Prohibit conversion therapy and provide for disciplinary sanctions and a deceptive trade practice

Brief

What this bill does

If it passes, what actually changes?

This is a professional-licensing bill. It bars five kinds of licensed health providers from giving conversion therapy to patients under 19.

• New section 3 bans conversion therapy for any individual under nineteen years of age.
• Covers credentials under the Medicine and Surgery, Mental Health, Nurse, Pharmacy, and Psychology Practice Acts.
• Adds subdivision (28) to section 38-178 as a ground for licensing discipline.
• Section 3(3) makes a violation a deceptive trade practice under the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
• Section 3(5) bars state and local funds for conducting, referring, or covering the therapy.
• Amends sections 38-101 and 38-2894 and repeals the original 38-101, 38-178, and 38-2894.

What it says it is for

Does it do what it claims?

Mostly yes. Every phrase in the title lands somewhere in the text, but "prohibit conversion therapy" is broader than what section 3 actually bans.

• Match: "disciplinary sanctions" is new subdivision (28) of section 38-178, enforced under 38-183, 38-185, 38-186.
• Match: "a deceptive trade practice" is section 3(3); "define terms" is section 3(2).
• Match: "prohibit the use of funds" is section 3(5), covering state and political-subdivision money.
• Divergence: the ban reaches only five practice acts and only patients under nineteen.
• Divergence: the clergy and religious-counselor exemption in section 3(4) is not mentioned in the title.
• Divergence: the fund ban in 3(5) carries no age limit and no clergy exemption.

Where Scripture bears on it

What does the Bible say about this?

The bill legislates about conversion, and Scripture uses that word for something a statute cannot regulate: in John 12:40 the turning and the healing alike are God's act — "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." That is a caution against any claim, from a clinician or from a legislature, that the inward man is a thing a technique reliably moves. Romans 7:21 speaks to both sides of the argument this bill provokes — "I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me" — since the practitioner who means to help and the lawmaker who means to protect are each capable of harm they did not intend. What the verses do not settle is everything the bill actually decides: they say nothing about professional licensure, nothing about the age of nineteen, nothing about which of the thirty-six practice acts should be named in section 3(1), nothing about whether a minor's or a parent's request should matter, and nothing about where the clergy exemption in section 3(4) ends when the same person is both pastor and licensed counselor. Scripture here frames the question of who works change in a person; it does not tell Nebraska what to put in the Uniform Credentialing Act.

The case each way

What is the strongest argument for, and against?

The fight is over whether this shields minors from a discredited practice or polices what licensed counselors are allowed to aim at.

• For: Section 3(2)(a)(ii) carves out neutral, supportive, coping, and gender-transition care from the ban.
• For: Discipline runs through existing Uniform Credentialing Act machinery, not a new agency or penalty scheme.
• For: Section 3(4) leaves clergy and religious counselors acting pastorally entirely outside the prohibition.
• Against: The ban covers legal adults, because it applies to anyone "under nineteen years of age."
• Against: Liability turns on whether a practice "seeks to change" identity - a goal, hard to prove.
• Against: The funding ban in 3(5) has no age limit and no stated exceptions.

What is unsettled

What should I be careful about?

This brief covers the introduced text only; how far the bill actually reaches depends on things the text does not say.

• No effective date, fiscal note, or dollar figure appears anywhere in the bill text.
• Penalties are only whatever the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act already provides; none are listed here.
• Who enforces the fund ban in section 3(5), and against whom, is not stated.
• The line in 3(4) between "pastoral or religious capacity" and health care professional is undefined.
• Section 38-101 says a conflicting practice act prevails over section 3 of this act.
• The amended list in 38-178 shows a drafting artifact: subdivision (27) ends "or .".

Text (1)

• Introduced (application/pdf)

Each link opens the Legislature's own document. The text itself is not in our database yet (fetched lazily); when it lands these pages will carry it verbatim.

All Actions (8)

Votes (0)

There have been no roll call votes on this bill.

Sponsors (1)

• Sen. Megan Hunt [District 8] — primary sponsor

Amendments (0)

There are no amendments to this bill.

Fiscal Notes & Statements (2)

• Fiscal Note — Fiscal Note
• Statement of Intent — Statement of Intent

The Legislature's own companion documents; each link opens the official copy.

Committees (1)

Related Bills (0)

No related bill information was received for LB367.