59 Comments
User's avatar
Austin Garner's avatar

I just want a similar cause of action for those who receive gender “affirming” care, after the patients realize the mutilation of their bodies and destruction of their reproductive systems what should their recovery be?

JC's avatar

This...100%!!!

Tina Stolberg's avatar

Not a lawyer, but two things came to mind. Equating advice with "conduct" is curious. Does this mean that we can sue anyone who gives us advice (good, bad, or otherwise) if it runs contrary to our intended result? If so, what a precedent. I could sue my third-grade teacher because she told me I could be anything I wanted when I grew up. Secondly, silly me, I thought the client ultimately has agency to agree or not to conduct his or her own actions. So are we now to assume no one is responsible for their own actions?

roxie's avatar

they think speech they don’t like is literal violence. so a therapist’s words are much more harmful than their own actions, which are noble or neutral.

it can only make sense to people who don’t live in reality, be they career politicians or chronically online genderist weirdos.

Jessica Morse's avatar

Yes, we are to assume that any supposed "protected" or "oppressed" class is not responsible for their own actions, hence harm-reduction and trauma-informed theories. Their behavior is a response to the trauma or harm they've been subject to by the oppressor class which is for all intensive purposes, anyone slated as "white European". Oh, and Christian. In this way, the oppressed-identified's behavior cannot be criminalized because they are not responsible for it, the "oppressor" is. This is is also what is feeding into the competency laws that are currently freeing criminals.

KateP's avatar
Apr 3Edited

Agree they are crazy trying to dodge this ruling. But will this law also allow people whose therapists affirmed their gender-confusion to sue them for guiding them onto the harmful path of "trans" (the true conversion therapy for gay kids), without a statute of limitations? That would be great, and probably a more likely scenario than anyone feeling harmed by having been helped to make peace with their body.

PhDBiologistMom's avatar

Indeed. I had to laugh at the phrase “conversion therapy survivors.” When applied to the “trans” kids, this means the ones that “suffered” through figuring out that their biology is what it is and cannot be changed.

(And once again I am so irked that this case conflates “conversion therapy” (common sense!) for gender identity, with conversion therapy for sexual orientation (NOT a good thing). Though even for the latter, if it’s attempted only through talk, presumably the free speech argument still applies. But I don’t think you can talk someone out of (or into) being gay — they really are “born that way.”)

TT's avatar

I was wondering the same. Flood the courts with those lawsuits.

Kevin Virta's avatar

So true. What is affirmation and social transitioning from teachers, school counselors and administrators if not ‘conversion therapy’ for kids who would likely be gay?

Mark In Houston's avatar

Thank you Jen for this latest report from the front lines in the Colorado legislature. When are you going to get the heck out of Colorado who is now rivaling California for most deranged public policies? Have you considered a relo to Texas?

JENNIFER BOWERS's avatar

Better yet, when will she run for office in Colorado?

Julie Reeser's avatar

Yes. Colorado has lost its mind, and it happened a very long time ago.

PhilH's avatar

Probably right after they lost their mines.

Lance S's avatar

How in the world can we have a trial based on a conversation behind closed doors between a licensed therapist and a minor child when said minor child cannot file for civil damages until years later? My gosh, ANYTHING can be made up by that now-young adult looking for a quick payout. Another thought - what malpractice insurance company would now cover a Colorado therapist since they can now be sued for millions in damages based on a private conversation? And if they will cover, what therapist will be able to afford the premiums? My, how this trans-activism has gotten out of control

Sandy's avatar

The endless statute of limitations will cause insurability problems too.

Renee's avatar

Sometimes cursing is absolutely warranted!

Crimson's avatar

They can’t handle the humiliation of being wrong about something so obvious. It’s about their egos, not protecting kids.

MMP's avatar

This makes me so happy. I have been boycotting Nike for years.

Larry Shell's avatar

My prediction? Psychologists that are not activists with a pro trans rubber stamp will simply stop accepting patients with these concerns.

Sandy's avatar

Which will be sad.

Kara Dansky's avatar

I'm not sure you're right that a civil cause of action has the same effect as a direct ban, but even if you are, this bill is dumb anyway. If an individual thinks he or she has been harmed by a therapist, he or she can already sue. It's called malpractice and it has been around for a long time. You're absolutely right that the Colorado Dems are deranged.

Jennifer Sey's avatar

It is dumb.

Lance S's avatar

The lack of a statute of limitations will make for a very negative effect. Also, as I and couple others pointed out, this WILL make malpractice insurance expensive - or they will refuse to cover therapists there since the risk will be too great. Also agree with another comment that therapists will stop seeing patients with these questions or issues.

Brandon Showalter's avatar

This is their religious cult. They HAVE to do this. To admit that they are wrong or that they overshot amounts to an existential crisis/threat because of the lies they've bought into, and they have to save face. Also, this is OneColorado and Tim Gill dollars talking.

Angie English's avatar

Better move to the last best place - Idaho

Brian M's avatar

You will find the actual “kings” in Colorado. Where are the 3 million angry marchers when you need them?

Noah Otte's avatar

I love the state of Colorado. But it’s elected leaders have lost their minds. Conflating helping kids figure out who they really are with conversion therapy is absolutely loco! The Democrat-controlled legislature wanted to try to undercut the recent landmark Supreme Court ruling in Chiles v. Salazar. So they are attempting to pass a law that makes talk therapy be defined as conduct rather than speech legally. In essence, their trying to skirt the Supreme Court ruling. Their that determined to defend Transing kids and performing genital mutilation on them. This law may well pass, but it will immediately run into a flood of legal challenges and rightly so.

1) Talk therapy is still speech. The spoken word is absolutely protected by the first amendment. 2) Liability in this case rests on the viewpoint/content of what the therapist said by not affirming whatever a child believes about themselves. 3) Civil damages such as a lawsuits, can chill speech just as much as a direct ban can. It’s quite obvious what their trying to do with this law, censor therapists. This law is blatantly unconstitutional and will be struck down by the higher courts as well it should be! Actual conversion therapy is disgusting, immoral and monstrous and I think we here can all agree it should be illegal. But this is not that, this is a therapist trying to help a child figure out their sexuality/gender identity before subjecting themselves to totally unnecessary surgery that they will regret, that they are too young and immature to understand the ramifications of and will cause irreversible damage to their bodies for life. I’m as pro-gay rights and pro-trans rights as anyone, but gender-affirming care for minors is barbaric period.

Lance S's avatar

This ties in with my comment on one of Jenn’s earlier posts…when a minor patient is considered too young to consent to something like an x-ray or stitches, how are they supposed to understand what these procedures will do to their bodies?

John Caldwell's avatar

Well the trial lawyers will love it.