Colorado Law Bars Counselors From Helping Minors Align with Biological Sex
Colorado recently passed a law that bars counselors such as Kaley Chiles from helping minors who want to realign their thoughts and feelings with their biological sex. That ban applies even when a young person specifically asks for that style of counseling. For many families and clinicians this feels like a sudden, legalized cutoff of options.
Supporters say the law protects vulnerable youth from coercive practices and labels it a ban on conversion therapy. From a Republican standpoint, that argument ignores parental rights and professional judgement. It treats licensed therapists like agents of the state instead of partners in care.
For counselors, the practical fallout is immediate and chilling. Therapists now face the possibility of discipline or criminal penalties if their work aligns with a minor’s stated goal to reconnect with their biological sex. That risk steers clinicians away from frank conversations and reduces real choices for young people.
Parents who want therapeutic help to support a child reverting to or affirming their biological sex will find fewer safe options inside Colorado. Some will travel out of state, others will look to online groups or unregulated providers. The result is less oversight, not more safety.
Good mental health care is based on consent and goals set by the client and family, not by a one-size-fits-all statute. Forcing counselors to ignore a young person’s stated goal undermines trust and the therapy itself.
This law also raises serious questions about free speech and conscience rights for providers. When the state dictates what a therapist may or may not say, it crosses from regulation into content control. Conservatives worry that will set a broader precedent for managing private conversations.
Beyond legal theory, there are real harms to consider: teens who want help finding peace with their bodies may be pushed into underground spaces because mainstream professionals are blocked. Those spaces lack licensing, oversight, or the clinical safeguards families usually expect. It is easy to imagine fewer safety checks and more risky attempts at self-treatment.
Religious and faith-based counselors feel particularly exposed because many of their approaches tie directly to belief about sex and identity. A law that restricts counseling content can conflict with religious liberty and the right to act according to conscience. Court fights over that tension are likely.
Politically, this is emblematic of a larger split over cultural power and who gets to decide what counts as acceptable therapy for young people. Republicans see it as another example of state actors overriding parents and professionals. That frame will drive legislative and courtroom strategies in the months to come.
Expect legal challenges and legislative pushback from groups defending parental authority and therapist freedom. Lawmakers sympathetic to families will seek carve-outs or clearer protections for counselors who follow a client’s goals.
In the meantime, families must know their options and weigh risks when seeking help for children. Clinicians who value open dialogue will look for ways to document consent and protect both patient welfare and professional integrity. The debate will be fought in clinics, courtrooms, and statehouses alike.
Watch court dockets and the next legislative sessions; families and therapists will feel the consequences in plain view. The coming fights will determine whether private family choices remain free from broad government control.
