What is conversion therapy? A breakdown of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling on banning the practice
In a 4-3 ruling July 8, the liberal-controlled court ruled that the Republican-controlled legislative committee's rejection of a state agency rule that would ban the practice of conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ people was unconstitutional.
Here's what you need to know about conversion therapy and how this ruling impacts Wisconsinites.
Conversion therapy is a discredited practice in which counselors instruct gay patients to change their sexual orientation, using therapy to "convert" LGBTQ+ people to heterosexuality or into traditional gender expectations and roles.
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed the diagnosis of homosexuality as a mental illness from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Before the removal of the classification, LGBTQ+ individuals could be institutionalized against their will, fired from their jobs and denied a mortgage, among other things.
Many proponents of conversion therapy contend that sexual orientation is a mental health condition that can be healed through intervention from mental health professionals.
While this idea has since been discredited through scientific research, some religious communities and families still seek out the practice of conversion therapy.
Conversion therapy has been banned in 23 states and the District of Columbia, according to LGBTQ+ rights think tank Movement Advancement Project.
A 2023 report by The Trevor Project, a nonprofit organization focused on suicide prevention and crisis intervention for LGBTQ+ youth, found more than 1,300 active conversion therapists operating in all U.S. states except Vermont and Hawaii.
A national poll conducted in 2019 by Ipsos/Reuters found that 56% of U.S. adults support making conversion therapy on youth by mental health practitioners illegal, compared to 18% who think it should be legal.
A 2025 Data for Progress survey found that 60% of likely voters oppose the practice. The survey found that the stance on conversion therapy varies between political parties, with 72% of Democrats opposing the practice while only 46% of Republicans oppose it.
The Wisconsin profession licensing board for therapists, counselors and social workers labeled conversion therapy as unprofessional conduct since April 2024.
This provision was blocked twice by the Legislature's Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules — a powerful Republican-controlled panel in charge of approving state agency regulations, which prompted the lawsuit brought by Democratic Gov. Tony Evers
In the July 8 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that the committee overstepped its authority in blocking the ban on conversion therapy, among other state regulations put forth during Evers' administration, from being enacted.
The ruling could have sweeping implications for the interaction between the Legislature and the governor's office, as it determines whether the legislative committee can continue to block rules created by the governor's office, rather than going through the full Legislature to create policy.
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky disputed the notion that the ruling strips power from the Legislature, noting that the ruling does not prevent the Legislature from creating rules and laws through the legislative process.
'…the Legislature retains power over the administrative rulemaking process regardless of our determination here,' she said. 'The Legislature created the current process. It alone maintains the ability to amend, expand, or limit the breadth of administrative rulemaking in the other branches — as long as it adheres to the constitution.'
Evers, a staunch supporter of LGBTQ+ rights, has worked on trying to enact the conversion therapy ban since 2020, but the Legislature prevented it from going into effect.
Evers applauded the ruling and said Republicans have been allowed to overstep their power and cause gridlock by holding up administrative rules for years.
"It's pretty simple — a handful of Republican lawmakers should not be able to single-handedly and indefinitely obstruct state agencies from doing the people's work," he said in a news release. 'Wisconsinites want to protect our constitutional checks and balances. Today's Wisconsin Supreme Court decision ensures that no small group of lawmakers has the sole power to stymie the work of state government and go unchecked."
Republican lawmakers, however, saw the ruling as a way to give the executive branch more power while stripping the Legislature of its checks-and-balances role.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, criticized the court for removing oversight.
'For decades, case law has upheld the constitutionality of the legislative rules committee to serve as a legitimate check on the powers of the Governor and the overreach of the bureaucracy. Today's decision overrules those cases," Vos said in a statement. "As Justice Rebecca Bradley said in her dissent, 'Progressives like to protest against 'kings' – unless it is one of their own making.''
Co-chair of the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules Sen. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, echoed this.
"The liberal judicial junta on the state Supreme Court has in essence given Evers the powers of a king," Nass said in a statement. "Today's ruling is another devasting attack on the Wisconsin Constitution and on the authority of the Legislature, the only branch of government now controlled by Republicans."
While Fair Wisconsin Executive Director Abigail Swetz celebrated the ruling as a "powerful step in the right direction," she said there is "still have more work to do" to remove the harmful practice.
"A bill banning conversion therapy by all licensed professions passed through the legislature and signed by the governor would be an even more powerful step. Wisconsin State Senate Bill 324 would do exactly that, and I look forward to seeing it become Wisconsin law," Swetz said in a press release.
The bill, introduced in June by Sen. Tim Carpenter, D-Milwaukee, and Rep. Lee Snodgrass, D-Appleton, would prohibit conversion therapy in Wisconsin. It has yet to receive a public hearing.
The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to take up a case next term that challenges Colorado's ban on conversion therapy.
The case would determine whether state and local governments can enforce laws banning conversion therapy for LGBTQ+ youth.
The conservative-led court will take up the case during a time in which transgender people are facing increasing attacks by President Donald Trump and his administration.
After taking office in January, Trump signed an executive order stating the United States would not "fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support" gender-affirming care. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
In 2023, the court had turned away a similar challenge related to conversion therapy bans, despite federal appeals courts coming to differing decisions when weighing state bans on the issue.
Anna Kleiber can be reached at akleiber@gannett.com.
This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin high court rules conversion therapy ban can be enacted
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
US Senate Democrats to investigate Kennedy's firing of vaccine expert panel
By Ahmed Aboulenein WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Democrats on the U.S. Senate's health committee launched an investigation on Tuesday into Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s firing of all members of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel of vaccine experts. Kennedy last month fired the 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which reviews vaccines approved by the Food and Drug Administration before making recommendations to the CDC on their use. Kennedy replaced them with hand-picked advisers including anti-vaccine activists. "The harm your actions will cause is significant. As your new ACIP makes recommendations based on pseudoscience, fewer and fewer Americans will have access to fewer and fewer vaccines," Democrats on the Senate's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee wrote to Kennedy in a letter reviewed by Reuters. A spokesperson for Senator Bernie Sanders said committee Democrats launched the investigation after Senator Bill Cassidy, the committee's Republican chairman, denied his call for a bipartisan investigation. Cassidy's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Democrats requested Kennedy provide information on the firings by August 12, including details of the alleged conflict of interest for each fired member and note how they differ from ones they previously disclosed. Kennedy said at the time that he fired the committee because it was rife with conflicts, but provided no specific evidence of conflicts among any departing members. They requested that Kennedy outline everyone involved in the firing decision within and out of government, asking about the role played by specific individuals, including Lyn Redwood, the former leader of an anti-vaccine group founded by Kennedy. Redwood led a presentation at the newly constituted ACIP's first meeting. The Democratic senators asked who approved the meeting agenda and who selected Redwood as presenter. They asked for all communications and documents on the appointment of the new members, including selection criteria, the vetting process, and proof they complied with government ethics requirements. "As you give a platform to conspiracy theorists, and even promote their theories yourself, Americans will continue to lose confidence in whatever vaccines are still available," the senators wrote. Kennedy said the firings were to restore public confidence in vaccines. "Millions more lives are at risk from vaccine-preventable diseases if you continue to undermine vaccine access through ACIP," said the letter, which in addition to Sanders was signed by Senators Tim Kaine, Maggie Hassan, John Hickenlooper, Ed Markey, Andy Kim, Lisa Blunt Rochester and Angela Alsobrooks.
Vox
4 hours ago
- Vox
Is MAHA losing its battle to make Americans healthier?
covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017. On a Friday evening this July, the Trump administration announced it would lay off all of the health research scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency. Hundreds of investigators who try to understand how toxic pollution affects the human body would be gone. That wasn't a surprise. The EPA — which had a founding mission to protect 'the air we breathe and the water we drink,' as President Richard Nixon put it — has been busy dismantling policies that are in place to ensure environmental and public health. The New York Times reported earlier this month that the agency is drafting a plan that would repeal its recognition of climate change as a threat to human health, potentially limiting the government's ability to regulate greenhouse gases. EPA administrator Lee Zeldin has relaxed existing standards for mercury and lead pollution — two toxins that can lead to developmental problems in children. And the EPA has postponed its implementation of new Biden-era regulations that were supposed to reduce the amount of dangerous chemicals Americans are exposed to. Meanwhile, House Republicans are attempting to grant widespread liability relief to pesticide companies and restrict EPA regulation of PFAS 'forever chemicals' through provisions that have been tucked into the spending bills currently moving through Congress. (Democrats, for their part, have offered opposing legislation that would protect an individual's right to sue over any harm from pesticides.) This collective assault upon America's environmental regulations targets not just the environment, but human health as well. Which means it sits oddly with the work of another Trump official whose office at the Department of Health and Human Safety is just a 15-minute walk from EPA headquarters: Robert F. Kennedy Jr, whose Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement seeks to, obviously, make Americans healthier. But Kennedy hasn't spoken up about these contradictions — and his supporters are beginning to notice. In response to the pro-pesticide industry proposals in Congress, MAHA leaders wrote a letter to Kennedy and Zeldin voicing opposition to a bill that they believe 'would ensure that Americans have no power to prevent pesticide exposure, and no path to justice after harm occurs.' In the letter, they also urged the EPA to ban two pesticides — atrazine and glyphosate — that have been linked to birth defects and liver and kidney problems. What you'll learn from this story: The Make America Healthy Again movement depends on not only improving the US food supply but eliminating environmental pollution. President Donald Trump's EPA has taken actions to deregulate pesticides, microplastics, mercury and lead pollution, and more substances that the MAHA movement has identified as dangerous to human health. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing pressure from leaders in the MAHA movement to reconcile the gap between their shared goals and Trump's environmental agenda. 'These toxic substances are in our food, rain, air, and water, and most disturbingly, in our children's bodies,' the MAHA letter says. 'It is time to take a firm stand.' Kennedy is no stranger to these issues: Earlier this year, the Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again Commission report, which sought to document and explain the dramatic increase in chronic diseases like obesity among US children, identified both chemicals as health risks. Zeldin, however, has been working to deregulate both atrazine and glyphosate in his first few months leading the EPA. 'It is completely contrary to MAHA to relax regulations on PFAS and many different chemicals. We are calling upon them and to reverse some of these actions that [the administration] is taking or seemingly may allow,' said Zen Honeycutt, one of the letter signers and the founder of the MAHA-aligned group Moms Across America. 'We are extremely disappointed with some of the actions taken by this administration to protect the polluters and the pesticide companies.' MAHA burst onto the political scene as part of Kennedy's 2024 presidential campaign. It has become a vehicle for public health concerns, some exceedingly mainstream (like addressing America's ultra-processed food and reducing pollution) and some of them very much outside of it (such as undermining the effectiveness of vaccines). After dropping his own candidacy, Kennedy joined forces with Trump, and ended up running the nation's most important health agency. But now that he's in office, he and the movement he leads are running into the challenges of making change — and the unavoidable reality that MAHA has allied with a president and an agenda that is often in direct opposition to their own. 'In the case of Lee Zeldin, you have someone who's doing incredibly consequential actions and is indifferent to the impact on public health,' said Jeremy Symons, senior adviser to the Environmental Protection Network and a former adviser to the EPA during the Clinton administration. 'In the case of Kennedy, you have someone that has spent his life thinking about public health, but seems unable or disinterested in stopping what's going on.' RFK Jr.'s HHS vs. Zeldin's EPA Kennedy has successfully nabbed voluntary industry commitments to phase out certain dyes from American food products. He has overhauled the government's vaccine policy, and one state has already followed his lead in banning fluoride from its drinking water. But his ambitions to reduce the sheer number of toxins that leach into America's children in their most vulnerable years are being stymied by an EPA and a Republican-controlled Congress with very different priorities. 'Food dyes are not as consequential as pesticides for food manufacturers. The ingredients they put into the food contaminate the food,' Honeycutt said. 'That issue is a much larger issue. That is the farmers, and changing farming practices takes longer.' To Kennedy's credit, these are issues he'd apparently like to tackle — if he could. His HHS report earlier this year pointed out that 'studies have raised concerns about possible links between some of these products and adverse health outcomes, especially in children.' Specific ingredients in pesticides have been associated with cancer, inflammation, metabolic problems and more. But the EPA, meanwhile, has reversed regulations and stymied research for those same substances. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins hold ice cream cones while announcing a major industry pledge to ditch artificial dyes by 2027. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images The EPA has proposed easing restrictions on the amount of the herbicide atrazine that can be permitted in the nation's lakes and streams. Human and animal studies have associated exposure to atrazine with birth defects, kidney and liver diseases, and problems with metabolism; the evidence, however, remains limited and the MAHA report called for further independent research. The EPA has also moved to block states from putting any new limits on or requiring any public disclosures for glyphosate, a herbicide that the MAHA report says has been linked to a wide range of health problems. Zeldin also postponed Biden-era plans to take action on chlorpyrifos, a common insecticide increasingly associated with development problems in kids. The EPA has also been slow to move on microplastics and PFAS, both substances of growing concern among scientists and the general public. These invisible but omnipresent chemicals are a priority for the MAHA movement, singled out in the White House report for further study and policymaking. The EPA, though, has delayed implementing a new standard to limit PFAS in drinking water and announced it would consider whether to raise the limits of acceptable PFAS levels in community water systems, while also slashing funding for more research on the substance's health effects. Bisphenols (also known as BPA) and phthalates are two other common materials used in plastic production and food packaging, which have also been identified by researchers as likely dangerous because of their ability to disrupt hormone and reproductive function. The MAHA singles them out for further study and possible restrictions, but the EPA has delayed safety studies for both. The US is even moving backward on pollutants like mercury and lead, for which the scientific evidence of their harms is undisputed. They are toxins that regulators have actually taken steps over the decades to reduce exposure, through banning the use of lead paint, strictly limiting mercury levels, etc. Yet over the past few months, the EPA has moved to grant exemptions to coal power plants and chemical manufacturers that would allow more mercury pollution, while cutting monitoring for lead exposures. This is a long list of apparent contradictions and we're barely six months into Trump's term. How long can the contradictions pile up without Kennedy challenging Zeldin directly? We reached out to the Health and Human Services Department to see if we could get Kennedy's perspective on any of this. In response, an agency spokesperson sent a written statement: 'Secretary Kennedy and HHS are committed to investigating any potential root causes of the chronic disease epidemic, including environmental factors and toxic chemicals,' an HHS spokesperson wrote. 'The Secretary continues to engage with federal partners, including the EPA, to ensure that federal actions align with the latest gold standard science and the public health priorities identified in the MAHA report.' But as the EPA continues to roll back environmental protections despite the reassurances that the administration is aligned on MAHA, Kennedy's constituents are growing impatient. 'Our children's lives and futures are non-negotiables, and claims from the industry of 'safe' levels of exposure ignore the impacts of cumulative exposure and the reality of serious, evidence-backed risks,' the MAHA movement's recent letter says. 'The industry's call for delay or inaction is completely unacceptable — immediate and decisive action is needed now and is long overdue.' Why isn't RFK Jr. standing up to the EPA? The conflict between the two agencies' agendas has been striking: The EPA, under Zeldin, is allied with the industries it regulates and plans to deregulate as much as possible. HHS, on the other hand, is focused on its vision of making the environment safer in order to improve people's health — a goal that will inevitably require more regulations that require companies to restrict their use of certain compounds that prove to be dangerous to human health. Trump himself has said the two sides are going to have to work together and figure things out, Honeycutt noted — words that she is taking to heart for now. And the movement's leaders recognize that they are now in the business not of outside agitation but of working within the system to try to change it. 'We're not always going to be happy,' Honeycutt said. But Kennedy may be playing the weaker hand: Zeldin and his agency hold obvious advantages, and in a fight between HHS and EPA, EPA will likely win — unless, perhaps, Trump himself steps in. The biggest reason is a matter of authority: The EPA has the responsibility to regulate pollution, while Kennedy's HHS does not. The federal health agency can offer funding to state and local health departments to advance its policy goals, but it has effectively no regulatory authority when it comes to the dangerous substances identified in the MAHA report's section on chemical toxins. The EPA, on the other hand, has broad discretion to regulate the chemicals that industries pump into the American environment — or not. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin speaks, as he tours a steel plant in South Carolina in May. Kevin Lamarque/AFP via Getty Images The difference between the leadership at the two agencies is also stark: Kennedy is a former lifelong Democrat who has never held a government position; Zeldin is a seasoned GOP operator who served four terms in the US House. Kennedy has brought in an assortment of unconventional personnel at HHS, many with skepticism about mainstream science and who are viewed dubiously by the industries they oversee. At the EPA, representatives of long-entrenched polluting interests have commandeered powerful positions: Nancy Beck, a former scientist at the American Chemistry Council, the chemical manufacturing industry's trade association, for example, is now holding the position overseeing chemical safety and pollution prevention. The perception within the industry, according to insiders who spoke with Vox, is that Kennedy is, well, a lightweight. 'From the perspective of the polluter takeover of EPA, Kennedy is largely seen as inconsequential and ineffective. He's playing wiffle ball,' Symons said. 'Kennedy talks a good game, but watch carefully what's happening at EPA and all the favors being given to corporate polluters that are going to do far more damage than anything.' 'The food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe are going to get more toxic and more dangerous because of what's happening in EPA,' Symons told Vox. When it comes to jockeying for influence, Zeldin also enjoys more powerful friends in the Republican Party. He has relationships with conservative politicians and advocacy groups across the nation. Almost all of the Republican state attorneys general, for example, are motivated to roll back environmental regulations because it's compatible with their priorities in their respective states. 'A lot of this is being driven by polluter states, red states with Republican attorneys general,' Symons said. And, as evidenced by the pesticide liability relief legislation in Congress that prompted MAHA's letter to Kennedy and Zeldin, Republicans in the House and Senate remain much more allied with corporate interests — an alliance that has stood for decades — than with the public health movement that has only recently been brought inside the broader Make America Great Again coalition. It is a bitter irony for a movement that has often called out corporate influence and corruption for the government's failures to protect public health. The White House's own MAHA report cites the influence of big businesses to explain why the chronic disease crisis has grown so dire; in particular, the report says, 'as a result of this influence, the regulatory environment surrounding the chemical industry may reflect a consideration of its interests.' MAHA's leaders aren't running for the hills yet; Honeycutt said she urges her members not to vilify Kennedy or Trump for failing to make progress on certain issues. But they sense they're losing control of the agenda on the environment, forcing difficult questions onto the movement just a few months after it attained serious power in Washington. 'As for MAHA organizations, they must decide whether they are to become appendages of the Republican party, or coalesce into an effective, independent political force,' Charles Eisenstein, a wellness author who was a senior adviser to Kennedy's presidential campaign, wrote for Children's Health Defense, a once-fringe group with ties to Kennedy. 'To do that, the movement must hold Republicans accountable for undermining public health with policies like liability shields. It must not sacrifice its core priorities to curry short-term favor with the Republican establishment.' The MAHA movement is made up of concerned parents and others focused on childen's health. Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images The MAHA-MAGA political alliance is new and tenuous — many MAHA followers voted for President Barack Obama, Eisenstein points out — and it may not be permanent. And some fractures are already apparent: Honeycutt, the leader of Moms Across America and a signer of the MAHA movement's letter to Kennedy, told Vox that her own members have told her directly that they are considering voting for Democrats in the next election. Even as she urges MAHA to keep the faith, Honeycutt said that Republicans risk alienating this enthusiastic part of their coalition by going hog wild on environmental deregulation. Her group is in the process of pulling together a legislative scorecard to hold lawmakers to account. 'There could be dire consequences for the midterm elections, if they don't realize,' she said. 'We don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat. We will support whoever supports us.' Vox climate correspondent Umair Irfan contributed reporting to this story.
The Hill
16 hours ago
- The Hill
Planned Parenthood Medicaid funding restored, as Dems seek BBB rollback
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani on Monday expanded a decision she handed down last week in which she issued a temporary injunction restoring Medicaid for 10 Planned Parenthood affiliates. Talwani found the law retaliated against Planned Parenthood in violation of its First Amendment rights. 'Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,' Talwani wrote in the Monday ruling. 'In particular, restricting Members' ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.' Separately, Democrats, spearheaded by Reps. Laura Friedman (Calif.), Nikema Williams (Ga.), Chris Pappas (N.H.) in the House and Sens. Tina Smith (Minn.) and Patty Murray (Wash.) in the Senate, plan to introduce legislation that would repeal that provision of the law. The measure won't advance in the GOP-controlled Congress, but it highlights how Democrats are continuing to mobilize and message around reproductive rights. 'We're fighting to ensure people can continue getting the essential care they count on, no matter who they are or where they live,' Friedman said in a statement shared with The Hill. Trump's tax and spending package includes a provision that bars health care providers from being able to reimburse Medicaid for a year if they provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal funding in 2023. The lawsuit challenges that provision, because there's almost no other organization that meets the $800,000 threshold. Talwani ruled it is 'easily ascertainable' that Planned Parenthood was specifically targeted, despite the law not mentioning the organization by name. The Trump administration already appealed a temporary restraining order that Talwani imposed just after the lawsuit was filed. But pending any action from the appeals court, Monday's ruling will stand while the case plays out. Taxpayer money is already prohibited from covering most abortions. Instead, the new law cuts reimbursement for other health services provided by Planned Parenthood and other health centers, such as cancer screenings and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. For more legal coverage, sign-up for The Hill's courts newsletter The Gavel, written by Ella Lee and Zach Schonfeld. It publishes every Wednesday. Click here to sign up & get it in your inbox.
