The so-called conversion therapies, which for years have been used to try to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGTBIQ+ people, seemed to be a thing of the past. However, in some US states they are resurfacing in political and legal debate. What is worrying is not only the discussion itself, but the risk that unauthorized and harmful practices will once again be imposed under the umbrella of “religious freedom” or “freedom of expression.”
In Kentucky, for example, the testimony of Brandon Long—who as a teenager was forced to sit through sessions telling him his identity was a mistake—was not enough to stop the Republican legislature. After the veto of Democratic Governor Andy Beshear, the state Parliament decided to reopen the door to these practices.
What “conversion therapy” really means
Behind the term lies a set of techniques that can range from religious talks and counseling to aggressive methods such as electric shocks, isolation or aversion therapies. They all share a central idea: that being LGTBIQ+ is a problem that must be “corrected.”
Reputable medical organizations, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association, have been warning for years that these methods do not work and, worse yet, can cause depression, problematic substance use, and even increase the risk of suicide.
A divided landscape in the United States
Since California banned conversion therapy for minors in 2012, more than half of US states have followed suit. Today, 23 states and Washington D.C. They prohibit health professionals from subjecting minors to this type of intervention. Four others have limited their funding or application.
But conservative majorities in state legislatures and courts are pushing a counteroffensive. In Virginia, for example, a court has allowed counselors to offer religiously based “talk therapies” to minors. In Michigan and Missouri, Republican lawmakers are seeking to repeal current bans.
The situation even reached the US Supreme Court, which agreed to study an appeal against the ban approved in Colorado in 2019. Its ruling, expected in 2026, could radically change the legal landscape: reinforce the bans… or dismantle them.
What is at stake?
Defenders of the ban insist that no one voluntarily resorts to these therapies when it comes to minors. It is authority figures – mothers, fathers, pastors or even health professionals – who push children and adolescents towards a process that is based on the idea that they are “broken.”
Those who support the practice argue that it is a matter of personal freedom and religious expression. They allege that, without these options, the ability to accompany people who seek to “reconcile” with their beliefs is limited. The conflict, therefore, is not only health or psychological, but deeply ideological and cultural.
A necessary critical look
Although many laws seek to protect LGTBIQ+ youth, it is worth asking if the current prohibitions are enough. Some are limited to health professionals, leaving out unlicensed religious counselors. Others, although symbolically important, are little applied in practice. To what extent does a rule on paper guarantee the safety of minors who may be pressured within their own homes or religious communities?
Psychiatrist Jack Drescher sums it up clearly: “The world has changed. No one can seriously maintain that homosexuality is a disease anymore.” However, the political tension in the US reminds us that social achievements are not irreversible. What seems like an acquired right today may be questioned tomorrow.
The battle over so-called “conversion therapy” is not just about laws: it is a discussion about dignity, about the right to exist as we are and about how a society decides to protect—or not—its youth.
