The debate over how to hold accountable those who practice conversion therapy has shifted from banning the practice to creating new civil remedies. California state Sen. Scott Wiener introduced SB 934 in January to expand the legal time frame for people harmed by such treatments to file suit. The proposal is focused narrowly on licensed mental health professionals and the organizations that employ them, and it specifies the kinds of damages claimants could seek, including expenses, lost earnings, and punitive awards where fraud is proven. Supporters present the bill as a pragmatic response to recent court rulings that complicate outright bans.
What the bill would change
SB 934 would reshape the statutory timeline for malpractice claims tied to conversion therapy. Under the measure, someone who underwent conversion efforts as a minor could bring a civil action up to 22 years after turning 18 — effectively allowing suits until their 40th birthday — while adults would have a 10-year window following the treatment. The bill lists recoverable losses such as medical and mental health costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional distress, diminished enjoyment of life, attorney fees, and punitive damages where applicable. Importantly, the text restricts relief to licensed therapists and affiliated entities rather than religious or unlicensed providers.
Why lawmakers are pursuing this route
The push for civil remedies arrived after the U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision in Chiles v. Salazar, where the Court signaled heightened constitutional scrutiny for state bans on conversion therapy. In an 8-1 ruling the justices returned the matter to lower courts with a tougher standard for states to justify prohibitions. Proponents of SB 934 argue that when bans become legally vulnerable, private lawsuits serve as an alternate enforcement mechanism. Senator Wiener and advocates describe conversion therapy as harmful and unsupported by mainstream medical groups, and they frame extended malpractice windows as a tool to compensate survivors who often recognize harms years later.
How malpractice differs from speech-based bans
The bill relies on the legal distinction between regulating professional conduct and policing speech. Supporters point to judicial commentary suggesting that malpractice claims, with their evidentiary safeguards, do not raise the same First Amendment concerns as blanket prohibitions on a clinician’s speech. In this context, malpractice refers to a civil action alleging substandard professional care that caused injury. SB 934 is crafted to fit within that malpractice framework, a strategy intended to survive constitutional scrutiny even as direct bans face new challenges in the courts.
Hearings, votes, and public testimony
The measure cleared a Senate judiciary committee hearing on April 7 with a 10-2 vote to move forward, reflecting strong but not unanimous support. Testimony at the hearing included survivors who described long-term harms — from depression and substance use to housing instability — after undergoing conversion interventions. Mental health professionals testified that conversion approaches lack an evidence base and can inflict lasting psychological injury. Opponents included individuals who raised concerns about other types of care and the broader implications for treatment disputes; some senators pressed for clearer messaging about the bill’s narrow scope.
Religious exemption and limits
SB 934 contains the same carve-outs for religious practice found in many conversion therapy restrictions, so it applies only to licensed mental health providers and entities. Critics note that much conversion therapy occurs in faith settings, through unlicensed counselors, or via lay ministries, which means the bill would not reach many practitioners. Supporters counter that expanding civil liability for licensed professionals could still act as a meaningful deterrent and provide compensation where state enforcement has been limited.
Potential impact and next steps
If enacted, the law would give survivors an alternate path to seek redress at a time when some state bans face renewed legal challenges. Legal advocates say extended time limits matter because survivors frequently do not recognize the therapy’s harm until years later; extending the window mirrors protections long available to childhood sexual abuse survivors. The measure now advances to appropriations after committee approval and will face further legislative debate; its backers argue the approach could be adopted by other jurisdictions seeking to protect vulnerable people without running afoul of recent Supreme Court guidance.