Prohibition on conversion therapy with minors and vulnerable adults repealed.
Summary
HF3376 repeals Minnesota’s existing statutory prohibition on conversion therapy for minors and vulnerable adults. The bill removes the current ban in Minnesota Statutes section 214.078, which makes it unprofessional conduct for a mental health practitioner or mental health professional to engage in conversion therapy with a client under 18 or with a vulnerable adult.
The bill also amends the Medical Assistance statute to remove the cross-reference to the repealed definition and prohibition. Under the bill, the state’s Medicaid program would no longer expressly exclude conversion therapy from coverage by reference to the repealed law, although the bill text still defines conversion therapy in the medical assistance section. In practical terms, the legislation would eliminate the specific state-law restriction on licensed mental health providers performing conversion therapy on minors and vulnerable adults, and it would remove the disciplinary consequence tied to that prohibition.
Impact
HF3376 would change Minnesota law by repealing section 214.078, the state’s conversion therapy protection statute, and by revising section 256B.0625, subdivision 5n, to align with that repeal. The immediate legal effect would be to remove the explicit statutory ban on conversion therapy for minors and vulnerable adults and the associated professional-discipline trigger for mental health practitioners and professionals. It would also alter how Medical Assistance references conversion therapy coverage, affecting Medicaid policy and potentially the scope of reimbursable behavioral health services under state law.
Sentiment
Based on the bill caption and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available context suggests the bill is controversial and likely partisan or ideologically divided. The measure’s purpose is to repeal a protection that currently restricts conversion therapy for minors and vulnerable adults, so support would generally come from those who oppose the existing ban, while opposition would likely come from advocates for LGBTQ+ protections, mental health professionals, and child welfare advocates. No formal vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative consensus in the materials supplied.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether Minnesota should continue prohibiting conversion therapy for minors and vulnerable adults. Supporters of repeal would likely argue that the state should not regulate counseling in this area or should preserve provider and patient choice, while opponents would argue that conversion therapy is harmful, especially for youth and vulnerable adults, and that the existing ban protects public health and professional ethics. Another likely dispute is the bill’s effect on licensed mental health practice and Medicaid coverage, including whether repealing the ban could allow harmful practices to be reimbursed or normalized.
Health plan coverage of conversion therapy for minors and vulnerable adults prohibited, and commissioner of human rights required to protect Minnesotans from conversion therapy.