KC Conversion Therapy Ordinance: Public Forum (Aug. 22, 2026)

By Jordan Gloor, Kansas City Documenter

These notes were produced through Kansas City Documenters, which trains and pays community members to take fact-checked notes at public meetings, strengthening transparency and accountability in local government.

Summary

• Town hall attendees read a draft ordinance banning harmful psychotherapies that would replace Kansas City’s conversion therapy ban repealed in May.
• Attendees brought up issues with the current draft that could leave the new ban open to misuse or more lawsuits.
• Volunteers made plans to draft a final version of the ordinance using the town hall’s feedback.

Notes

Background

As defined by WebMD, conversion therapy is “any emotional or physical therapy used to ‘cure’ or ‘repair’ a person’s attraction to the same sex, or their gender identity and expression. Providers claim these therapies can make someone heterosexual or ‘straight.’”

Opponents, including the American Psychological Association, say there is no evidence that conversion therapy works. 

Conversion therapy supporters are often religious conservatives who argue the treatment is meant to align sexuality with biblical teachings against homosexuality and that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

Critics of bans, including the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), say they stifle the free speech rights of therapists like Coloradan Kaley Chiles, a devout Christian whose “view of human nature is informed by her Christian beliefs,” according to the ADF.

The ADF represented Chiles in a lawsuit challenging Colorado’s conversion therapy ban on First Amendment grounds. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Chiles in an 8-1 decision handed down on March 31. 

Before the ruling, Kansas City was already facing a court challenge to the conversion therapy law from then-Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and a group of Christian counselors. The infringement of First Amendment rights was one claim of the suit, filed in February 2025.

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Kansas City Council in May repealed the conversion therapy ban it first enacted in 2019.

In June, Mayor Quinton Lucas and 6th District Councilman Johnathan Duncan unveiled a new ordinance meant to pass constitutional muster. The announcement came in a June 2 news release.

Supporters of a new ordinance gathered at the Aug. 22 forum to discuss the revised language, which would add a section under “offenses against public safety.”

The new provision would apply only to fee-based services under the city’s authority to “regulate compensated services offered within its jurisdiction that are known to significantly risk serious harm,” according to language in the draft ordinance.

Discussion

• Multiple attendees said they were recovering from harm caused by conversion therapy practices, or knew people who were.
• Alvaro Ontiveros, the 4th District commissioner on Kansas City’s LGBTQ Commission, said conversion therapy “comes with a lot of harms and creates a lot of negative issues for our community, even for people who have not gone through it.”
  • “It starts to erode our freedoms and protections, and it creates an environment where people within our community feel vulnerable and unprotected,” Ontiveros added.
• Ontiveros reviewed the history of Kansas City’s conversion therapy ban, which was adopted on Sept. 14, 2019, as well as Colorado’s state ban, which was very similar to Kansas City’s. Ontiveros said no charges were ever brought under Kansas City’s ban.
• Conner Swanton, legislative director of the City Council, explained the lawsuits that the city received from two plaintiffs “about an infringement of free speech” in February. “When the Supreme Court sided with Chiles in March,” Swanton said, “that’s when the City Council decided to take their own action to avoid any negative effects to the city should we lose the lawsuit. That brings us to today.”
• Councilman Duncan explained that based on what he heard from the city attorney, he decided to vote to repeal the ban. He expressed regret for doing that without speaking to the community first.
  • Duncan eventually learned that the mayor’s office had been discussing a repeal of the ban with the law department since early April and had not addressed the ban with the community. He did not hear about the proposed repeal until the day before the vote, when the LGBTQ Commission said it had not been consulted on it.
    • An attendee asked about the current status of the lawsuit.
      • Duncan said he believed the suit was still pending, but that the city is in a good position to win given that the ban was repealed.
• Event organizer Abigail Scott introduced the draft ordinance which included input from Swanton, the LGBTQ Commission, staff from the mayor’s office and a group of healthcare workers.
• Scott summarized the draft for the group: “Our draft specifically bans dangerous and life-threatening therapeutic practices defined as any behavior or psychotherapeutic practice, treatment or service that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of severe psychological harm by seeking to coerce a person toward a predetermined outcome, changing or eliminating a person’s behavior or condition.”
  • The ordinance does not specifically ban conversion therapy but instead aims to ban any practice that causes the kind of harm caused by conversion therapy.
  • Scott pointed out that the draft doesn’t specify that therapists must be licensed to be breaking the law nor that the patients must be minors in order for the law to apply. “Theoretically, we’re banning it for adults as well,” Scott said. “We’d be one of the only few bans in the country to do that.”
  • The ban would be enforced with fines and with possible suspension or revocation of business licenses.
• Breakout groups at the town hall took time to discuss the draft.
  • Reporting back from their groups, attendees expressed concern about prosecutors not following through on enforcement. They wanted clarity on what the reporting process would look like.
  • Some asked that more specific language be used to empower victims to sue providers who break the law, but event organizer Erin Ingram-Ratigan said civil liability would be under the purview of the state.
  • Another suggestion was to involve the health department and to make license revocation for violations mandatory rather than optional. Others suggested including data from studies on conversion therapy to help “sell” the ordinance and to cite multiple health agencies rather than just one.
  • Some expressed concern over the fact that no complaints had been brought under the previous ban, making its effectiveness questionable. Others were worried that conversion therapy would continue in the form of “pro-bono care” since the proposed ban specifies therapy “for compensation.”
  • Several were concerned that the broad definitions of outcomes like depression would affect providers doing therapies that incidentally can cause discomfort for patients.
  • Some wanted to avoid banning conversion therapy and instead ban a comprehensive list of specific harmful practices. The idea was that it would circumvent the First Amendment and freedom of religion arguments against the new ban. There was also concern that including adults could make the ban more vulnerable to lawsuits.
  • Some preferred language from Colorado’s revised ban that specifies therapies seeking changes to sexual and gender orientation.
• Several attendees volunteered to write the final draft using the feedback from the town hall.
• The floor was opened for any final questions about the draft ordinance.
  • An attendee asked for clarity on what they could do if they found out that someone was performing conversion therapy.
    • A presenter explained, “The enforcement mechanism of the ban… probably would require you to be the party aggrieved by the conversion therapy.… Your best bet would be to find someone who was a client or someone who has been directly harmed by it.” Complaints could be filed through the police department, through the 311 reporting line or through the Missouri Human Rights Commission.
  • Someone asked about the ordinance’s statute of limitations.
    • Ontiveros explained that, for municipal ordinances, the statute of limitations is generally a year from the last date of harm.
  • Someone asked about whether minors can file police reports.
    • Ontiveros said that that question would be answered and considered before the draft is finalized.
• Scott asked any attendees who work in the healthcare industry to bring the draft to their peers for further feedback.
• Missouri state Rep. Wick Thomas, a Kansas City Democrat, pointed out that one of the groups behind the lawsuit is the Heritage Foundation. He read the foundation’s “Project 2025” document that describes some of its goals. They include outlawing pornography and drag, with the foundation’s definition of those terms including transgender representation, and registering those who purvey those things as sex offenders. “That’s where they’re headed with this,” Thomas said.
  • Thomas also spoke against the initiative on the Missouri ballot in November that would place constitutional bans on abortion and on gender-affirming care for minors. 
  • Attendees thanked organizers for holding the event and considering safety in the event’s logistics. This type of outreach “is what should have happened before the repeal happened,” Duncan said.
• Ingram-Ratigan explained that updates on the draft and further town halls can happen if interested parties reach out to the event’s organizers.

Observations & Follow-Up Questions

• Several attendees pointed out that certain exceptions and wording could leave the ban open to more lawsuits and abuse. How will the final draft solve those issues?
• Will there be any more town halls like this one before the final draft is proposed at City Hall?
• Should the proposal pass, what mechanisms will ensure the ban is enforced?

If you believe anything in these notes is inaccurate, please email us at documenters@thebeacon.media with “Correction Request” in the subject line. Learn more about Documenters on our website.