SB 934
CFC OpposesSexual orientation or gender identity change efforts
CFC Says
CFC opposes SB 934.
This bill would give people the legal right to take a licensed healthcare provider to court if they were harmed by therapy or counseling that tried to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. It would allow those individuals to seek financial compensation or other remedies through a lawsuit.
Currently at 2nd Committee, having cleared 3 stages.
Legislative Progress
CFC's Position Letter
The Honorable Scott Wiener
1021 O Street, Suite 8620
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assemblyman Senator Wiener:
On behalf of the California Family Council, we write to express our strong opposition to SB 934. This bill represents a significant and troubling expansion of government overreach into the deeply personal and constitutionally protected space of counseling, speech, and individual conscience.
SB 934 would make it far easier to sue licensed mental health providers years—even decades—after counseling has taken place, based on later claims of “psychological injury or illness” tied to sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts. For minors, lawsuits could be brought up to 22 years after reaching adulthood. For adults, claims could be filed up to 10 years after counseling, with an additional five-year “discovery” window based on when an individual believes harm was realized.
This extraordinary expansion of liability creates profound uncertainty for counselors and will inevitably have a chilling effect on the entire profession. Few practitioners will be willing to provide care in an environment where they may face litigation decades after the fact.
Moreover, SB 934 defines prohibited counseling in sweeping and vague terms. It applies to any effort to guide a client toward a “predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome.” This includes helping individuals who voluntarily seek counseling to live in alignment with their faith, pursue opposite-sex relationships, strengthen their marriages, or accept their biological sex. In doing so, the bill does not target coercion or abuse—which are already illegal—but instead targets consensual, client-directed conversations grounded in personal values and religious beliefs.
Equally concerning is the bill’s expansive and subjective definition of “harm.” SB 934 lists a wide range of experiences such as depression, guilt, shame, stress, anger, social withdrawal, loss of faith, family alienation, and even a sense of wasted time. While these struggles are real and deserve compassion, they are also common human experiences with complex and often unrelated causes. Under this bill, nearly any form of emotional distress could later be attributed to counseling, regardless of other contributing factors.
Critically, SB 934 does not require a formal diagnosis or clear proof of causation. A plaintiff need not demonstrate that the counseling was wrongful at the time, nor even fully understand the alleged harm. Instead, once general evidence suggests that such counseling could cause harm, courts may infer causation simply because counseling occurred and distress was later experienced—unless the counselor can prove otherwise. This effectively reverses the burden of proof and opens the door to lawsuits based largely on subjective, retrospective interpretations of emotional pain.
From a policy standpoint, SB 934 undermines three foundational principles that California should uphold:
First, free speech. Counseling is fundamentally a form of speech. The government should not dictate which viewpoints are permissible in private conversations between a counselor and a willing client. SB 934 targets specific viewpoints—particularly those rooted in traditional, faith-based understandings of sexuality and identity—raising serious First Amendment concerns.
Second, individual autonomy. Every Californian should have the freedom to seek counseling aligned with their personal goals, values, and beliefs. SB 934 denies that freedom by effectively prohibiting one category of desired outcomes while allowing others. This is not neutrality—it is ideological coercion.
Third, parental rights and family integrity. Many families seek counseling to help children navigate identity questions in a way consistent with their faith and convictions. By deterring counselors from offering this support, SB 934 places the state between parents and their children at one of the most sensitive moments in their lives.
As an organization committed to advancing God’s design for life, family, and liberty, we believe that true compassion respects both truth and freedom. Scripture reminds us, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32, ESV). SB 934 moves California in the opposite direction—away from freedom, and toward compelled conformity.
For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to vote NO on SB 934.
Respectfully,
Greg Burt
Vice President
California Family Council
Official Description
(1)Existing law defines “sexual orientation change efforts” as practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation, as specified. Existing law prohibits a mental health provider, as defined, from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age, and provides that such efforts attempted by a mental health provider are considered unprofessional conduct and must subject the mental health provider to discipline by that provider’s licensing entity. This bill would define “sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts” as any practices of a licensed mental health provider that seek to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity, as specified, and would apply the prohibitions described above to such efforts. (2)Existing law requires that specified actions for recovery of damages suffered as a result of childhood sexual assault, as defined, be commenced within 22 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that psychological injury or illness occurring after the age of majority was caused by the sexual assault, whichever period expires later. Existing law imposes various procedural requirements for such claims. This bill would require specified actions for recovery of damages suffered as a result of sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, as defined, be commenced (1) within 22 years of the date the plaintiff attains the age of majority if the plaintiff was under the age of 18 when at the time of conduct, (2) within 10 years if the plaintiff was 18 years of age or older at the time of conduct, (3) or within 5 years of the date the plaintiff discovers that psychological injury or illness occurring after the conduct was caused by sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts, as specified. The bill would apply to actions for damages commencing after January 1, 2027, against licensed mental health providers, as defined, and against persons and entities that employed or negligently hired, supervised, or retained a licensed mental health provider who engaged in sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts. The bill would make specified types of evidence, including certain expert testimony, admissible to establish causation and harm for these actions. The bill would revive certain actions arising from conduct that occurred on or after January 1, 2009 that have not been litigated to finality and that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2027, because the applicable statute of limitations or any other time limit had expired. The bill would provide that its provisions are severable.