HB26-1322 creates a new civil cause of action for people harmed by sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, commonly known as conversion therapy, when those efforts are conducted by a licensed mental health professional. The bill allows an injured person, or after death the person’s personal representative or estate, to sue for damages and recover economic damages, noneconomic damages, and exemplary damages in cases of willful or wanton conduct. It also states that these claims may be brought at any time without limitation, reflecting the legislature’s view that harms from conversion therapy may be delayed and difficult to recognize.
The bill defines “sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts” broadly as practices by a licensed mental health professional that seek to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome, including efforts to change orientation, identity, or reduce same-sex or same-gender attraction. It expressly excludes counseling that is supportive, exploratory, neutral, or related to sexual behavior or relationships so long as it does not seek to change orientation or gender identity. The bill also amends Colorado’s existing definition of “conversion therapy” in the mental health licensing statutes to align with this broader, outcome-based definition.
In addition to creating the lawsuit, the bill sets out special rules for proving causation and admitting expert testimony. Plaintiffs may rely on scientific literature and expert testimony to show general causation, and the factfinder may infer specific causation from evidence that the person underwent the efforts and later suffered a type of psychological injury the efforts are known to cause, unless the defendant proves another cause. The bill also allows experts to testify about the scientific consensus on harm, common psychological injuries, latency in recognizing harm, and the role of shame and the therapeutic relationship.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it overrides ordinary limitations periods for these claims, applies retroactively to some pre-2026 claims that were not already time-barred, and permits survival actions after the injured person’s death within five years of death. It also expands potential liability beyond the therapist to employers, supervisors, and those who negligently hired, supervised, or retained a professional who engaged in conversion therapy efforts. The measure is framed as remedial legislation intended to provide civil remedies for long-delayed injuries and to be interpreted broadly.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of the measure and strongly critical of conversion therapy, with the legislature citing medical and psychological organizations that consider such efforts harmful and ineffective. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to show opposition or compromise. The main point of contention inherent in the bill is likely to be the breadth of the new liability scheme—especially the unlimited filing period, retroactive application, expanded damages, and the use of expert testimony and inferred causation—along with the bill’s treatment of what counseling is excluded from the definition of conversion therapy.
The bill adds section 13-20-1302 to the Colorado Revised Statutes to create a new civil remedy for injuries caused by sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts by licensed mental health professionals and related responsible parties. It also amends the state’s mental health licensing definition of conversion therapy in section 12-245-202 to match the bill’s broader, outcome-based definition and to clarify excluded forms of counseling. The measure changes limitations rules, causation standards, damages availability, survival of claims after death, and the admissibility of expert testimony for these cases.
The bill is presented in a strongly favorable light by its sponsors and legislative findings, with an explicit remedial purpose and repeated references to medical consensus that conversion therapy is harmful and ineffective. Because no committee transcript or vote details were provided, there is no documented recorded opposition or bipartisan negotiation in the supplied materials. The available context suggests the bill was advanced as a public health and civil remedies measure rather than a contested policy compromise.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s unlimited statute of limitations, its retroactive reach to some older claims, and its expansion of liability to employers, supervisors, and negligent hirers or retainers of mental health professionals. Another possible point of dispute is the bill’s causation framework, which allows general causation to be established through expert and scientific evidence and permits inference of specific causation under certain conditions. Finally, the precise boundary between prohibited conversion therapy and permitted supportive, exploratory, or neutral counseling could be contested by mental health professionals, religious counseling providers, and civil liberties or professional licensing advocates.