Conversion Therapy Ban: Andy Beshear’s Stance Explained
Governor Andy Beshear of Kentucky has taken a clear and firm position against conversion therapy, the discredited practice that attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity through psychological or spiritual interventions. His stance represents a significant moment in the ongoing national debate about LGBTQ+ rights, mental health ethics, and the role of government in protecting vulnerable populations, particularly minors who cannot consent to such treatments.
Conversion therapy, also known as “reparative therapy” or “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE), has been condemned by major medical and mental health organizations worldwide. Despite this scientific consensus, the practice continues in various forms across the United States. Beshear’s position on this issue reflects broader concerns about protecting children from harmful practices while respecting individual freedoms and parental rights—a complex balance that many states are still navigating.
Understanding Conversion Therapy and Its Harms
Conversion therapy encompasses a range of psychological and spiritual interventions designed to change sexual orientation or gender identity. These practices include talk therapy, aversion therapy, religious counseling, and in some cases, more extreme measures. The fundamental premise of conversion therapy—that non-heterosexual orientations or transgender identities are disorders requiring treatment—contradicts decades of scientific research and professional consensus.
The American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and numerous other professional organizations have issued statements condemning conversion therapy. Research demonstrates that these practices do not work and cause significant psychological harm. Studies show that individuals subjected to conversion therapy experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and substance abuse. The trauma associated with these interventions can persist for years or even a lifetime, affecting mental health, relationships, and overall quality of life.
Young people are particularly vulnerable to conversion therapy because they may lack autonomy in choosing their treatment. Parents or guardians may initiate these interventions based on religious beliefs or personal discomfort with their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This power dynamic raises critical ethical questions about consent, bodily autonomy, and the appropriate limits of parental authority. Many advocates argue that protecting minors from conversion therapy is a fundamental human rights issue, similar to protecting children from other forms of abuse or harmful medical practices.
The psychological mechanisms underlying conversion therapy’s harm are well-documented. These practices often involve shame, guilt, and rejection—emotions that damage self-esteem and create internalized homophobia or transphobia. Young people subjected to conversion therapy may develop profound distrust of mental health professionals, making it difficult for them to seek legitimate therapeutic support for actual mental health concerns like depression or anxiety.
Andy Beshear’s Political Position and Actions
Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat who has served as Kentucky’s governor since 2019, has been vocal about his opposition to conversion therapy. His position aligns with the therapeutic resources and evidence-based mental health approaches that reject harmful practices. Beshear has publicly stated that conversion therapy is ineffective and damaging, and he has indicated support for legislative measures to ban the practice.
However, Beshear’s efforts to ban conversion therapy in Kentucky have faced significant political obstacles. The state legislature, which has a Republican majority, has been resistant to such legislation. This dynamic reflects broader partisan divisions over LGBTQ+ issues in American politics. While Democratic-led states have generally moved toward banning conversion therapy, Republican-controlled legislatures have been more hesitant, often citing religious freedom concerns and parental rights arguments.
Beshear’s approach has involved both public advocacy and behind-the-scenes political work. He has spoken out against conversion therapy in interviews and public statements, framing it as a matter of protecting vulnerable youth. Additionally, his administration has likely worked with legislative allies to explore pathways for passing conversion therapy bans, though the political reality of Kentucky’s conservative legislature has limited the feasibility of such measures. The governor’s stance demonstrates a commitment to LGBTQ+ rights even in a state where such positions face considerable political resistance.
The governor’s position also reflects his broader approach to LGBTQ+ issues. Beshear has supported other measures related to LGBTQ+ rights and has attempted to position himself as a moderate Democrat who can work across party lines on certain issues. However, his conversion therapy position remains more controversial in Kentucky’s political context than it might be in more liberal-leaning states.
Kentucky’s Legislative Landscape
Kentucky’s political environment presents unique challenges for LGBTQ+ rights legislation. The state has a strong Republican majority in both chambers of the legislature, and many lawmakers represent conservative constituencies with significant religious populations. This political composition has made it difficult to pass progressive legislation on LGBTQ+ issues, including conversion therapy bans.
Prior to any potential conversion therapy ban, Kentucky would need to navigate complex legislative processes and overcome objections from various stakeholder groups. Religious organizations and conservative advocacy groups have been vocal in opposing conversion therapy bans, arguing that such legislation infringes on religious freedom and parental rights. These arguments have resonated with many Kentucky lawmakers who represent districts where religious conservatism is politically influential.
The state does have some protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in certain contexts. However, Kentucky lacks comprehensive anti-discrimination protections in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This broader legislative environment suggests that passing a conversion therapy ban would require significant political mobilization and coalition-building.
Some observers have suggested that a conversion therapy ban focused specifically on protecting minors—rather than restricting adult access to such services—might have a better chance of passage. This narrower approach could potentially appeal to some moderate Republicans who support protecting children while maintaining concerns about religious freedom and parental rights. However, even this more limited approach has not yet succeeded in the Kentucky legislature.
Medical and Mental Health Community Response
The medical and mental health community’s position on conversion therapy is unequivocal and science-based. Major organizations representing physicians, psychologists, counselors, and other mental health professionals have issued clear statements opposing conversion therapy. According to research published by the American Psychological Association, conversion therapy is ineffective at changing sexual orientation or gender identity, and it causes documented harm to individuals subjected to it.
Professional ethics codes require mental health providers to avoid causing harm to their clients. This ethical principle directly contradicts the practice of conversion therapy. Mental health professionals who engage in conversion therapy risk disciplinary action from their licensing boards and professional organizations. Many states have implemented regulations specifically prohibiting licensed mental health professionals from providing conversion therapy to minors, even if they are not explicitly banned by state law.
Research on conversion therapy outcomes has consistently demonstrated negative results. A comprehensive review of the research literature shows that conversion therapy does not achieve its stated goals of changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Instead, it produces psychological distress, including depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and trauma symptoms. Some individuals subjected to conversion therapy develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) similar to that experienced by survivors of other forms of abuse.
The medical community’s opposition to conversion therapy is based on the understanding that sexual orientation and gender identity are not disorders requiring treatment. Rather, they are natural variations of human sexuality and gender expression. This perspective represents a fundamental shift from earlier, discredited theories that pathologized non-heterosexual orientations and non-cisgender identities. Modern medicine and psychology recognize that the appropriate clinical response to LGBTQ+ individuals is affirmative support and acceptance, not attempts to change their fundamental identities.
Religious and Conservative Arguments
Opponents of conversion therapy bans often frame their arguments in terms of religious freedom and parental rights. Some religious traditions teach that same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria is sinful or contrary to religious teachings. From this perspective, parents may feel obligated by their faith to seek therapeutic interventions to help their children align with their religious beliefs. Religious liberty advocates argue that conversion therapy bans infringe on the rights of religious families to make decisions consistent with their faith traditions.
Parental rights arguments suggest that parents should have broad authority to make decisions about their children’s upbringing, including choices about medical and psychological interventions. This perspective emphasizes parental autonomy and skepticism about government involvement in family decision-making. Some argue that conversion therapy bans represent government overreach into family matters and parental prerogatives.
However, these arguments face significant counterarguments. First, parental rights are not absolute and have limits when children’s welfare is at stake. Society recognizes that parents cannot subject children to abuse, dangerous medical procedures, or harmful practices, even if motivated by sincere religious beliefs. Second, the harm caused by conversion therapy is well-documented and severe. Protecting children from documented harm is a legitimate government interest that can override parental autonomy in certain contexts.
Additionally, the religious freedom argument becomes more complicated when examining the actual outcomes of conversion therapy. If the practice is ineffective at achieving its stated goals, then it cannot be justified as a legitimate expression of parental authority or religious practice. It becomes simply a harmful practice lacking any valid purpose. Furthermore, many religious individuals and organizations support conversion therapy bans, demonstrating that opposition to the practice is not inherently anti-religious.
Impact on LGBTQ+ Youth and Families
The real-world impact of conversion therapy on LGBTQ+ youth is profound and well-documented. Young people subjected to conversion therapy often experience significant psychological distress, damaged self-worth, and complicated relationships with their families and faith communities. The experience of having one’s fundamental identity rejected by parents, religious leaders, or mental health professionals can create lasting trauma.
LGBTQ+ youth already face elevated rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation compared to their heterosexual and cisgender peers. Conversion therapy exacerbates these mental health challenges. Research shows that LGBTQ+ youth who experience conversion therapy have significantly higher suicide attempt rates than those who do not. This connection between conversion therapy and suicidal behavior represents one of the most compelling arguments for legal bans protecting minors.
Families of LGBTQ+ youth also experience significant stress and conflict when conversion therapy enters the picture. Parents may be recruited into conversion therapy frameworks that teach them to view their child’s sexual orientation or gender identity as a problem requiring intervention. This can strain parent-child relationships and create family dysfunction. Conversely, families that receive affirming support and therapy for family attachment challenges tend to have better outcomes and stronger relationships.
The experience of conversion therapy can also interfere with LGBTQ+ youth’s ability to develop healthy identities and relationships. Young people who internalize shame and rejection messages about their sexual orientation or gender identity may struggle to form healthy romantic relationships, maintain self-esteem, and achieve academic or professional success. The long-term developmental impacts of conversion therapy exposure extend well into adulthood.
Comparison with Other States
Across the United States, states have taken varying approaches to conversion therapy. As of recent years, more than twenty states have implemented bans on conversion therapy for minors. These bans typically apply to licensed mental health professionals and prohibit conversion therapy as a treatment for minors, while sometimes allowing continued access for adults who can consent. States including California, New York, Illinois, and many others have passed such legislation.
The legislative approaches vary in scope and enforcement mechanisms. Some states include specific language defining conversion therapy, while others rely on broader language prohibiting harmful or unethical practices. Penalties for violations range from professional license suspension or revocation to civil liability. Some states have also implemented criminal penalties, though these are less common.
States without explicit conversion therapy bans sometimes rely on professional licensing board regulations to prevent the practice. State psychology boards and counselor licensing boards can discipline licensed professionals who engage in conversion therapy, even without specific statutory bans. This regulatory approach provides some protection but may be less comprehensive than legislative bans.
Red states and blue states have diverged significantly on conversion therapy bans. States with Democratic legislatures have generally moved toward bans more readily, while states with Republican majorities have been more resistant. However, some Republican-controlled states have passed bans, suggesting that the issue can transcend strict partisan lines when framed appropriately around child protection rather than LGBTQ+ rights generally.
Kentucky’s position relative to other states reflects its political composition and regional culture. Neighboring states have taken different approaches—some have bans while others do not. This patchwork of state-level approaches creates inconsistent protections for LGBTQ+ youth across the country. Governor Beshear’s support for a conversion therapy ban would align Kentucky with states that have prioritized protecting minors from this harmful practice, though achieving this goal requires navigating the state’s particular political landscape.
The comparison also reveals that conversion therapy bans do not eliminate parental rights or religious freedom protections. States with bans still recognize parental authority in many contexts and maintain religious liberty protections. These bans specifically target a harmful practice while preserving broader parental and religious freedoms. This demonstrates that conversion therapy bans represent a measured approach that balances child protection with other important values.
International perspectives also inform this debate. Many countries have banned or heavily restricted conversion therapy, including Canada, Brazil, and several European nations. These international bans provide additional evidence that protecting minors from conversion therapy is compatible with respecting religious freedom and parental rights. The scientific consensus against conversion therapy is truly global, transcending national boundaries and different legal and cultural systems.
FAQ
What exactly is conversion therapy?
Conversion therapy, also called reparative therapy or sexual orientation change efforts, refers to attempts to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity through psychological, spiritual, or behavioral interventions. These may include talk therapy, religious counseling, aversion techniques, or other methods based on the false premise that non-heterosexual orientations or transgender identities are disorders requiring treatment.
Why do major medical organizations oppose conversion therapy?
Major medical and mental health organizations, including the American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, and American Psychiatric Association, oppose conversion therapy because scientific research demonstrates it is ineffective at changing sexual orientation or gender identity and causes documented psychological harm including depression, anxiety, and increased suicide risk.
What is Governor Beshear’s specific stance on conversion therapy?
Governor Andy Beshear has publicly opposed conversion therapy and indicated support for legislative measures to ban the practice. However, Kentucky’s Republican-controlled legislature has not yet passed such legislation, limiting the governor’s ability to implement a statewide ban through executive action alone.
How many states have banned conversion therapy?
More than twenty states have implemented bans on conversion therapy for minors, with varying specific provisions and enforcement mechanisms. These bans typically apply to licensed mental health professionals and prohibit the practice for minors while sometimes allowing it for consenting adults.
Are conversion therapy bans constitutional?
Courts have generally upheld conversion therapy bans as constitutional. These bans have been challenged on religious freedom and parental rights grounds but have survived legal scrutiny. Courts have recognized that protecting minors from documented harm is a legitimate government interest that can restrict certain practices, even those motivated by religious beliefs.
What is the connection between conversion therapy and suicide risk?
Research shows that LGBTQ+ youth subjected to conversion therapy have significantly higher suicide attempt rates than peers who do not experience such interventions. The shame, rejection, and psychological distress caused by conversion therapy contribute to elevated mental health risks including suicidal ideation and attempts.
How does conversion therapy differ from affirmative therapy?
Affirmative therapy, supported by major mental health organizations, accepts and affirms a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity while addressing any actual mental health concerns like depression or anxiety. In contrast, conversion therapy attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity based on the false premise that they are disorders. Legitimate therapeutic approaches focus on supporting overall wellbeing rather than changing fundamental aspects of identity.
Can parents still make decisions about their children’s mental health care if conversion therapy is banned?
Yes. Conversion therapy bans specifically prohibit this one harmful practice while preserving parental authority in most other healthcare decisions. Parents can still make decisions about their children’s treatment for actual mental health conditions, education, and other aspects of upbringing. Bans simply prevent this specific harmful intervention.
What resources are available for people who experienced conversion therapy?
Organizations like The Trevor Project, PFLAG, and various LGBTQ+ mental health organizations provide support and resources for individuals who experienced conversion therapy. Many offer counseling services, support groups, and educational materials. Additionally, affirming mental health professionals can help individuals process trauma and develop healthy identities. Resources like finding appropriate mental health services near you can help locate supportive providers.
What is the international perspective on conversion therapy?
Many countries have banned or heavily restricted conversion therapy, including Canada, Brazil, and numerous European nations. The World Health Organization does not classify sexual orientation or gender identity as disorders, reflecting global medical consensus that conversion therapy is inappropriate and harmful. This international alignment strengthens the argument for American states to implement similar protections.
