Get a free copy of Parental Rights & Education when you subscribe to our newsletter!
This case is the latest in a long line of challenges to “conversion therapy” bans designed to control and censor what mental health professionals are allowed to say about gender identity and sexuality.
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) have filed suit against the City of Kansas City and Jackson County, Missouri, for their ordinances that ban mental health professionals from encouraging clients to accept their biological sex or assisting them with unwanted same-sex attraction.
Kansas City passed its ordinance in 2019. The ordinance falsely claims that conversion therapy is proven to be harmful but that “affirming” approaches such as promoting gender transitions are proven to be beneficial. The ordinance prohibits conversion therapy but specifically exempts counseling that affirms a person’s gender dysphoria and counseling as part of a gender transition.
Jackson County’s ordinance is similar and was passed in 2023.
Each violation of the ordinances carries a fine of $1,000.
ADF represents two licensed counselors, Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenreich, who say that the ordinances interfere with their ability to operate according to their religious beliefs as well as their views on effective clinical approaches.
Bury and Eisenreich are both Christians. They seek to provide counseling services according to their faith. For example, they won’t counsel someone to identify as the opposite gender because they believe that sex is immutable, given by God. Many of their clients specifically seek them out because of their religious beliefs as the clients desire a counselor who understands their Christian faith and can help them live in accordance with those beliefs.
The suit states that clients are asked if they would like to integrate their faith into the counseling. If clients say no, the counselors do not talk about religion nor do they ever force their beliefs on clients.
The suit also notes that the counselors do not provide counseling unless the minor consents, meaning that parents are not able to force a child into counseling. If the minor doesn’t want counseling, the counselors do not provide it. The counselors also seek to help the child meet his or her goals, not help the child meet the parents’ goals.
Bury would like to expand his practice to aid children with gender and sexuality concerns, but he has not because the ordinance would stop him from providing counseling according to his religious beliefs and professional judgment.
Eisenreich has counseled many LGBT minors and frequently gets requests from parents with LGBT children, but she rarely agrees to counsel these children due to fear of fines and losing her practice because of the ordinances.
The suit argues that the ordinances violate the counselors’ right to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech by banning them from counseling minors to accept their biological sex or assist them with unwanted same-sex attraction, even if minors ask for this.
The suit also argues that the ordinances compel speech by requiring counselors to affirm gender confusion and gender transitions as the correct pathway.
Missouri states that it has an interest in protecting the First Amendment rights of psychological professionals and in protecting its sovereignty.
Missouri has a law, known as the SAFE Act, banning gender transitions in minors and argues that the ordinances not only stop professionals from providing care to help minors with gender confusion but compels them to act contrary to Missouri’s law.
The suit claims that the governments show clear bias in favor of gender ideology by exempting gender-affirming counseling from the ordinance and through statements made in opposition to Missouri’s law banning child gender transitions.
When Missouri passed the SAFE Act it did so because evidence shows that gender transitions are harmful to minors, yet Kansas City reacted to the SAFE Act by declaring itself a “Safe Haven for Gender-Affirming Healthcare through adoption of a Gender-Affirming Healthcare Policy.”
Councilwoman Andrea Bough, who co-sponsored the resolution, stated that it “protect[s] the sanctity of a family, an individual, and their ability to make decisions with their physician .… it leaves that decision with that child and their parents …. What this does is to say to our community that … we support the decisions that you are going to be making in private with your physicians.”
She continued, “it is not an issue politicians should be in, it should be an issue that is saved for families, their physicians, and a decision that politicians should not make.”
Bailey said in a series of posts on X, “We are suing Kansas City for forcing counselors to push a radical transgender ideology onto children. Our children have a right to therapy that allows for honest, unrestricted conversations, free from transgender indoctrination. We’re fighting back.”
He added, “No counselor should be forced to violate their conscience, and no child should be denied access to therapy that aligns with their values. Kansas City’s ordinance represents a dangerous overreach, forcing children and counselors to conform to a radical transgender agenda. That’s a major violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Missouri won’t allow the government to silence counselors or dictate how they serve their patients.”
Kansas City supports medical professionals, parents, and children making decisions for themselves — unless that decision is anything that differs from Kansas City’s preferred view. What the governments are trying to do is create a government-mandated orthodoxy that mental health professionals and physicians must parrot and practice.
That even includes pastors and religious-based counseling services. Jackson County rejected an exemption based on free speech and free exercise rights and County Legislator Manuel Abarca IV made it clear that the County was targeting religious groups.
Abarca claimed that conversion therapy was primarily conducted by religious or religious-adjacent groups. He also stated that most opposition to the ordinance came from segments of the Baptist church. He reasoned that the County rejected the exemption because “we felt that to have the most impact we [should] leave that out because we’re talking about a clinic practice…the reality that the church can do whatever they want however they want is just not true.”
This is far from a rare occurrence. The Biden administration attempted to eliminate “conversion therapy” worldwide, and more than 20 states control what mental health professionals can say to their clients.
Meanwhile, there is a split at the nation’s appellate level. The 9th Circuit upheld a Washington state law that bans such counseling, whereas the 11th Circuit ruled that Tampa Bay’s ban on conversion therapy violated the Constitution.
In January 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge to Washington’s law. In November ,the Court was again asked to take up a case challenging Colorado’s law.
The Supreme Court must rule on this issue.
It is important to cut through the misleading term “conversion therapy.” Under these laws, a licensed counselor or psychiatrist cannot counsel a person towards accepting their biological sex, even though studies show 98 percent of children will accept their biological sex if not pushed to transition.
These laws also stop a mental health professional from helping a person to deal with unwanted same-sex attraction even if the client is seeking to deal with these unwanted thoughts or feelings.
So let’s make this clear: These laws are mandating that mental health professionals aid a person in converting to another gender and seek to force a person to adopt an unwanted sexual orientation.
They aren’t conversion therapy bans; they are government commanded conversion therapy.
Such laws violate the First Amendment rights of mental health professionals, parents, and clients.
Numerous studies have shown that gender transitions harm children instead of help them. This isn’t the government seeking to help protect minors from kooky religious fanatics who keep them from pursuing medical care. These are kooky fanatics using the power of the state to uphold a fully discredited experiment that causes serious harm to children.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
Notifications
