HR-3243-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Ted Lieu (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would make it unlawful for any person to provide, advertise, or knowingly assist with conversion therapy — defined as any paid practice that seeks to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity — in commercial settings. It would grant enforcement authority to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S. Attorney General, and state attorneys general. The bill explicitly excludes from its prohibition practices that assist with gender transition, or that provide acceptance, support, and identity exploration without attempting to change orientation or identity.
Who benefits
LGBTQ+ individuals — particularly minors — who may be subjected to conversion therapy practices by paid practitioners. Parents who are unaware of the evidence base and may unknowingly enroll children in such services. Mental health professionals who already follow major professional association guidelines against conversion therapy and would face less competition from practitioners who do not. State attorneys general who gain a federal enforcement tool to supplement existing state bans. Advocacy organizations working on LGBTQ+ issues.
Who is hurt
Practitioners — including therapists, counselors, clergy-affiliated providers, and life coaches — who currently offer paid conversion therapy services and would be prohibited from doing so commercially. Religious organizations that operate fee-based counseling programs incorporating efforts to change sexual orientation or gender identity. Individuals who, as adults, seek and consent to such services commercially and would lose access to them. Businesses that advertise or facilitate such services. States that currently permit or do not restrict conversion therapy, whose regulatory latitude would be narrowed by federal preemption in the commercial space.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that every major U.S. medical and mental health organization — including the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics — has concluded that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful, with documented links to depression, self-harm, and suicide, particularly among youth. They contend that charging money for a practice that professional consensus deems both ineffective and dangerous constitutes consumer fraud under established FTC principles, and that framing the bill as a consumer protection measure — rather than a speech restriction — places it on firm legal and policy ground. They further argue that 23 states and the District of Columbia have already enacted similar bans, demonstrating broad, bipartisan recognition of the harm at the state level.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill, despite its consumer-fraud framing, effectively regulates the content of therapeutic conversations between consenting adults and their chosen providers, raising serious First Amendment concerns about compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination. They contend that the bill's definition of conversion therapy is broad enough to capture religiously motivated counseling and that the commercial nexus does not eliminate constitutional protection for speech, citing NIFLA v. Becerra (2018), in which the Supreme Court rejected the idea that professional speech receives diminished First Amendment protection. They further argue that adult autonomy — including the right to seek services aligned with one's religious beliefs about sexuality — should be respected, and that federal preemption displaces the legitimate policy judgments of states that have chosen not to restrict these practices.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to regulate commercial transactions rests on the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and the FTC's jurisdiction over unfair or deceptive commercial practices is well-established under that framework. However, because the bill regulates paid speech — specifically, the content of therapeutic conversations — it also implicates the First Amendment. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any FTC regulations promulgated under this bill's rulemaking grant would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference, meaning courts would assess whether the statutory language clearly authorizes specific agency rules.
Checks and balances
The legislative branch would establish the prohibition; the FTC and the executive branch (via the Attorney General) would gain new enforcement authority; state attorneys general would gain concurrent civil enforcement power; and federal courts would serve as the check on both agency rulemaking and enforcement actions, with heightened post-Loper Bright scrutiny applying to any FTC regulations.
Historical precedent
Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws restricting conversion therapy, primarily targeting licensed mental health providers treating minors; several of these state laws have survived First Amendment challenges in federal circuit courts, though the circuits are not fully uniform on the scope of protection for paid therapeutic speech.