The debate over conversion therapy has entered a new phase in Colorado, where lawmakers are proposing an alternative to outright prohibitions. Rather than attempting a direct ban that courts may view as an impermissible restriction on speech, the proposed measure would create a civil path for survivors to seek redress. Advocates and legislators say this approach tries to reconcile two realities: the broad medical consensus that conversion therapy is harmful, and the constitutional protections that recent jurisprudence has affirmed for certain therapeutic speech.
The draft legislation, known as House Bill 26-1322, focuses on accountability through the civil courts rather than criminal or regulatory prohibitions. Under the bill, people who allege they were subjected to conversion therapy by licensed professionals could bring claims against those practitioners and their supervisors or employers. The proposal would also remove a traditional statute of limitations, reflecting lawmakers’ recognition that many survivors do not report harms for years or even decades.
The legal pivot: why lawmakers changed tactics
Colorado’s proposal is a direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 31 Chiles v. Salazar opinion, which emphasized First Amendment protections for certain kinds of talk therapy. The ruling did not endorse the clinical validity of conversion therapy—it left intact the medical community’s finding that the practice is ineffective and damaging. Instead, the court drew a line around the government’s authority to ban speech in therapeutic contexts, prompting states to reimagine how they reduce the practice without running afoul of constitutional limits.
Legal backdrop and its practical reach
Legal advocates explain that the court’s decision narrowed the available tools for states; it protected some therapeutic expression while acknowledging the harms associated with conversion therapy. The Colorado bill attempts to operate within that framework by targeting the professional conduct of licensed clinicians rather than criminalizing particular words or conversations. Supporters argue this makes it possible to impose professional consequences and civil penalties without directly regulating protected speech.
How the bill would work in practice
House Bill 26-1322 treats prohibited conduct as a basis for civil liability, effectively classifying certain practices as professional misconduct for licensed mental health providers. Plaintiffs could sue providers, supervisors and employers for harms allegedly caused by conversion therapy, and the bill’s removal of a statute of limitations acknowledges delayed reporting by many survivors. The measure explicitly excludes most clergy and religious counselors, reflecting a carve-out that limits the bill’s scope to licensed clinical professionals.
Key provisions and intended effects
Proponents say the combination of potential financial exposure and reputational risk should discourage clinicians from continuing to offer conversion therapy. Lawmakers frame the bill as a pragmatic tool to make the practice legally risky enough that providers will stop, while avoiding the legal pitfalls of a blanket ban. Sponsors also argue the change responds to the lived realities of survivors, many of whom take years to recognize or disclose the harm they experienced in therapy settings.
People behind the policy: survivors and advocates
Survivors and advocacy groups have been central to the push for legislative remedies. Testimony from someone who said they endured conversion efforts for decades highlighted the long shadow such practices can cast, underscoring why lawmakers want to eliminate time bars for claims. Organizations like The Trevor Project have documented ongoing instances of harmful practices; a 2026 survey by The Trevor Project found that more than one in 10 LGBTQ+ young people in Colorado reported being exposed to or threatened with conversion therapy within the preceding year.
Legal experts caution that while the Supreme Court’s decision narrows regulatory options, it does not equate to an endorsement of conversion therapy. Advocates such as the National Center for LGBTQ Rights emphasize that the ruling complicates regulation but stops short of legitimizing the practice. Colorado’s proposal will therefore serve as a test case of whether civil liability can provide an effective and constitutionally sustainable alternative to bans, while offering a path to accountability for survivors.