Dylan Scholinski creates their art in a creaky, old building in north Denver. A large studio space is packed with their work from over the years, including a set of mixed-media illustrations depicting dark, contorted figures.
Get top headlines and KUNC reporting directly to your mailbox each week when you subscribe to In The NoCo.
“This is like a hallway of the institution with the rooms, the room doors,” Scholinski said, flipping through several of them.
The illustrations are based on Scholinski’s experience in psychiatric institutions as a teenager, where they underwent conversion therapy, a controversial practice meant to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
“There's a part of me that still holds on to that idea of that I'm not enough, I'm not lovable,” they said. “I've spent my whole life trying to prove that I am worthy.”
Scholinski, now 60, is transgender, happily married to their wife, and has three kids. But the trauma from childhood conversion therapy continues to impact their life decades later. They were deeply shaken when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Colorado’s ban on the practice last month.
“I was really disappointed and really sad to think that that's the world that we live in right now."
Colorado’s conversion therapy ban has been in place since 2019. But in March, the high court sided with a Christian counselor from Colorado Springs who argued the ban violates her free speech rights by preventing her from talking about conversion therapy in her practice and discriminating against her viewpoints. The ruling says the law could be unconstitutional, but stopped short of overturning it. Instead, it sent the case back to the lower court to come to a resolution.
A group of Democrats in the Colorado legislature, however, are not waiting for another ruling. The lawmakers are behind House Bill 26-1322, a proposal to make conversion therapy illegal using a different legal approach than the current ban.
“The purpose of this bill is seriously to send a chilling effect to any licensed professional therapist who may think about bringing that practice back,” Democratic State Rep. Karen McCormick of Longmont, one of the bill’s sponsors, said.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was based on free speech, but, under House Bill 1322, conversion therapy would instead be considered harmful professional conduct. The measure would allow victims of conversion therapy to sue their mental health providers for damages, with no statute of limitations. It would focus on licensed mental health professionals and would not apply to religious leaders.
“It takes time for people to realize that they've been through psychological trauma, and they may be 10, 15, 20 years down the road before they realize what they went through as a minor,” McCormick said.
Every major medical organization in the country, including the American Psychological Association, has discredited conversion therapy and says it leads to increased anxiety, depression and risk of suicide.
Historically, the practice has involved a range of methods, including subjecting patients to electroshocks and other physical pain or discomfort in response to simulated moments of same-sex attraction. Today, it's almost exclusively carried out under the guise of legitimate talk therapy, according to the Trevor Project, a national organization that provides crisis support for LGBTQ-plus youth.
A 2024 study from the Trevor Project found that over one-in-ten LGBTQ-plus kids and teens in Colorado were either threatened with conversion therapy or subjected to it over the previous year. Some advocates are worried the Supreme Court ruling will increase those numbers.
“Unfortunately, we very much know that conversion therapy is alive and well,” Casey Pick, the Trevor Project’s Senior Director of Law and Policy, said. “I feel that these providers are going to be emboldened right now, and that parents and others who are looking for answers will see this is legal, and maybe that makes this an option.”
Shannon Minter, the legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, worked with McCormick and other lawmakers to craft the bill. Like Pick, he also worries the ruling could embolden conversion therapy providers, but said it’s important to remember that the Supreme Court's decision was relatively narrow.
“I hope people understand this decision was not endorsing conversion therapy. It didn't say it's ethical, that it's appropriate. It did not dispute that it can be very harmful,” Minter said.
While the bill has wide support from Democrats, Colorado Republicans oppose it. State Rep. Matt Soper of Delta called the measure a “slap in the face” to the Supreme Court.
“It seeks to have a de facto ban on the free speech that a conversion therapist might tell to their client when the Supreme Court just struck down the 2019 Colorado Law,” Soper said.
Soper is concerned that passing the bill would simply lead to more legal challenges. He also disagrees with the portion of the bill that would lift the statute of limitations for lawsuits against providers.
“Essentially, we're saying there's going to be unlimited liability for your entire life,” he said.
Being in the minority, Republicans can do little to block the bill, and with wide support from Democrats, it’s likely to pass. It would then need Gov. Jared Polis’ signature before it becomes law, but it is not clear if he is willing to sign it.
“Conversion therapy is a harmful practice that simply does not work, can traumatize kids, and is a scam and a waste of people’s hard-earned money,” spokesperson Eric Maruyama said in a statement. “Governor Polis is hopeful there is still time to construct a framework he could support.”
The Colorado House passed the bill earlier this month and it was approved by a the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. It is now awaiting debate on the Senate floor.
The success or failure of House Bill 1322 will have ripple effects both inside and outside Colorado. More than 20 states have conversion therapy bans in place that could also be threatened by the Supreme Court’s ruling and some, including California and New York, also have similar legislation in the works.
