House judiciary panel advances bill removing time limits for civil claims over conversion therapy

The House Judiciary Committee voted 7‑2 to advance House Bill 13‑22, which would eliminate the civil statute of limitations for people alleging harm from conversion therapy provided by licensed mental‑health professionals. Sponsors and survivors told the committee the change is intended to give victims more time to recognize harm and seek civil remedies.

Rep. Rob Valdez, a prime sponsor, told the committee the bill does not create a new cause of action or any criminal penalties and “gives people who have been harmed by conversion therapy more time to bring civil claim against licensed mental health practitioners.” He said the change reflects how trauma and shame often delay survivors’ recognition of harms.

Co‑sponsor Rep. Brad McCormick described the bill’s personal urgency, recounting a family story raised in testimony and noting Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy for minors. “This bill ensures that when licensed mental‑health professionals engage in practices that cause harm … survivors and families are not shut out of the legal system,” McCormick said.

Supporters — including the Trevor Project, Bread and Roses Legal Center, the Colorado Psychological Association and survivors who testified — cited research linking conversion practices to long‑term depression, anxiety and suicidality and argued the two‑year limitations period can prevent meaningful accountability. Gabby Doyle of the Trevor Project said the group’s research shows high rates of crisis among LGBTQ youth and urged passage so survivors “have the opportunity to hold conversion therapists accountable.”

Opponents ranged from parents and private counselors to constitutional‑rights groups. Christy Neely testified the bill “fails to draw a clear line” between harmful practices and ordinary counseling and warned that eliminating time limits could create “open‑ended liability” that chills therapists from taking clients. Other critics asked whether the bill reaches conduct that predates Colorado’s 2019 ban and raised concerns about burdens on defendants and potential litigation by estates.

Sponsors and legal advocates responded that the bill is narrowly written to apply to licensed providers and that it includes provisions addressing older claims and evidentiary standards; the Colorado Center on Law and Policy and other supporters said the bill limits reopening of time‑barred suits prior to a fixed effective date.

On a procedural motion the committee moved the bill to the committee of the whole with a favorable recommendation. The committee recorded the 7‑2 vote and the bill will next go to the full House committee of the whole for further consideration.

The committee hearing included multiple panels of two‑minute witness statements, and committee members pressed sponsors for specific language clarifications; no amendments were offered at the hearing. Advocates said a Supreme Court case (Charles v. Salazar) challenging Colorado’s underlying ban was a reason to add civil‑remedy options that do not rely solely on regulatory enforcement.

What’s next: HB 13‑22 now advances to the committee of the whole. If it clears that stage it will return to the House floor for debate and a final vote.