SB252 creates a new civil cause of action in Kentucky for damages arising from “sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts,” commonly referred to as conversion therapy, when those efforts are carried out by a mental health professional. The bill defines covered professionals broadly, including physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, counselors, therapists, and certain nurses and physician assistants. It also defines the prohibited conduct as practices intended to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome, while expressly excluding nondirective counseling, support for gender transition, neutral therapy, and age-appropriate interventions addressing unlawful or unsafe conduct.
The bill allows lawsuits not only against the individual provider, but also against employers, supervisors, and entities that negligently hired, retained, or failed to stop a provider from engaging in the prohibited conduct. It authorizes recovery of economic damages, noneconomic damages, punitive damages in appropriate cases, and attorney’s fees, and it makes claims survivable by the estate if the harmed person dies. The bill also sets out a plaintiff-friendly causation framework, allowing proof through expert testimony and scientific literature and stating that plaintiffs need not prove the precise mechanism of injury or that conversion efforts were the sole cause of harm.
A major feature of SB252 is its extended statute of limitations. For minors, a claim may be filed up to 22 years after reaching majority; for adults, up to 10 years after the last treatment session; and in either case, within 5 years of discovering, or reasonably should have discovered, that psychological injury was caused by the change efforts. The bill also amends Kentucky’s general one-year personal injury limitations statute to carve out these claims and to align related accrual rules with the new remedy. It applies broadly to actions not already time-barred and is declared remedial in nature.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of survivors and strongly critical of conversion therapy. The findings cite major medical and mental health organizations and describe the practice as harmful and ineffective, emphasizing delayed recognition of injury and the need for a longer filing window. No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate opposition or support beyond the bill’s own stated purpose.
The main points of contention likely concern the bill’s scope and its impact on licensed mental health practice, especially the broad definition of prohibited conduct, the extended limitations period, and the evidentiary rules favoring plaintiffs. Potential opponents may argue that the bill could chill counseling practices or invite litigation over the line between prohibited change efforts and permissible therapy, while supporters would likely emphasize consumer protection, accountability, and access to civil remedies for delayed-discovery injuries.
SB252 would add a new chapter 411 civil remedy for harms caused by sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts and would amend KRS 413.140 to create a specific limitations framework for those claims. It expands potential liability to providers, employers, supervisors, and entities involved in hiring or retention, and it authorizes damages, attorney’s fees, and survival of claims after death. The bill would also affect how Kentucky courts evaluate causation and discovery in these cases by adopting a substantial-factor standard and extended accrual rules.
The bill is framed in strongly protective, remedial terms and is clearly intended to support individuals who say they were harmed by conversion therapy. Its findings rely on medical and psychological consensus and present the legislation as necessary because injuries may be latent and difficult to recognize. Because no committee discussion or vote history is provided, there is no direct evidence of legislative debate, but the text itself suggests a strongly pro-bill posture with likely concern focused on implementation and the breadth of liability.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s broad definition of “sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts,” the inclusion of liability for employers and supervisors, and the long statute of limitations with discovery-based accrual. Critics may argue that the bill could blur the line between prohibited conversion therapy and legitimate counseling, especially around gender identity, while supporters would contend that the exclusions for transition-related, neutral, and nondirective therapy are sufficient and that the extended filing period is necessary because harm may surface years later.