Colorado joins states supporting law against conversion therapy for minors
DENVER (KDVR) — Colorado on Wednesday joined a multistate coalition in a court brief defending a Michigan law prohibiting licensed health professionals from practicing conversion therapy on minors.
Conversion therapy, also known as sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, has been widely discredited as harmful and ineffective by leading health organizations, according to the Colorado Attorney General's Office.
'So-called conversion therapy is an inhumane and abusive practice overwhelmingly shown to harm young people,' said Attorney General Phil Weiser, in a statement.
'We won't tolerate it': Immigration lawyer, AG Weiser weigh in on Boulder attack
A group of Catholic therapists filed a federal lawsuit against the Michigan law last July, arguing the ban is a violation of the First Amendment. The lawsuit is currently in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Colorado, meanwhile, joined 18 other states and the District of Columbia in filing the brief in support of the Michigan law, arguing conversion therapy is 'not only ineffective and unsafe,' but also leads to increased risks of suicide, depression and other 'serious mental health issues.'
2 arrested after shooting near Coors Field on Monday night
'We have a compelling interest in protecting children from this dangerous pseudoscience. Colorado stands firmly with Michigan in protecting professional standards of care to prioritize the well-being of our youth,' Weiser said.
Colorado is currently one of 25 states that ban or restrict conversion therapy, according to the attorney general's office, which argues the Michigan ban is 'consistent with states' long history of establishing and regulating professional standards of care.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
NYS lawmakers set vote to make assisted suicide legal despite controversy
ALBANY – State lawmakers are 'likely' to pass a bill to legalize physician-assisted suicide next week –despite controversy over the legislation, the Senate Democratic leader said Thursday. The measure — which would allow people with six months or less to live to be prescribed a cocktail of drugs to end their lives — would be sent to Gov. Kathy Hochul's desk after approval by the state legislature in a vote that could come as soon as Monday. 'I do believe there are the votes and it is likely it will come to the floor,' Senate Democratic Majority Leader Stewart-Cousins told reporters. Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins (D-Westchester) said the Medical Aid in Dying Act will likely be brought up for a vote before the end of session next week. Hans Pennink 'Ultimately, the majority of the conference felt comfortable with providing options for people during difficult end of life times,' the Westchester County legislator said. A source familiar said the vote is likely to be scheduled for Monday and Stewart-Cousins' acknowledgement it is set for a vote indicates wide support in the Democratic caucus, which controls both houses of the legislature. Critics of the legislation – which include the Catholic church and disability rights groups, amongst others – argue the bill doesn't have adequate safeguards against abuse. 'We appreciate the Senator's desire to have a conversation about end of life care, but handing sick people a suicide cocktail is not compassion nor is it healthcare,' Bob Bellafiore, spokesperson for the New York State Catholic Conference told The Post. 'We know many Democratic senators have very deep reservations about this bill and they should be allowed to vote their conscience instead of toeing a party line,' he added. State Sen. Jessica Scarcella-Spanton, one of the Senators driving the effort to pass the bill, said the legislation is about 'honoring choice.' A source said Stewart-Cousins' acknowledgement the measure is set for a vote indicates wide support for it in the Democratic caucus. Hans Pennink 'Passing the Medical Aid in Dying Act affirms New Yorkers' right to make deeply personal end-of-life decisions. This legislation offers terminally ill individuals the autonomy to choose a peaceful and dignified passing, surrounded by loved ones,' Scarcella-Spanton said. 'It's about honoring choice, alleviating suffering, and treating people with the compassion they deserve. I'm proud to see that we have the support to get this landmark piece of legislation done,' Scarcella-Spanton added.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte. ___ Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
San Francisco Chronicle
10 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions," and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte.
