The debate over bans on conversion therapy has intensified as the Supreme Court reviews Chiles v. Salazar. Longtime campaigner Wayne Besen contends that laws in the 27 states that prohibit the practice for minors often do not reach the people who actually provide these services. He warns that the most active providers operate outside the reach of licensing schemes and present themselves as religious ministries or informal counselors, leaving many state statutes with wide religious expression and free speech exceptions.
Besen leads the organization Truth Wins Out and has spent decades exposing organizations that market orientation- or identity-change efforts. He notes that legislative bans send an important message, but they rarely shutter the largest networks that promote these practices. The activist points to a mix of legal loopholes, the borderless nature of the internet, and coordinated international movements as reasons why statutory bans often have limited practical effect.
Why many bans miss their mark
At their core, most laws target licensed professionals by regulating professional conduct. That means therapists, counselors and medical providers who hold state credentials are liable under these statutes. However, Besen argues the largest providers are usually unlicensed religious counselors or life coaches who operate inside organizations that style themselves as faith ministries, which many laws explicitly or implicitly protect. The result: a legal package that affects roughly 5% to 10% of active providers while leaving the rest untouched.
Another problem is enforceability in the digital age. Parents can find programs, online courses or foreign providers with a few clicks, making geographic and jurisdictional boundaries far less relevant. Besen highlights groups like The Changed Movement, based in Redding, California, as an example of organizations that continue to operate in states that theoretically prohibit conversion therapy because they emphasize religion to fit inside statutory exceptions.
Legal workarounds and the limits of litigation
Some jurisdictions have pursued alternative legal theories to bypass religious or speech defenses. For example, using consumer fraud statutes to allege deceptive advertising and false promises has proven potent in certain cases. Besen helped bring a successful suit against JONAH, leading to a 2015 ruling that found the group liable under New Jersey consumer protection law. That approach can close for-profit operations that market harmful services, but it is time-consuming, resource-intensive and often requires extensive evidence and trial work.
The shifting legal landscape
Court rulings have also complicated the picture. The 11th Circuit’s decision in Otto v. City of Boca Raton raised free-speech concerns about local bans, and other federal rulings have produced a patchwork of precedent. Besen believes advocates should have reassessed strategy years ago when circuit courts began to challenge the constitutionality of speech-based restrictions, especially after appointments reshaped the judiciary.
What activists say should come next
Besen urges a pivot back to tactics that had demonstrable impact before broad statutory protections were common. That playbook includes investigative exposure of oligarchic leaders, documenting abuses, amplifying survivor testimony and using social media to shame and delegitimize organizations that promote conversion practices. These public campaigns helped push earlier leaders and groups into irrelevance when their hypocrisy and false claims were exposed on national stages.
He also calls for major organizations with money and media reach to coordinate a clear set of priorities: decide which battles to defend vigorously and where to make tactical retreats. For example, messaging around gender-affirming care for trans youth and the rise of so-called gender exploratory therapy presents a distinct communications challenge that requires unified strategy from national groups like the Human Rights Campaign, GLAAD and the National LGBTQ Task Force.
Practical steps for community action
Beyond legal strategy, Besen recommends continued public pressure: survivors should keep sharing their stories, digital platforms should be used to document and report harmful programs, and supporters should fund the watchdogs that monitor this sector. While laws matter symbolically and sometimes practically, he stresses that public exposure and consumer- and reputation-based consequences often produce faster results against organizations that hide behind religious labels.
Final perspective
Besen acknowledges a likely unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court but counsels against despair. He argues that conversion efforts have failed historically and remain scientifically baseless. The fight, he says, is ongoing: a combined approach of legal innovation, public exposure and coordinated advocacy can reduce the influence of conversion providers and protect young people. Activists, policymakers and allies will need to adapt tactics to an era of globalized messaging and resurgent Christian nationalist influence.