapy and speech, it could face First Amendment challenges
If courts expand those arguments, it could impact how LGBTQ-related protections are enforced more broadly
Opponents argue the law could be stretched or misused in edge cases (though it’s written specifically to target conversion therapy)
It may trigger larger legal battles around religion, parental rights, and LGBTQ protections
So what’s the reality?
The bill itself is designed to protect LGBTQ people
The bigger risk isn’t the bill—it’s how courts might interpret it in future cases
Like a lot of legislation right now, the long-term impact depends less on what’s written, and more on what happens when it gets challenged.
I am very concerned that this bill will open the door to more conservatives avenues to go after the LGBTQ comunities
Regarding this: "It may trigger larger legal battles around religion, parental rights, and LGBTQ protections."
I keep wondering where are the parental rights of parents of transgender children. I don't understand how they can so easily have taken away these parental rights to do what is best for their own children.
Ken you would have to ask the righteous conservative bigots, racists and trump that question to get an answer and don't think you would
This should honestly be passed for children raised in religious homes. When you brainwash children from birth into a belief system that is harmful to the child or others: the child should be able to sue.
I wouldn't even call it a loophole. It fits the standard definition of a tort -- direct harm to the patient.
Thanks for keeping us informed on this Erin. I just emailed my state senator on how to vote. We appreciate you!