By Bob Katzen

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled 8 to 1 against a law banning “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ children under 18 in Colorado. The court sided with a therapist who argued that the law violates the First Amendment and sent it back to a lower court for review. Conversion therapy is primarily used to try to convert gays and lesbians to be straight. LGBTQ+ groups and some mental health experts charge that the practice is scientifically unproven and unsound and can trigger depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts in these youngsters.

Massachusetts is one of several states that currently ban or restrict conversion therapy. The Supreme Court’s decision to send the case back down to the lower court to make a determination regarding the future of Colorado’s law doesn’t change the laws of the Bay State or any other state.

On March 13, 2019, the House 149-8 and then 148-8, approved a bill that prohibits psychiatrists, psychologists and other health care providers from attempting to change the sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression of anyone under 18. On March 28, 2019, the Senate 34-0, approved a different version of the bill. A few days later the House and Senate agreed on a final version of the bill and approved it on a voice vote without a roll call vote. Former Gov. Charlie Baker signed that final version of the bill into law on April 8, 2019.

“I’m incredibly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s ruling,” said Gov. Maura Healey. “So-called conversion therapy is dangerous, discredited and has been shown to cause real harm to young people. That’s why Massachusetts banned this practice on a bipartisan basis in 2019, and it was signed into law by a Republican governor. That’s who we are as a state. We are reviewing the impact of this decision, but our commitment is unchanged. In Massachusetts, we will always stand up for LGBTQ+ young people and their families and make sure they are safe, healthy and able to be who they are.”

“[The] decision not only undermines efforts to protect LGBTQ+ youth but also disregards years of scientific research showing that conversion therapy can have a devastating impact on the mental, emotional and physical health of young people,” said Attorney General Andrea Campbell. “We are reviewing the court’s decision, and I will continue using every tool available to stand firmly against any attempt to legitimize practices that put our young people at risk.”

“I am disheartened by the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors,” said Sen. Julian Cyr (D-Truro). “All persons, but especially young people, should not be subject to harmful treatments premised on the incorrect and outdated idea that it is possible to change anyone’s sexual or gender identity. Fortunately, the scope of the ruling is narrow and does not invalidate our law. I continue to work with my colleagues to examine the ruling for its potential impact on Massachusetts and assess whether we need to amend our statute. As ugly debates about the dignity of LGBTQ+ people swirl at the national level, I remain committed to defending marginalized youth here in Massachusetts.”

“I oppose a blanket ban on so-called conversion therapy because I am concerned that it is too broadly interpreted and in fact infringes on legitimate, patient-centered talk therapy that explores underlying issues through open dialogue and thoughtful questioning,” said Rep. Joe McKenna (R-Sutton). “Patients should have the freedom to engage in therapeutic conversations that challenge, rather than simply affirm, their perspectives when appropriate. To be sure, abusive coercion and shaming of a patient is wrong and should not be allowed. However, the other side of that coin is overly broad prohibitions that could unintentionally limit clinicians’ ability to provide genuine care based on each patient’s needs.”

“The Supreme Court made clear that counseling conversations are protected speech, and the government cannot favor one viewpoint over another,” said a spokesperson for the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center. “We are hopeful this decision will open the door to challenging similar laws in Massachusetts and restoring the freedom of counselors to speak honestly with those they serve.”

“The vote regarding conversion therapy contained provisions regarding professional government compelled speech,” said Rep. Dave DeCoste (R-Norwell). “There was no aversive therapy conducted in Massachusetts. Anything like that would have been child abuse under the law.”

There were two roll calls on the bill in the House. Two representatives changed their votes on the second roll call.

Rep. Susannah Whipps (U-Athol) was first recorded as voting “No” and then was recorded as voting “Yes” on the second roll call. Whipps told Beacon Hill Roll Call, “During the 2019 roll call, my vote was incorrectly recorded. I immediately notified the clerk and speaker and requested a correction. A second roll call was taken to reflect my actual position, and I voted against conversion therapy. That reflects my position then and now.”

Rep. Nick Boldyga (R-Southwick) was first recorded as voting “Yes” and then was recorded as voting “No” on the second roll call. Boldyga did not respond to repeated requests by Beacon Hill Roll Call asking him to explain why he was recorded as voting differently on the two roll calls.

(A “Yes” vote is for the bill banning conversion therapy. A “No” vote is against the bill banning conversion therapy and supports allowing the therapy. There was only one roll call in the Senate while the House held two roll calls.)

Rep. Christine Barber Yes/Yes Rep. Mike Connolly Yes/Yes Rep. Paul Donato Yes/Yes Rep. Erika Uyterhoeven was not yet elected Sen. Patricia Jehlen Yes