Colorado lawmakers have advanced a proposal that would allow people who underwent conversion therapy to sue licensed providers for damages, moving the measure forward on a party-line vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

House Bill 1322, proposed by Democratic Reps. Alex Valdez of Denver and Karen McCormick of Hygiene will move to a full-floor debate in the House.

Conversion therapy aims to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Its critics have questioned its legitimacy, while proponents have countered that such decisions should be left to families without governments wading into the issue.

Conversion therapy on minors was banned in Colorado in 2019. A lawsuit challenging the ban’s constitutionality is currently awaiting an opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Valdez and McCormick’s bill would create a cause of action for claims of injury caused by a licensed conversion therapy provider with no statute of limitations.

Valdez, who is gay, said many of his peers growing up either experienced or were threatened with conversion therapy.

Sending a young person to conversion therapy implies that something is wrong with them and needs to be changed, Valdez said.

“Something is not wrong with you. Something has never been wrong with anybody, and there should have never been anybody who was attempted to be converted,” he said.

Valdez alleged that while conversion therapy is now banned for minors, there are tens of thousands of adults in Colorado living with the psychological impacts of what they experienced, and many of them may not have realized what happened to them was wrong until years later, which is why the bill has no statute of limitations.

Colleen Enos of Christian Home Educators of Colorado called the bill “blatantly unconstitutional,” arguing that banning conversion therapy violates practitioners’ rights to free speech and freedom of religion.

“Licensed mental health providers with sincerely-held religious beliefs who offer counseling to individuals according to those beliefs are punished by this bill, and that is the point of this bill — to punish those who disagree and to monitor therapists’ speech,” Enos said, referencing the U.S. Supreme Court case, in which a Colorado Springs therapist has argued the conversion therapy ban prevents her from providing “religiously informed care.”

“Painful interactions with faith do not justify making conversations illegal,” Enos said. “Disagreement is not a criminal offense.”

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court deals with the 2019 Colorado law, under which conversion therapy is defined as a practice or treatment by a licensed physician aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or their gender identity, or to otherwise eliminate feelings of attraction toward members of the same sex. 

In the lawsuit, Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian in Colorado Springs, described her as working with adults who voluntarily seek “Christian counseling” and children who are “internally motivated to seek counseling.” Chiles argued Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors forces her to limit her speech about sexuality, for fear of violating the law.

In late 2022, a trial judge declined to grant a preliminary injunction blocking the law. U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney found the state was within its rights to prohibit specific treatment by those who obtain a professional license.

Then in 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed by 2-1 that the law is a regulation on professional conduct that only “incidentally” affected speech. The dissenting judge, Harris L Hartz, believed the state is effectively regulating Chiles’ speech and he cast doubt on the scientific consensus against conversion therapy.

Reporter Michael Karlik contributed to this article.