Virginia partly reverses conversion therapy ban for minors
Why it matters: The decision permanently allows the use of talk-based counseling to attempt to change a child's gender identity or sexual orientation.
The practice has long been discredited by medical associations and LGBTQ+ advocates, who say it's harmful and has no scientific basis.
The big picture: The conservative group that sued over the ban announced the decision on Tuesday — the five-year anniversary of Virginia becoming the first state in the South to bar medical providers from practicing conversion therapy on minors.
The Henrico County Circuit Court judge and Virginia Attorney General's office signed the decree on June 4.
Between the lines: Other forms of conversion therapy — like electric shock or inducing nausea — remain illegal in Virginia, reports the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
But the Virginia Department of Health Professions will no longer enforce the part of the ban that prohibits talk therapy.
Catch up quick: Founding Freedoms Law Center, the Family Foundation's legal arm, sued Virginia last year over the constitutionality of the ban, alleging freedom of speech and religious freedom violations.
The center filed the lawsuit on behalf of two Christian counselors, and called the court's decision last month "a major victory for free speech" in a Tuesday statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
4 days ago
- Boston Globe
Costco will not sell abortion pills after pressure from conservatives
Despite lawsuits and letters pleading to lawmakers, their campaign to thwart access to abortion pills has otherwise been slow-moving. Patients can still access medication abortion in all 50 states, even those where the procedure is illegal, because of laws allowing the pills to be remotely prescribed and mailed. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up In a statement Thursday, Costco said the decision was 'based on the lack of demand from our members and other patients.' The company did not answer further questions from The Washington Post about the influence of outside groups. Advertisement This month, Costco officials said they would not look to become certified to dispense mifepristone after a coalition of religious and conservative financial groups approached them ahead of formally requesting action on the issue, according to people familiar with the conversations. The company's decision was 'a step in the right direction,' said Michael Ross, an attorney on the corporate engagement team of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian conservative legal organization. ADF was a leader in the charge to keep mifepristone off Costco's shelves. Advertisement 'It doesn't make sense as a fiduciary matter for these companies to be injecting themselves into this political controversy,' Ross said. For two decades, the Food and Drug Administration, which in 2000 approved mifepristone for use through 10 weeks of pregnancy, required that the drug be picked up in person, a mandate abortion rights advocates saw as a hurdle in accessing the procedure. In 2021, the agency halted the in-person requirement. Then, after the Supreme Court in 2022 struck down the constitutional right to an abortion, triggering abortion bans across the country, lawmakers in blue states passed 'shield' laws designed to protect abortion providers from prosecutions. Those measures, active in eight states, allow providers to legally prescribe abortion pills regardless of where a patient lives. The battle over whether mifepristone would be sold in retail pharmacies began in March 2024, when CVS and Walgreens received FDA certification to sell the pill. Four months later, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander sent letters to a handful of other household-name pharmacies, urging them to follow in the footsteps of CVS and Walgreens. In his letters to Costco, Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons and McKesson, Landers reminded the companies that New York City's pension system owned shares in them. The shares in Costco alone at the time were valued at $443.9 million. Getting certified to dispense the pill, Lander wrote to Costco CEO Ron Vachris, 'aligns with both long-term shareholder interests and women's health care needs.' Conservative opponents swiftly disagreed. A coalition of groups and individual investors sent letters to the same five companies. At the time, their stock in Costco was worth about $56 million. Thousands of Costco members and investors also signed a petition saying they did not want the company to sell mifepristone, an effort spearheaded by Inspire Investing, a Christian financial firm that is part of the coalition. Advertisement As pressure from investors mounted, Costco indicated it did not plan to become certified to sell mifepristone, citing customer interest. Tim Schwarzenberger, Inspire Investing's director of corporate engagement, said Costco's choice 'protects its brand, serves families, and keeps the company focused on what it does best.' 'By recognizing there was no customer demand and avoiding an ideological path, Costco steered clear of moral, legal, and business risks while staying true to its mission,' he said in a statement. As of Thursday, it was unclear how the other companies would act. Kroger told The Post that it was still reviewing the FDA's requirements to dispense mifepristone. Walmart declined to comment. McKesson, which includes the Health Mart franchise, and Albertsons did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Ross, the ADF attorney, said the coalition had also filed a shareholder proposal to CVS, which has been selling mifepristone for more than a year, and plans to do so for other companies. 'We're hoping to build on this win,' he said.
NBC News
4 days ago
- NBC News
Mother with cerebral palsy struggles to hire aides after private equity takeover
Renee Christian, a single mom with cerebral palsy, lives in Buffalo, New York, with her 12-year-old daughter. Although her condition forced her to spend most of her childhood at a nursing home, she has resided in her own home for years with the help of personal assistants she hires under a New York State Medicaid program. In April, however, Christian's life was upended when the state forced her and her assistants to work with a new company administering the nation's largest consumer-directed personal assistance program, called CDPAP. One by one, she lost nearly half her assistants because they said they did not receive the proper pay for their work, Christian said. She now fears for her future living at home where she needs help getting dressed, doing laundry and cooking meals. 'I'm trying to hire new staff, and I am very good at navigating technology,' Christian, 37, said. 'But it's hard when you have to tell your new hires, 'I can't guarantee you're going to get paid on time or get the appropriate amount of hours.'' Christian is not the only one affected by the state program's recent takeover. NBC News spoke with nineconsumers and personal assistants who described multiple problems since Public Partnerships LLC (PPL) won the $1 billion, five-year contract in 2024, replacing roughly 600 entities that had been administering the program. The issues range from assistants receiving checks for zero dollars to problems arranging for direct deposit, onboarding new workers and clocking hours worked. PPL, which has a staff of 1,400 on the New York program, is owned by two private equity firms. Its takeover as the program's sole administrator triggered an avalanche of complaints from consumers unable to reach anyone to answer questions and assistants unpaid for hours they worked and unhappy with reduced health insurance benefits, according to lawmakers, consumer advocates and the consumers and assistants interviewed by NBC News. Before the transition to PPL, roughly 280,000 consumers were participating in the CDPAP program, according to the New York Department of Health. Since PPL took over, some 80,000 have left the program, the department said. 'A lot of these folks need the services being provided by the program,' Gustavo Rivera, a New York state senator who represents constituents in the Bronx, told NBC News. 'It's likely they dropped out because of difficulties making the program work or they switched to programs that are more expensive.' Rivera has scheduled hearings in August about what he calls the botched transition to PPL. At a cost of $9 billion a year, New York's CDPAP is the largest personal assistance program in the nation. It allows consumers like Christian to directly hire the folks who help them pursue their lives rather than rely on a staffing agency. At-home programs like New York's are less costly than providing institutional care, research shows. In 2024, according to one analysis, a semi-private room in a nursing home cost an average $9,277 a month nationwide. That's 43% more than a home health aide costing on average $6,483 each month. Amanda Lothrop, chief operating officer for New York State's Medicaid program, told NBC News that the transition to PPL aimed to eliminate the former program's administrative inefficiencies while protecting taxpayers. She said fraud and abuse had marred the previous program, but the state has identified very few cases. A 2022 audit by the Office of Medicaid Inspector General in New York, for example, uncovered only $46,000 in overpayments in the program, a 99% accuracy rate. In response to questions from NBC News, PPL and the New York state health department said together they had identified 30 instances of home care workers under the previous system billing consumers who were hospitalized or dead, five cases of workers billing for work with consumers who were out of the country, one worker claiming to work for two people at the same time and another who claimed to be in two places simultaneously. More than 200,000 workers are in the CDPAP program. 'In partnership with PPL,' the department of health said in a statement, it 'is using enhanced data and monitoring tools to protect program integrity, support consumers, and take timely action when issues arise.' Meg Fitzgerald, a PPL spokeswoman, said in a statement that the company's 'systems and centralized control processes would have been able to identify and prevent these violations.' The contract New York State awarded to PPL is a recent example of private equity's increasing involvement in home health care, said Aditi Sen, managing director of research and campaigns at Americans for Financial Reform, a nonprofit nonpartisan organization that advocates for fairness in the U.S. financial system. Last month, Sen published a report detailing the industry's forays into home health care entitled, 'Wall Street on Your Doorstep: Protecting Home Care from Private Equity Abuses.' 'The private equity industry is looking for any streams of steady public funding,' Sen said in an interview. 'As advocates have secured more funding for home and community-based services, that has resulted in the private equity encroachment.' She said the next step for researchers is to analyze the quality of home care after private equity gets involved. Founded in 1999, PPL calls itself an industry leader 'in financial management services for consumer direction, serving consumers throughout the U.S.' As for the difficulties in the New York program, the PPL spokeswoman said in a statement: 'The transition to a single fiscal intermediary required a significant element of education and, in some cases, a change in practices for submitting and approving time. We have been committed to providing various methods of extensive education and resources to all stakeholders. Ultimately, we strive to provide the accountability this program deserves.' Three CEOs in five years Private equity firms have taken over wide swaths of the health care industry in recent years and ill effects on care have been well-documented in independent academic research. The firms typically acquire companies or doctors' practices using debt and hope to sell them within five to seven years at a profit. This requires the firms to improve the financial results of the companies they buy, often firing employees or cutting services to slash costs. The private equity firms bought PPL three years ago. Studies on hospitals and nursing homes have found significant deterioration in patient outcomes after private equity takes them over. Other research has found that prices rise significantly after private equity acquires a practice or operation. According to Sen, private equity firms have rolled up hundreds of small home health and home care chains into large companies like Comfort Keepers, Help at Home and Accentcare. Combined, private equity-owned companies offering home and community-based care services are second only in size to chains owned by insurers Humana and UnitedHealthcare, Sen found. Many acquisitions by private equity-owned chains have been in companies offering home and community-based services for people with physical, intellectual and developmental disabilities, Sen determined. Pediatric home care for children with disabilities is another area of interest as is the consumer self-directed care industry, PPL's focus. Private equity acquisitions are not always easy to track. PPL's website does not identify its owners, but a recent court ruling disclosed the two private equity firms that control it — DW Healthcare Partners of Toronto and Park City, UT, and Linden Capital Partners of Chicago. Although both the firms' websites list other companies they have invested in, neither lists PPL as an investment. After winning the New York State contract, PPL tried to keep its ownership secret. In a lawsuit filed last year against New York's Department of Health by a home care company over the transition to PPL, the company's private equity owners were identified in a document that PPL requested the judge keep under seal. If the information were made public, the company argued, it 'may put individuals in danger and/or allow them to become targets of violence.' Public disclosure would also increase the risk of 'unwanted attention and harassment,' PPL said. The company lost that battle and the document became public. Fitzgerald, PPL's spokeswoman, declined to elaborate on the company's desire for secrecy in its ownership. Neither DW Healthcare nor Linden Capital Partners responded to emails seeking comment for this story. PPL also objected to a 2024 Medicare rule affecting home care organizations. The rule mandated that at least 80% of Medicaid payments go to compensation for direct care workers, such as personal assistants, not a company's 'administrative overhead or profit.' Fitzgerald said the company's objections were not about worker compensation. Rather, she said, the company believed the rule would 'make it more difficult for states to initiate new self-directed programs and to maintain small self-directed programs.' Participants in the CDPAP program aren't the only ones experiencing upheaval in the transition to PPL. Recently, Vince Coppola, PPL's former chief executive, and Maria Perrin, its former president, departed unexpectedly. PPL has had three CEOs over the past five years, Fitzgerald said. Filling out forms for hours Tara Murphy said she enjoyed working as a personal assistant in the CDPAP program for 25 years. But when she tried to switch to PPL, she encountered multiple difficulties, she said. 'Their technology is so hard to navigate, it took me four and a half hours to fill out their forms,' she recalled. 'I uploaded them nine times before they were finally accepted in their system.' Murphy's hourly pay with PPL was 2% less than she had previously earned, she said, and she never received the correct pay under the new program. 'I ended up having to quit my job and leave my consumer,' she said. Rivera, the New York state senator, said he hopes to gain some answers from state officials on the PPL transition at the Aug. 21 hearings in New York City he co-sponsored with state Sen. James Skoufis. 'Last year, when it was pushed upon us in the budget process I said back then that I thought it was a bad idea,' Rivera said of the switch to PPL. 'Unfortunately, what I heard from my constituents is the transition was indeed bungled.' Meanwhile, Christian, the Buffalo mom who has lost five personal assistants since PPL took over, is especially worried about how it might impact her daughter. 'My daughter is 12 years old, she needs me here for her,' Christian told NBC News. 'If I have to go into a facility because I can't get care in my home, where is she going to go?'
Newsweek
5 days ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Faces Decision on LGBTQ+ Conversion Therapy
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments this fall in a case about whether it should uphold or overturn Colorado's ban on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy. Why It Matters More than 20 states have banned conversion therapy, the practice of trying to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling. The practice has drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ+ advocates and many medical professionals who say conversion therapy does not work, lacks a scientific basis and can impose harm on minors. The nation's highest court on Tuesday announced that it will hear arguments in the case Chiles v. Salazar on October 7, 2025. The ruling could have key implications for the legality of conversion therapy in the states that have banned the practice. It has drawn concerns within the community, as some are concerned that the conservative-leaning bench could require states to allow conversion therapy. What To Know The Supreme Court case focuses on Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado who challenged the state's law prohibiting the use of conversion therapy on minors. In a petition to the Supreme Court, her attorneys wrote that she is a "licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them." The petition raised a First Amendment argument, accusing Colorado of trying to ban "consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express." Proponents of the ban on conversion therapy point to statistics showing it can harm LGBTQ+ youth. A 2020 study from the Trevor Project found that minors who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to have reported suicide attempts and more than 2.5 times as likely to report multiple suicide attempts compared to those who did not. Supporters argue that the state has the authority to regulate health care services that put minors at risk. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Canva/Getty Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, argued in a filing that Court precedent "allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech." "The Court of Appeals engaged in a straightforward application of this precedent to hold that the First Amendment allows states to regulate the professional practice of conversion therapy, like other unsafe and ineffective health care treatments, to protect minor patients from substandard professional care," he wrote. Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi told Newsweek that the "Supreme Court's tea leaves seem to suggest that the Colorado law may be in peril." "That law proscribes alleged 'conversion therapy' by a professional counselor, whose sincere views are based on her Christian ideals and whose clients (adults and young people) actively seek her guidance because of their shared religious beliefs. To the Court, based on earlier cases, children are extremely vulnerable to the possible risks of such therapy and lack the maturity to accept or reject it," he said. However, the counselor argues that her First Amendment rights to "advise and assist her willing clients, who voluntarily wish to align their lives with their Christian faith, are unconstitutionally abridged by the broad state's law." "We shall see next year what the Court decides in this difficult case," Rossi said. Ryan Thoreson, a professor of law at the University of Cincinnati, told Newsweek he believes Colorado has strong arguments in favor of its ban, but that he is "skeptical this Court will uphold the state's conversion therapy ban in light of its recent First Amendment rulings." "The Roberts Court has been consistently solicitous toward free speech and religious exercise claims brought by conservative litigants, even when those claims undermine longstanding laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination and harm," he said. Colorado is likely to argue that it is "well-established that states can permissibly regulate the conduct of medical professionals, and can prohibit practices that fall below a certain standard of professional care." "And they can do so even when that conduct involves some amount of speech. While the state can't prevent private citizens from voicing their opinion that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed, they can prevent licensed medical professionals from trying to promote or facilitate that change as part of their practice, especially in light of a large body of evidence showing that conversion therapy is damaging to young LGBT people's mental health," Thoreson said. Chiles, meanwhile, is likely to argue the law censors her speech based on her views about sexual orientation and gender identity. Generally, if the state is censoring speech based on content, it must pass a "heavy burden" to prove a "compelling interest in limiting the speech" and that the regulation is the least speech-restrictive way of achieving its interest, Thoreson said. Colorado likely would not be the only state affected, according to Thoreson. "What the Supreme Court decides in this case could also have seismic repercussions for state regulation of medical speech more generally. A broad First Amendment right of medical providers to say or recommend whatever they like without professional or legislative oversight, even when there is clear evidence that doing so is harmful, could open the door to pseudoscience and junk science in both medical and physical health care settings," he said. Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy at the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Chiles, told Newsweek that children should not be "forced into one-size-fits-all options when they're looking for counseling help." "They deserve real support, not just state-approved talking points. Our client Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado, works with her clients who voluntarily come to her with their goals to talk through what they are facing. Struggling kids deserve better than Colorado's law that pushes them toward harmful drugs and surgeries," he said. Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, told Newsweek there is a "real risk that the outcome indeed may be here that the court strikes down a ban on conversion therapy for minors." "What we know from well established science and research is that there is no amount of talk or pressure that can make a gay person not gay, or a trans person not transgender," Levi said. "It's really important that licensed therapists don't abuse their position of trust to push an agenda that research has shown puts kids at high risk of suicide attempts and self harm." Levi said it is "always hard to anticipate the scope of the court's decision," but it is possible the ruling could have "quite significant" implications for other states that have banned the practice. Do Americans Support Conversion Therapy? A majority of Americans are opposed to conversion therapy, according to a poll from Data for Progress, which surveyed 1,155 likely voters from June 6 to June 8, 2025. Fifty-six percent of respondents said they agreed conversion therapy should be banned, while only 35 percent said they should be allowed to take place. Sixty-two percent of Democrats, 57 percent of independents and 49 percent of Republicans believed the practice should be banned. A December 2023 report from The Trevor Project found that there were 1,320 conversion therapy practitioners operating across the country, 605 of whom were operating under professional licenses. What Have Supreme Court Justices Said About Conversion Therapy? So far, at least one justice has signaled opposition to conversion therapy bans. After the court rejected a similar case out of Washington, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, writing, "There is a fierce public debate over how best to help minors with gender dysphoria. The petitioner, Brian Tingley, stands on one side of the divide. He believes that a person's sex is 'a gift from God, integral to our very being.'" Still, the court in 2023 rejected the challenge to a Washington law prohibiting conversion therapy. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the law was regulating mental health care, not the speech of the provider. The court's decision to reject that challenge left that ruling in place. In addition to Thomas, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the rejection and would have heard the case. What People Are Saying Casey Pick, director of Law and Policy at The Trevor Project, told Newsweek: "The law at the heart of this case protects young people in Colorado from dangerous, discredited practices that have been proven to cause harm and increase suicide risk. This common-sense, bipartisan state law was put in place to prevent licensed mental health professionals from using these abusive practices on Colorado's youth; it really is that simple. "This law is squarely focused on ensuring that providers with government-issued licenses do not abuse the trust placed in them to subject minors to practices that have been rejected by every medical and mental health association in the country. We know that proponents of so-called conversion 'therapy' are making every attempt to impose an ideologically driven agenda. However, we remain hopeful that the justices will side with reason, evidence, and expertise, and uphold this effort by Colorado lawmakers to protect the health and safety of young people." Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told Newsweek: "All who choose to live consistent with their biological sex are entitled to the help of counselors like Kaley as they work through that process. We hope the US Supreme Court will rule on the side of free speech and allow counselors like Kaley to work with her clients without the government mandating goals it prefers." Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, wrote in a statement in January: "In Colorado, we are committed to protecting professional standards of care so that no one suffers unscientific and harmful so-called gay conversion therapy. Colorado's judgment on this is the humane, smart, and appropriate policy and we're committed to defending." What Happens Next Oral arguments are set for October 7. The court has also been asked to weigh in on another major LGBTQ+ rights case. Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, has asked the court to revisit that ruling and overturn the national right to same-sex marriage. Legal experts told Newsweek that the case is a long shot, however.
