Kansas City, Missouri, has repealed its ban on “conversion therapy” – counseling that encourages a biblical view of sexuality and gender. 

The city had prohibited the therapy, also called reparative therapy, since 2019. Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas originally championed the ban but signaled a change in position during the May 21 City Council meeting, when members voted on an ordinance repealing it. 

“I support the ordinance primarily because of the fact that it is in potential litigation or an act of litigation, there are potential exposures to the city relating to liability herein,” said Lucas, an attorney. “Would always be happy for us to write a new piece of legislation that avoids the types of legal challenges coming our way.” 

The term “conversion therapy” may evoke images of abusive and outdated practices such as electroshock therapy, lobotomies or ice baths. However, Alliance Defending Freedom says the counseling at issue in current legal battles is conversational therapy. 

The legal challenges include a lawsuit filed in February 2025 by counselors and former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey against Kansas City. 

The lawsuit argues the ban violated the First and 14th Amendments because it prohibited counselors from having conversations with clients encouraging acceptance of biological sex and relationships solely between a man and a woman. Even if clients desired to embrace their biological sex or address unwanted same-sex attraction, counselors could not provide therapy supporting those goals. 

“The Public Accommodation Ordinance even prevents the Counselors from following policies and practices consistent with their religious beliefs on human identity and sexuality and from explaining their reasons for offering only counseling tracking these beliefs,” the lawsuit states. 

Kansas City’s ordinance stipulated counselors could be fined up to $1,000 each time they gave advice supporting a client’s goal of embracing his or her biological sex. They also faced up to 180 days in jail and potential damages and attorney fees, according to the lawsuit. 

The City Council passed the repeal in a 7-5 vote, though several members voted against it in protest. 

“Conversion therapy is harmful, there’s a reason why we banned it,” Councilman Eric Bunch said during the meeting. 

Some Kansas City residents reacted to the repeal with concern, arguing such therapy harms children and adolescents. 

“Conversion therapy is a range of consistently discredited practices aimed at changing one’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” Lucas wrote on Facebook while explaining the council’s vote. 

“The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and basic common sense tell us that attempts to change a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity are psychologically harmful, not to mention ineffective,” David Hudnall wrote in the Kansas City Star. 

Supporters of repealing the ban argue the law restricted free speech by prohibiting counseling aligned with biological sex while allowing the opposite, namely counseling encouraging gender transition, including treatments that can permanently alter children’s bodies. 

Lucas also claimed that opponents of the ban – specifically Alliance Defending Freedom – “maliciously” quoted the Bible, though he did not cite examples. 

Lucas said his personal views on conversion therapy haven’t changed, but recent court decisions influenced the city’s vote to repeal the ordinance. 

On March 31, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Colorado Christian counselor Kaley Chiles in Chiles v. Salazar. The lawsuit argued Colorado’s conversion therapy ban was unconstitutional, and the court ruled 8-1 in her favor. The decision held that the ban violated the First Amendment by censoring speech based on viewpoint. 

“Government bureaucrats should not insert themselves into private counseling conversations, much less censor and redirect the exploration of truth on some of the most contentious issues of our day,” the Kansas City lawsuit states. 

Roughly 100 local jurisdictions and 20 states across the country have similar bans, The Lion previously reported. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Chiles could make those laws more difficult to defend in court. 

Despite the repeal, Lucas said he hopes the city may eventually draft a new version of the law that could withstand legal scrutiny. 

“In the end, the First and Fourteenth Amendments leave the choice of what to say and to hear with the people – not the government,” the lawsuit states. “Our country is better off when people can express different views and pursue different goals, even when the government disagrees.”