When Bans Fail, Bankrupt Them: CA’s New Strategy Against Counselors

This Tuesday, April 7, the California Senate Judiciary Committee will hear Senate Bill 934, a troubling piece of legislation that represents a new and aggressive strategy in the ongoing effort to silence certain viewpoints about human sexuality and identity.

On its surface, SB 934 claims to simply extend the statute of limitations for malpractice lawsuits related to “sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts” (SOGICE). But beneath the legal language lies a much more concerning reality: this bill is designed to intimidate and ultimately eliminate counselors who offer talk therapy to individuals seeking help aligning their lives with their deeply held beliefs.

A New Strategy After a Supreme Court Defeat

SB 934 does not arise in a vacuum. It comes on the heels of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar, where the Court made clear that talk therapy between a counselor and a willing client is protected speech under the First Amendment.

For years, states like California, Colorado, and nearly 28 others attempted to limit such counseling with laws or executive orders, especially for minors, by labeling it as harmful conduct rather than speech. But the Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, affirming that conversations between a counselor and client are, in fact, speech and therefore subject to the highest level of constitutional protection.

Rather than accept that ruling, lawmakers are now pivoting.

Instead of banning speech directly, SB 934 attempts to accomplish the same goal indirectly by exposing counselors to massive legal liability years, even decades, after a session takes place. The bill extends the statute of limitations to 22 years after a minor turns 18 and 10 years for adults, and even revives previously expired claims.

A Coordinated National Strategy

California is not alone.

In fact, SB 934 is part of a growing national strategy emerging in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision. While Colorado and California are leading the way with active legislation, lawmakers in states like Maryland and Illinois are already exploring similar approaches.

Across the country, activists and allied legislators are shifting tactics:

• Old strategy: Ban certain counseling conversations outright
• New strategy: Allow lawsuits decades later to financially destroy those who engage in that speech

This is a deliberate pivot. When direct bans run into constitutional barriers, the next step is to weaponize civil liability, using the threat of lawsuits to accomplish what the Constitution forbids lawmakers from doing directly.

The goal is the same: silence dissenting viewpoints about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Government by Intimidation

This is not about protecting clients; it is about silencing ideas.

When the government cannot constitutionally ban speech outright, it sometimes turns to more subtle forms of coercion. By creating overwhelming legal risk, SB 934 seeks to make it practically impossible for counselors to offer certain viewpoints, even to clients who request them.

Greg Burt, Vice President of California Family Council, responded strongly to this approach:

“This is a desperate and vain attempt to pretend the Supreme Court didn’t say what it really did say. They can’t stop professionals from helping people who don’t want to identify as LGBTQ anymore.”

Burt continued:

“For years, LGBTQ activists and their political allies have given up persuading people. Instead, they’ve embraced the impulse that tyrannical governments throughout history have followed, just ban and forbid ideas and speech you don’t like. But that’s not how truth is discovered.”

At its core, SB 934 sends a chilling message: if you hold certain views about sexuality or identity, and if you help others live according to those beliefs, you may be punished financially and professionally.

Ignoring the Supreme Court

Perhaps most striking is the reasoning offered in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s own analysis of the bill.

Despite the Supreme Court’s clear directive in Chiles v. Salazar, the analysis attempts to downplay the ruling, suggesting that existing bans on SOGICE were not truly invalidated but merely subject to further review under a stricter legal standard.

This interpretation strains credibility.

The Court’s decision made it unmistakably clear that speech-based counseling cannot be regulated as mere “conduct.” Laws targeting such speech must meet strict scrutiny, the highest constitutional standard, and very few laws survive that test.

Justice Neil Gorsuch captured the heart of the issue in his opinion:

“The First Amendment stands as a bulwark against any effort to prescribe an orthodoxy of views, reflecting a belief that each American enjoys an inalienable right to speak his mind and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for finding truth. Laws like Colorado’s, which suppress speech based on viewpoint, represent an egregious assault on both commitments.”

SB 934 appears to be an attempt to sidestep that principle rather than respect it.

The Human Impact

Lost in the legal arguments are the real people affected by this legislation.

Many individuals seek counseling because they are struggling emotionally, spiritually, or relationally. Some desire to live in accordance with their faith convictions about sexuality or gender. Others simply want help navigating deeply personal questions about identity.

Under SB 934, these individuals may find fewer and fewer counselors willing to help them.

Why? Because even if both client and counselor agree on the goals of therapy, the risk of a future lawsuit, years down the line, may be too great.

This effectively denies people the freedom to pursue the kind of counseling they believe is best for them.