Virginia’s anti-LGBTQ+ Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) vetoed a bill seeking to ban health and life insurance companies from discriminating against people taking the HIV prevention drug regemin PrEP.
H.B. 2769 amends the current insurance anti-discrimination law by explicitly stating a company cannot “Refuse to insure, refuse to continue to insure, or limit the amount or extent of life insurance or accident and sickness insurance coverage available to an individual or charge an individual a different rate for the same coverage based solely and without any additional actuarial risks upon the status of such individual as having received pre-exposure prophylaxis for the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus”.
Both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly have Democratic majorities. The bill passed the state Senate 24-15 and the House of Delegates 53 to 44. The veto was one of 157 bills the governor vetoed on Monday as part of what the Virginia Mercury called his “veto storm to drown progressive legislation.”
He also vetoed a bill that would have incrementally raised the minimum wage to $15 per hour and one that sought to expand voter turnout by making state and local elections at the same time as the presidential primary during election years.
Youngkin did, however, sign a landmark campaign finance reform bill that passed with bipartisan support. H.B. 2165 bans personal use of campaign funds.
Youngkin has supported numerous policies attacking LGBTQ+ students under the guise of so-called “parents’ rights” in education. His policies for trans youth in schools include the forced misgendering or deadnaming of kids who don’t have parents’ permission, allowing youth to “opt-out” of being near trans kids in gendered spaces, and forced outing of trans kids to their parents.
In an October 2021 interview with the Associated Press, Youngkin said he didn’t personally support same-sex marriage. In 2024, however, he signed a bill codifying same-sex marriage in the Commonwealth.
Senate Bill 516, filed by Sen. Vickie Sawyer from Iredell County and Sen. Brad Overcash from Gaston County, would require transgender individuals to use the bathroom or locker room of their biological sex in public schools and prisons.
However, the bathroom rules aren’t as extensive as House Bill 2. Some institutions that receive government funding, such as domestic violence shelters, would be impacted, but many government buildings would be exempt. It would also allow individuals to sue facilities if they believe these rules have been violated.
Senate Bill 516 also goes a step further, defining sex strictly as male and female and preventing individuals from changing their birth certificates or driver’s licenses after gender reassignment surgery.
The controversial 2016 bill, House Bill 2 was often referred to as the “bathroom bill.” However, former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory said that was a misleading description that he hopes is changed this time around.
“It’s much more complex than that. We’re dealing with locker rooms and showers and women’s sports and fairness and even security regarding what your driver’s licenses say,” McCrory said. “It’s a very complex issue. It’s a very emotional issue.”
McCrory acknowledged that many cite this controversy as the reason he narrowly lost his reelection campaign in 2016. It put North Carolina in the national spotlight due to the nationwide boycotts that followed, leading to an estimated $3.76 billion in economic losses. The law was partially repealed after a letter signed by more than 200 CEOs pushing for the change.
In the time since, many other states have passed similar legislation without such sweeping boycotts. McCrory said the companies owe North Carolina an apology.
“PayPal, Bruce Springsteen, Ringo Starr, you name it. And frankly, I think a lot of them owe North Carolina an apology,” McCrory said. “I don’t think corporations are ever going to get involved in this issue again, because public opinion now has turned, although it is still an extremely complex issue, and we ought to have good dialogue on it.”
Critics still worry this bill will cause an uptick in discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, especially transgender youth.
Time Out Youth, a Charlotte-area nonprofit that provides support for LGBTQ+ kids and young adults including housing and mental health counseling, says it’s already seeing a steep increase in need.
“We saw more new young people last month than we’d seen all of the previous year in one month,” spokesperson Elissa Miller said.
While they are not able to comment on this specific bill, Miller says this is a reminder of what transgender youth are facing right now.
“Being a queer young person right now is very difficult,” she said. “Their very identities are kind of under debate, in the spotlight. Decisions are being made about them, without them.”
Equality NC also sent WCNC Charlotte a statement, saying in part: “We were disheartened to learn of yet another attack on our transgender community — this time in the form of SB 516.”
McCrory says he expects this version of the bill to face less scrutiny and hopes the people on both sides of the debate can avoid it as well.
“My family and I got a lot of physical and verbal threats during that three-month period, and it was not right, and I wanted to have good conversation,” he said. “It’s not time for anyone to spike the ball saying we were right 10 years ago. It’s time for respect and dignity.”
The bill’s sponsors did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 201-166 today to advance a bill that would strip rights of LGBTQ+ residents of the Granite State, with particular harm to transgender people.
HB 148 would roll back some of the gender discrimination protections passed in 2018, opening the door to discrimination in public spaces, including bathrooms. The bills now move to the Senate. In 2018, New Hampshire became the first U.S. state to pass an update to its anti-discrimination law to include transgender people through a fully Republican-controlled House, Senate, and Governor’s office. A bill similar to HB 148 ( HB 396 ) to roll back gender discrimination protections was vetoed by Governor Sununu last year.
Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights, public education, and child welfare issued the following statements:
Linds Jakows, founder of 603 Equality, said: Make no mistake: The majority of New Hampshire state representatives said loud and clear today that they intend to use the law to keep transgender and gender non-conforming people out of public life. This was never about bathrooms or parental rights. It is about using the power of the state to deny basic freedoms and control our bodies and lives. Transgender and gender non-conforming people are powerful and loved, and the overwhelming majority of witnesses and New Hampshire residents who signed to oppose these bills will continue to fight for freedom and safety.
Heidi Carrington Heath, executive director of NH Outright, said: LGBTQ+ youth in New Hampshire have the right to access all the spaces and places they need to thrive. They deserve to hear loud and clear from government that they are valued citizens of the Granite State. Transgender youth are a deeply vulnerable population, and today’s vote on HB148 only causes them further harm. This is not the way to live free or die. To our LGBTQ+ youth, especially transgender youth, we will continue to fight and work for a New Hampshire that reflects their inherent worth and dignity.
Chris Erchull, senior staff attorney at GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD Law), said: “ It is disheartening that members of the House of Representatives voted to strip away important protections for the Granite State’s LGBTQ+ community, especially for transgender residents, who are our friends, neighbors, and coworkers. Senators should reject this mean-spirited bill, which is part of a broader effort by local and national governments to prevent transgender people from simply being able to go about their daily lives. Lawmakers should work to improve the lives of all New Hampshire residents instead of passing an unnecessary law that discriminates against already vulnerable people and makes them even more unsafe. Respecting New Hampshire’s values of liberty and justice means we cannot tolerate any legislation that attacks people simply for who they are and declares them unworthy of protections from discrimination.”
Courtney Reed, policy advocate for the ACLU of New Hampshire, said: “ It is unacceptable to allow discrimination against LGBTQ+ people in New Hampshire legislation, but that is precisely what HB 148 would do. We urge the Senate to oppose this dangerous bill, which would undermine the right to equal protection under the law for transgender people. Our state has a proud tradition of respecting the rights of LGBTQ+ people, and it is time to make that clear once again.”
Devan Quinn, policy director for the New Hampshire Women’s Foundation , said, “Transgender, non-binary, and intersex people deserve equal treatment in schools, sports, correctional facilities, and every other aspect of public life. These laws will roll back the progress New Hampshire has made in recognizing transgender people in anti-discrimination legislation. Transgender women are women, and trans girls are girls. Like all women and girls, they deserve fair treatment in every aspect of their lives.”
Louise Spencer, Kent Street Coalition , said, “Transgender, non-binary, and intersex people are residents of the Granite State and deserve the same rights, freedom, and opportunities as anyone else here in the Live Free or Die state. For a majority of lawmakers to vote for a bill that denies our neighbors, friends, and families equality under the law is a betrayal not only of what New Hampshire stands for, but more importantly, a betrayal of the people and communities who deserve our unconditional support and respect. We urge the Senate to oppose this bill, which violates the humanity and dignity of LGBTQ+ people.”
A bill introduced by Republican lawmakers in Arkansas aims to intimidate anyone who supports or affirms young people’s social transition.
Earlier this month, Arkansas state Rep. Mary Bentley (R) introduced H.B. 1668, the “Vulnerable Youth Protection Act,” and Republican state Sen. Alan Clark introduced the Senate version. As the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas and local advocacy group Intransitive note, the anti-trans bill does not actually criminalize anything. Arkansas law banning gender-affirming care for minors was already struck down by a federal judge in 2023.
Instead, H.B. 1668 “weaponizes civil enforcement by permitting lawsuits against any person who supports trans young people by providing or helping to receive gender-affirming care or by affirming young people in their transition,” according to the ACLU of Arkansas. Minors or their parents can sue for minimum damages of $10,000 and up to $10 million in punitive damages for certain forms of medical care. The bill also allows Arkansas parents to sue people or medical providers outside of the state who help Arkansas youth access gender-affirming care.
Sadly, in 2025, state laws aimed at preventing minors from receiving gender-affirming healthcare — which every major American medical association has long been endorsed as evidence-based, safe, and in some cases lifesaving for trans and gender-nonconforming youth — are nothing new. But Arkansas’s proposed law goes an alarming step further in targeting anyone who might support or affirm a young person’s social transition.
The bill defines social transitioning as “any act by which a minor adopts or espouses a gender identity that differs from the minor’s biological sex … including without limitation changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name.”
As the ACLU of Arkansas notes, if enacted, H.B. 1668 could lead to frivolous lawsuits against “hairdressers who cut a trans teen’s hair, teachers who use a student’s chosen name, and nonprofits that offer support.” Such lawsuits, the organization says, would be unlikely to hold up in court, as the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech and free expression.
However, the law is clearly meant to chill support for trans and gender-nonconforming young people with the threat of costly lawsuits. Describing the bill as “state-mandated bullying,” the ACLU of Arkansas writes that “H.B. 1668 fosters a climate of fear, where doctors, teachers, and even parents risk financial ruin simply for supporting transgender youth. It is a blatant overreach of government power, attempting to control private decisions and to circumvent our constitutional rights, including free speech, religious exercise, due process, and equal protection.”
During a Tuesday, March 18, hearing before the Arkansas House Judiciary Committee, a representative from the state attorney general’s office expressed concern that, as written, H.B. 1668 could not be legally defended, citing the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
“Particularly as it comes to the conduct that other individuals are allowed to have towards minors that can be deemed to be aiding in their social transitioning — things like a haircut, even clothing, or even the use of pronouns,” he said, “That’s all speech. And so our concern there is that when you are criminalizing or, in this case, providing a civil cause of action for certain forms of speech, that has to pass a very, very high constitutional bar, and we have to be able to defend that in court. And we think of this bill as it currently is, we can’t do that.”
Ohio’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors is unconstitutional and should be tossed out, an appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The three-judge panel on the Tenth District Court of Appeals overturned a decision by a Franklin County judge that allowed the law to take effect last year. The GOP-controlled Legislature voted in early 2024 to override Gov. Mike DeWine’s veto of House Bill 68, but advocates quickly sued on behalf of two transgender girls and their families.
“It is difficult to understand why our legislature believes adults are equipped to make decisions about gender-affirming medical care for themselves but not for their minor children,” Judge Carly Edelstein wrote in the decision.
House Bill 68 prevents doctors from prescribing hormones, puberty blockers or gender reassignment surgery before patients turn 18. It also bans transgender girls and women from playing on female school sports teams, although the lawsuit didn’t target that piece of it.
The law allows Ohioans younger than 18 who already receive hormones or puberty blockers to continue, as long as doctors determine stopping the prescription would cause harm. It does not ban talk therapy, but mental health providers must get permission from at least one parent or guardian to diagnose and treat gender dysphoria.
The American Civil Liberties Union argued the law violates the right of transgender Ohioans to choose their health care under the Ohio Constitution.
“The state’s ban is discriminatory, baseless and a danger to the well-being of the same Ohioan youth lawmakers claim to want to protect,” said Harper Seldin, an attorney for the ACLU. “It’s also part of a sweeping effort to drive trans people out of public life altogether by controlling our health care, our families and our lives.”
Republican Attorney General Dave Yost, who is running for governor in 2026, pledged to appeal the decision.
*This is being reported by the Dallas Voice. A response by the Texas House LGBTQ Caucus is here.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ramped up his war on transgender Texans yet another notch today (Friday, March 14), issuing a “legal opinion” declaring that state district courts do not have the judicial authority to order governmental agencies to change the gender markers on a trans person’s government-issued identification documents to reflect their actual gender identity rather than their gender assigned at birth.
Paxton also instructed state agencies to “immediately correct any unlawfully altered driver’s licenses or birth certificates that were changed pursuant to such orders.”
Paxton’s “opinion” was issued in response to a request made last September by the Texas Department of Public safety, the state agency which issues driver’s licenses in this state. A summary of the “opinion” reads:
“The ‘judicial power’ endowed to district courts does not countenance ex parte orders directing state agencies to amend a person’s biological sex on driver’s licenses or birth certificates. The underlying proceedings are coram non judice, and the resulting orders are void. State agencies must immediately correct any unlawfully altered driver’s licenses or birth certificates that were changed pursuant to such orders.”
(Ex parte means “on one side only; by or for one party.” Coram non judice means “not before a judge,” or “before one not a judge.”)
What Paxton is saying, Skeen explained, is that courts have been issuing orders directing state agencies to change gender markers on official documents such as birth certificates and driver’s licenses “without the agency being a part of the case.”
But, she added, “Courts have the authority to issue court orders based on what they find given the facts in any given case. The state doesn’t need to be party to that case.”
Skeen continued, “A court order is part of what the judiciary gets to do — interpret the law. The legislature makes the law, and the executive branch [of which Paxton is a part in Texas] is supposed to enforce the law. When a court issues an order, that order [applies to] the executive branch, and that order is entitled to full faith and credit under the U.S. Constitution.”
That means, basically, that Texas is required to honor court orders issued in other states, with a very few exceptions.
“We know the attorney general’s opinion is non-binding. But we also know state agencies will try to comply with it. Nevertheless, his opinion — in my opinion — is wrong. He is choosing to issue a non-binding opinion that is contrary to many legal doctrines, including separation of powers.” Shelly Skeen, Lambda Legal South Central Region director
“We know the attorney general’s opinion is non-binding. But we also know state agencies will try to comply with it,” Skeen said. “Nevertheless, his opinion — in my opinion — is wrong. He is choosing to issue a nonbinding opinion that is contrary to many legal doctrines, including separation of powers.”
Ash Hall, policy and advocacy strategist on LGBTQIA+ rights for the ACLU of Texas, said in a written statement, “We condemn Ken Paxton’s misuse of his office to repeatedly target transgender Texans. Attorney general opinions are non-binding and cannot supersede court orders. State agencies have no authority to retroactively change anyone’s valid legal documents.
“If state agencies attempt to implement this non-binding opinion, it would be an unlawful waste of resources that will not hold up in court nor stand the test of time,” Hall said. “We should all have identity documents that match who we are as a matter of basic safety and Paxton cannot erase transgender Texans’ right to exist.”
“We condemn Ken Paxton’s misuse of his office to repeatedly target transgender Texans … State agencies have no authority to retroactively change anyone’s valid legal documents.” Ash Hall, policy and advocacy strategist on LGBTQIA+ rights for the ACLU of Texas
An ACLU of Texas spokesperson added that there “not much more we can comment on beyond that yet since we don’t know how they plan to enforce this.”
Skeen said that anyone who finds their government-issued IDs have been or are being changed should contact the Lambda Legal Help Desk or the ACLU of Texas as soon as possible. She also stressed that legal challenges are already moving through the courts, including Fowler et al v. Stitt et al which is currently pending before the U.S Supreme Court.
According to the website, Lambda Legal filed that lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on behalf of three transgender people born in Oklahoma — Rowan Fowler, Allister Hall and one plaintiff identified by his initials C.R. — after Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt issued an executive order in late 2021 that other state officials have invoked in denying transgender people’s applications to correct their birth certificates. That order is a reversal of prior policy, which had permitted such corrections for years, the lawsuit says, arguing that the government’s actions violate equal protection, privacy and liberty under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and that forcing transgender people through their birth certificates to identify with a sex that conflicts with who they are violates their free speech rights under the First Amendment.
Kentucky state Representative David Hale, a Republican, has introduced legislation aimed at overturning a 2024 executive order issued by Democratic Governor Andy Beshear that bans conversion therapy. This controversial practice, which attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, has been widely discredited by medical and psychological experts. Despite numerous opponents testifying against Hale’s bill, the lawmaker insists that his research supports the need for the legislation, although he declined to disclose the organizations that helped him draft the bill.
Governor Beshear’s Executive Order and Its Impact
In September 2024, Governor Beshear signed an executive order that outlaws conversion therapy for minors in Kentucky. The executive order not only prohibits state-funded programs from supporting the practice, but it also calls for licensing boards for counselors to consider disciplinary action against those who engage in conversion therapy. Beshear’s order aims to protect minors from a practice that has been shown to have detrimental effects on mental health.
At the time of signing the order, Beshear emphasized that conversion therapy “has no basis in medicine or science” and cited research linking the practice to increased rates of suicide and depression. “This is about doing what is right and protecting our children,” Beshear said in a statement. “Hate is not who we are as Kentuckians.”
Hale’s Proposed Bill and its Justifications
On February 15, 2025, Hale introduced House Bill 495, a measure designed to reverse Beshear’s executive order. Hale, who is known for his conservative stances, argues that his bill would protect counselors, therapists, and pastors who offer conversion therapy from government interference. He insists that parents should have the right to seek therapy that aligns with their beliefs and the needs of their children.
During a committee meeting, Hale claimed that his bill would protect mental health providers offering “therapy to relieve discomfort or distress caused by an individual’s sex or romantic or sexual attraction.” He further added that the bill would also safeguard practitioners who offer other forms of therapy, including pro-LGBTQ or gender-affirming care. Despite the claims, Hale did not specify which organizations assisted in drafting the bill’s language.
The bill, which was approved in a 15-4 party-line vote by the committee’s Republican members, is now one step closer to being debated by the full Kentucky legislature. Some Republicans on the committee argued that the bill would ensure mental health professionals could offer care that respects both LGBTQ+ individuals and those seeking therapy to change their sexual orientation.
Opposition Voices and Concerns
Numerous witnesses spoke out against Hale’s bill, citing the harm caused by conversion therapy and the damage it can do to vulnerable individuals. Eric Russ, a licensed clinical psychologist and executive director of the Kentucky Psychological Association, testified that the bill “directly threatens the trust between a mental health provider and our clients” by legitimizing practices that are widely considered harmful.
Rev. Brandon Long, an ordained minister and former victim of conversion therapy, shared his personal experience of being subjected to the practice after coming out as gay. He described how conversion therapy had attempted to alter his sexual orientation by blaming it on childhood trauma and demonic influence. “Conversion therapy weaponized sacred pastoral practices,” Long said, adding that it was “spiritual and psychological abuse.”
Chris Hartman, executive director of the Fairness Campaign, an LGBTQ+ rights group, questioned why the committee responsible for overseeing state government functions was involved in passing legislation related to mental health care.
Hale, who said he had found “no evidence” supporting the personal testimonies of those who spoke against his bill, went on to shake hands with several of the witnesses who had opposed it. Rev. Long refused to shake his hand, accusing Hale of dismissing their lived experiences and framing their testimony as lies.
Political Landscape and Future of the Bill
Hale’s bill is part of a broader culture war in Kentucky, where conservative lawmakers have made several attempts to restrict LGBTQ+ rights. In 2023, Kentucky Republicans successfully passed a ban on gender-affirming medical care, though it is currently on hold due to ongoing court challenges. While this ban focuses on medical care, it does not address gender-affirming psychological counseling.
Conversion therapy has been banned in 23 states, and the practice has faced widespread condemnation from major U.S. medical and psychological associations. Research has consistently shown that conversion therapy leads to increased emotional distress, including depression and suicidal thoughts, particularly among LGBTQ+ youth. According to the Trevor Project, nearly 21% of LGBTQ+ youth in Kentucky have reported being subjected to conversion therapy, with 83% of those experiences occurring before the age of 18.
A Divisive Issue for Kentucky’s Future
Hale’s bill comes at a time when Republicans hold supermajorities in both chambers of Kentucky’s legislature, which could threaten the future of Beshear’s executive order. If passed, the bill would reverse the protections set forth by Beshear, allowing the practice of conversion therapy to continue in the state.
As the bill moves through the legislative process, it is clear that the debate over conversion therapy is far from settled. Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights are committed to fighting the bill, while opponents argue that parents should have the freedom to choose therapeutic options that align with their values. With the state’s political climate increasingly polarized, Kentucky’s legislature is set to remain at the center of a larger national conversation about the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and the role of government in regulating mental health practices.
For those struggling with issues related to conversion therapy, several resources are available, including the Trevor Project (1-866-488-7386) and the Trans Lifeline (1-877-565-8860). These organizations provide safe, confidential support for LGBTQ+ youth and adults.
The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear a case regarding whether state bans on “conversion therapy” trying to change minors’ sexual orientation or gender identity are legal—a case that could carry billions of dollars in repercussions, as a 2022 study found conversion therapy carries an economic burden of approximately $9 billion annually for patients and their families.
Key Facts
The Supreme Court took up Chiles v. Salazar, a case challenging Colorado’s ban on LGBTQ “conversion therapy” for minors, which asks the justices to more broadly decide whether laws that “[censor] certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed” are constitutional.
LGBTQ “conversion therapy,” as it’s commonly known, refers to any practices—including both emotional efforts, like talk therapy, or physical efforts, like electroconvulsive therapy—that aim to influence a patient’s sexual orientation or gender identity, which are typically framed as efforts to “cure” homosexuality or being transgender.
Repeated studies have shown such efforts are ineffective at changing people’s sexual orientation or gender identity and carry a variety of harmful effects—such as elevated risks for suicide, drug abuse and mental health issues—which has led to bans on conversion therapy for minors being enacted in more than 20 states.
Conversion therapy and its negative effects also have an economic impact, as a 2022 study published in JAMA Pediatrics found conversion therapy and its “associated harms” result in an economic burden of approximately $9.23 billion per year.
Conversion therapy alone costs approximately $650 million for participants annually in the U.S., with individuals who undergo it paying an extra $97,985 for treatment as compared with people who don’t undergo any counseling, according to the study, which was based on data from LGBTQ youth ages 13-24.
There are also significant costs associated with knock-on effects from conversion therapy and the study estimates each conversion therapy patient pays an extra $83,366 on average to treat the “downstream consequences” associated with the procedure, which combined raise the total economic burden of conversion therapy to $9.2 billion.
What To Watch For
The Supreme Court will hear the case on conversion therapy at some point during its next term, which begins in October, so any ruling in the case is likely more than a year away.
What Did The Study Conclude?
The study, which was conducted by pro-LGBTQ rights organization The Trevor Project and research group Cytel, concluded there is a “high economic burden and high societal costs” that come along with conversion therapy, which the study refers to as sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts (SOGICE). Researchers analyzed the difference in costs between patients who underwent conversion therapy, LGBTQ youth who received no therapy and those who received therapy that affirmed their sexual orientation or gender identity. The study found conversion therapy carried the highest economic burden: In addition to the $650 million per year in total attributed to the therapy itself, there are also total annual costs of $190 million related to anxiety or “severe psychological distress” among those that underwent conversion therapy, $1.36 billion related to depression, $2.42 billion from suicide attempts, $1.17 billion from fatal suicides, $1.26 billion from alcohol use disorder and $2.18 billion from substance abuse. The likelihood of those negative outcomes was largely markedly higher among those who underwent conversion therapy as compared with other LGBTQ populations—except alcohol use disorder, where those without any therapy registered the highest number by one percentage point (42.26% among those with no intervention versus 41.26% among conversion therapy patients). As a result, the total costs incurred by conversion therapy patients were higher than the $4.85 billion in total annual costs among those who hadn’t received any treatment, and $3.04 billion among those who received affirmative therapy.
Contra
Researchers noted there were some limitations with the study’s methodology that may affect its results, such as being based on studies in which patients self-reported their experiences. That means it might not be fully representative of all LGBTQ patients, as many people may be unwilling to discuss their experiences. It also assumes the risks are the same across the LGBTQ population and for various types of conversion therapy, which may not be the case. Researchers argued they took a “conservative approach” with their findings, however, and noted the $9 billion figure is likely an underestimate of the total economic impact. The study only looked at adverse impacts from conversion therapy for three years after the treatment, for instance—though such effects could likely extend for much longer—and did not examine some other potential impacts, like post-traumatic stress disorder or medical consequences from various medications or electroconvulsive therapy.
Big Number
13%. That’s the share of LGBTQ youth who have either been subjected to or threatened with conversion therapy, according to a 2024 survey conducted by The Trevor Project among more than 50,000 Americans ages 13-24. That includes 5% who have been subjected to the therapy and 8% who were threatened with it. The 5% share is down from 10% who said in 2020 they were subjected to the therapy, though that number could rise again should the Supreme Court outlaw state bans.
Key Background
The Supreme Court case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado who said in a court filing “she believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.” Chiles objects to Colorado restricting her from counseling clients to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, claiming it violates her First Amendment rights and classifying state bans on conversion therapy as “silenc[ing] counselors’ ability to express views their clients seek on a topic of ‘fierce public debate.’” Chiles asked the Supreme Court to take up the case after a federal appeals court upheld Colorado’s policy restricting conversion therapy, ruling that it was regulating counselors’ professional conduct, rather than chilling First Amendment-protected speech. The case is the latest in a string of major cases related to LGBTQ rights the 6-3 conservative-leaning court has decided in recent years—such as cases over businesses being allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples or discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity—and the court is deliberating on a case this term over gender-affirming care for minors.
The Trevor Project, a nonprofit that provides crisis support for LGBTQ young people, surveyed almost 1,000 young LGBTQ Floridians about their mental health, and 48% felt the community they live in was accepting of their gender identity or sexual orientation.
But more than two-thirds, or 69%, say they or their family members have considered moving out of Florida because of LGBTQ-related politics and laws. It wasn’t clear where they considered moving.
“Florida might be free, but Florida is not welcoming,” said Sen. Shevrin Jones, D-Miami Gardens.
Since 2022, the Republican-led Legislature and Gov. Ron DeSantis have pushed multiple anti-LGBTQ laws in what they call the “Free State of Florida,” including banning “gender ideology” from K-12 schools, criminalizing trans people for using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity and restricting health care for trans people.
Florida’s Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of LGBTQ+ conservatives and allies within the Republican Party, did not respond to the USA TODAY Network-Florida’s request for comment in time for publication.
The Trevor Project also reported the following data about Florida’s LGBTQ youth. In the past year:
37% contemplated suicide
11% attempted suicide
67% reported experiencing symptoms of anxiety
54% reported experiencing symptoms of depression
24% were physically threatened or harmed because of their sexual orientation or gender identity
63% experiences discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity
Jones said the passage of the Parental Rights in Education Act, called “Don’t Say Gay” by critics, and the “Stop WOKE Act” created a hostile environment for minorities in Florida. “Don’t Say Gay” prohibits the teaching of classroom instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation, and the “Stop WOKE Act” restricts how race is discussed in schools, colleges and workplaces.
The legislation also prohibits any teaching that could make students feel they bear personal responsibility for historic wrongs because of their race, color, sex or national origin.
DeSantis inveighed against ‘oppressive ideologies’
“We believe an important component of freedom in the state of Florida is the freedom from having oppressive ideologies imposed upon you without your consent,” DeSantis said when he signed the bill in 2022. “Whether it be in the classroom or in the workplace. And we decided to do something about it.”
On Tuesday in DeSantis’ State of the State speech, he made fun of Canada’s travel boycott of the U.S. and of Canadians who say they are canceling their vacations over President Trump’s tariffs and policies.
“We continue to set tourism records; 2024 saw more than 142 million visitors come to the state of Florida. This includes 3.3 million visitors from Canada,” DeSantis said. “That’s not much of a boycott in my book.”
If you have a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of your sexual orientation, gender, gender expression, gender identity or other membership in a certain social group, you may be a refugee and have the right to protection in Sweden. This is stated in the Refugee Convention, Swedish law and EU rules.
Asylum application and rules
Persecution can be threats or violence against your life or health. It can also be about laws and regulations or people’s views that mean that you are subjected to serious violations because of your sexual orientation. It can be, for example, punishment or extensive discrimination such as not being able to go to school, choose a job or receive healthcare.
The right to express yourself and engage politically without fear of persecution regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation are also examples of what can give you the right to stay in Sweden.
It does not matter whether the persecution comes from the authorities of your home country or if your family or other people threaten you. The Swedish Migration Board will then investigate what could happen to you if you return to your home country in the future and whether the authorities there are unable or unwilling to protect you against the persecution that you say you are at risk of.
The Swedish Migration Board will register you as an asylum seeker with the name, date of birth and legal gender that appears on your identity documents. Swedish law does not allow us to register you with a different name, but if you wish to use a different address or pronoun, you should tell us so that we can make a note of this.
Investigation
When the Swedish Migration Board decides whether you need protection and can therefore be granted a residence permit in Sweden, an investigation will be carried out with you to understand what your life has been like and why you are afraid of returning to your home country. If the reason is your sexual orientation, gender expression or gender identity, it is important that you tell us as early as possible.
The Swedish Migration Board knows that it can be difficult to tell someone you have never met about such things. It may even be the first time you have talked about it with someone and the boundaries of what feels personal and private are different for everyone. It is important that you still tell us as much as possible about all your reasons for asylum. The more details you can talk about, the better basis the Swedish Migration Board has for its decision. The investigator will also ask questions about your sexual orientation, your gender expression or gender identity, the thoughts and feelings you have had about it and your relationships with family, friends and the society you have lived in. We are bound by confidentiality and do not tell people who are not working on your case about what you tell us.
If you feel that the officer conducting your investigation does not understand what you are saying, or if you have information that the officer does not ask for, you must tell them as soon as possible. Do not wait until you have received a decision on your case.
You have the opportunity to express your gender preferences for the interpreter, caseworker and assistant so that you feel safe during the asylum process, and the Swedish Migration Board will then try to help you with your preferences. If you are over 18 years of age, you will meet your assistant and your caseworker alone without other co-applicants. You can request an assistant with special knowledge of the situation of LGBTQ people if you know of, or receive help in finding, such an assistant.
If you are under 18 years old
The Swedish Migration Board must listen to all children seeking asylum and find out whether the children need protection here. It is therefore important that you tell the Swedish Migration Board about your life in your home country and what you think would happen to you if you went back there. If you are under 18 and have guardians with you in Sweden, the Swedish Migration Board must ask them if we can talk to you without them being in the room. If you do not have your parents with you in Sweden, it is your guardian who decides whether we can talk to you alone. If you want to talk to your case officer without your parents or guardian, it is important that you say so.
The interpreter
Words and concepts in Swedish and your own language can mean different things. The most important thing is that you describe your own feelings and experiences and explain how they relate to why you are afraid.
If you do not understand the interpreter or if you think the interpreter may not be translating everything you say impartially, you should speak up. Also, keep in mind that the interpreter may not always know the specific words used to talk about sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. It may therefore be a good idea to also explain to the interpreter what the words you are using mean to you.
Accommodation
In most of the Swedish Migration Board’s accommodation, two or more people of the same gender share a room. The wait during the asylum process can make the accommodation situation stressful and conflicts can arise in the accommodation.
It is important that you tell us as soon as possible about what you need or if you feel unsafe where you live. If there are problems in the accommodation that you need help solving, you must tell us. Speak to the caseworker at the reception unit or the staff at the accommodation where you are registered.
Health
In some cities there are clinics for, for example, sexual health and counselling for specific target groups. Examples of target groups could be women, young people or LGBTQ people. Ask your caseworker for more information.
Voluntary organizations
You always have the right to contact voluntary organisations during the asylum process for advice and support. The more information you have about your rights and possible options, the better prepared you are for the different stages of the asylum process. RFSL is one such voluntary organisation that works for LGBTQ rights, providing special support and social meeting places for LGBTQ asylum seekers.
fleeredstates.blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.