On Monday, the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee passed HB26-1322, a bill that creates a private civil right of action allowing survivors of conversion therapy to sue the practitioners who subjected them to it. The bill, which has no statute of limitations for such claims, would likely make the practice of conversion therapy financially prohibitive in the state. It comes in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision last month in Chiles v. Salazar, which found that Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy unconstitutional—effectively legalizing the discredited practice nationwide. The new bill has one final legislative hurdle to clear—the full Colorado Senate—before heading to Governor Jared Polis’s desk, though the governor has so far offered only lukewarm signals about whether he will sign it, saying he is “hopeful there is still time to construct a framework he could support.”

The bill targets what it calls “sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts”—defined as “any practice by a licensed mental health professional that seeks to direct a patient toward a predetermined sexual orientation or gender identity outcome, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of a particular sex or gender, regardless of the sexual orientation or gender identity the patient is directed toward.” The inclusion of “eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions” is notable—conversion therapists have long used this framework to argue disingenuously that they are not trying to change a person’s sexual orientation, merely helping them manage unwanted feelings. The bill explicitly carves out any counseling or therapy that “provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient” or “facilitates a patient’s coping, social support, and identity exploration and development”—meaning therapists who support a patient’s own process of self-discovery, without steering them toward a predetermined outcome, would face no liability.

The bill uses a novel legal mechanism to target conversion therapy—a private right of action. Rather than the government banning conversion therapy outright, which is what the Supreme Court struck down in Chiles, the bill instead allows survivors to sue their practitioners directly, stating that “a person who suffered an injury as a result of sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts may bring a civil action for damages” against their conversion therapist. It also states that a lawsuit to recover damages can be commenced “at any time without limitation,” making its statute of limitations effectively endless. The mechanism may be insulated from the constitutional problem the Supreme Court identified in Chiles because the government is not restricting speech—instead, private citizens are seeking civil remedies for harm they suffered, the same way a patient can sue a doctor for malpractice. As Alejandra Caraballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School, told Erin in the Morning after the Chiles ruling, “While the Supreme Court decision limits the abilities of states to regulate conversion therapy through professional standards, they did not limit the ability for states to protect LGBTQ youth from these abusive practices through tort or malpractice law.”

If the mechanism sounds familiar, it is because Republicans pioneered it to get around Supreme Court rulings they didn’t like—most famously in Texas’s SB 8, the 2021 abortion “bounty hunter” law. That law banned abortion after six weeks not through government enforcement but by allowing any private citizen to sue anyone who performed or aided an abortion for $10,000 in damages. The legal trick was simple: when abortion providers tried to challenge SB 8 in court, they couldn’t get an injunction because there was no government official to enjoin. Courts found that you can’t sue “the state” to block a law that only private citizens enforce. The Supreme Court effectively let SB 8 stand, and the strategy worked—abortion access in Texas collapsed virtually overnight even while Roe v. Wade was still the law of the land. Kansas used the same model in SB 244, which allows anyone to sue a transgender person for using a restroom that doesn’t match their assigned sex at birth. Now, Colorado Democrats are exploiting the same constitutional loophole in the opposite direction—using private civil enforcement to deter a harmful practice that the Supreme Court says the government cannot directly ban.

It is important to note that some have raised concerns the bill could be weaponized against gender-affirming therapists—with anti-trans groups arguing that helping a trans youth transition constitutes its own form of “conversion therapy.” But the bill contains multiple layers of protection against such misuse. Its carveouts explicitly shield counseling that provides “acceptance, support, and understanding of a patient.” The bill also has protections in its causation standard. To establish that conversion therapy caused harm, a court must weigh “the nature, duration, and intensity” of the efforts, “the age and vulnerability of the plaintiff at the time,” “the relationship between the plaintiff and the mental health professional,” and “expert testimony regarding the general psychological effects of sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts.” It is unlikely that judges will consider anti-trans activists to be considered medical “experts” on this topic.

LGBTQ+ organizations, activists, and Democratic lawmakers in the state have supported the bill’s passage. “This decision only reinforces the urgent need for state-level protections,” said One Colorado, the state’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy organization. “[HB 1322] provides a pathway for accountability, allowing survivors to seek justice against those who administer this harmful practice. We remain committed to ensuring that those responsible for such profound damage are held accountable.” Rep. Karen McCormick, a Democrat from Longmont, was blunt about the bill’s intent: “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.”

Conversion therapy is a discredited practice broadly decried by every major American medical organization. The APA concluded in a 2009 systematic review that the practice is “unlikely to be successful and involves risk of harm, including depression, suicidality, and anxiety,” and called for its total elimination. The United Nations has deemed conversion therapy a form of torture. A 2020 study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that LGBTQ+ youth subjected to conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to report attempting suicide. For transgender people specifically, conversion therapy often takes the form of so-called “gender exploratory therapy,” a rebranded approach that seeks to convince trans youth they are not actually transgender, keeping transition just out of reach by tricking trans youth that it might be offered if they jump through endless hoops while intending to deny it the entire way.

The bill now heads to the full Colorado Senate for a floor vote, where Democrats hold a 23-12 majority and passage is expected. Coloradans who support the bill can contact their state senator through the Colorado General Assembly’s legislator lookup tool. If the Senate passes the bill, it will go to Governor Polis, whose signature remains the final and most uncertain step. Polis, the first openly gay governor elected in the United States, signed the original 2019 conversion therapy ban and has called the practice “a scam and a waste of people’s hard-earned money”—but his office has stopped short of committing to sign this bill, saying only that he is “hopeful there is still time to construct a framework he could support.” What changes, if any, the governor is seeking remain unclear. The bill includes a safety clause that would make it take effect on July 1, 2026, and would exempt it from voter referendum. If signed, Colorado would become the first state in the country to use a private right of action to combat conversion therapy in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

HONOLULU (HawaiiNewsNow) – For Waikiki regular Ken Burig, the years-long closure of the bathroom at his favorite spot, feet away from iconic Prince Kuhio statue, has been especially troublesome.

“It’s very disappointing, cause it’s been like that for a long time and it’s very inconvenient for myself because I’m handicapped,” Burig, who gets around using an electric chair, said.

For the past four years, the city has blamed the bathroom’s closure on vandals who flushed clothes down the toilets, as well as mechanical and electric issues with a pump, requiring more than $40,000 for repairs.

The two nearest public restrooms are about a quarter mile away in both directions along Kalakaua Ave, an estimate five minute walk to reach either.

Visitor Ayah Muhsen agreed with Burig that the lack of a loo in the heavily-visited stretch of beach is “very inconvenient.”

Nicole Ancheta, another beach regular, added, “Dozens of people have put in complaints over the past year, since last August, September, not just me.”

Ancheta is adamant about getting the restroom reopened, reaching out to the city herself.

“Still waiting, they don’t have answers. I went to the board meeting in February. I get a note in February that it’ll be open in March, and it’s still closed, and still no answers. I emailed them last week,” Ancheta said.

A city spokesperson sent HNN the following response it provided to Ancheta:

“The maintenance contractor (Alakai) for the ʻŌhua Avenue comfort station at Kūhiō Beach Park is scheduled to work on the bathrooms this Friday, February 27, 2026 and we hope to have the bathrooms reopened soon. We further hope that these repairs last, and the bathroom can be utilized by you, your ‘ohana, and the public for longer than just a few days.

I know you are familiar with the problematic history of this particular bathroom building, but I did want to provide some context so we can all be on the same page. This bathroom is below ground,, so it requires its own tank, grinder, and two pumps to direct the sewage to the municipal lines. The extended closures have indeed been numerous, lengthy, and can certainly give the impression of continuous closure; making this facility one of our most challenging bathrooms we oversee. That’s primarily because the closures have resulted from vandalism of people flushing clothing down the toilets or mechanical/electric issues with the bathroom’s pump. Repairs to the pump and electric issues have experienced delays because the parts are under warranty, and we have been working to have them replaced or repaired under that warranty, saving taxpayer dollars.

We are determining our next course of action with this problematic facility, as we have already spent over $40,000 in repairs to this one bathroom coming on four years. Realistically,Head side a larger Capital Improvement Project will likely be needed if these current repairs don’t last.

Fortunately, there are public bathroom facilities within decent proximity to this one; near HPD’s Waikīkī Substation (0.3 miles away) and on the Diamond Head side of Kapahulu Avenue (0.2 miles away) just past the beach volleyball courts. I understand it can be difficult to walk that distance when you have kids or kupuna to take into account, but there are other nearby options.”

The spokesperson also pointed out that because there is no public parking for the stretch of beach, some walking is involved to get there as well.

One of the closest parking areas is on Kapahulu Ave, which is near a public comfort station.

We are still waiting for updates from the city.

However, another city spokesperson explained that the city is also a victim of the vandalism to the facility, not just those who need to use it.

Money and resources meant for normal maintenance that are not budgeted for improvements, the official added, get derailed to fix damages, impacting repairs in other places.

But two months ago, Hilton Grand Vacations donated $1 million to improve the area, which the Waikiki Business Improvement District hopes will help deter vandals.

“We really believe if things look nice, if you clean up dead grass, if you get rid of graffiti, if you repair that broken window, then crime will reduce, and things will get better,”

You can report vandalism to city facilities here.

Bruce Gillespie

Spring is typically a season of optimism. Entrepreneurs are opening new businesses, family farms and ranches are calving and planning for the next season, and existing small business owners are reviewing their finances and planning for growth.

However, at precisely this moment, Congress is considering legislation that would make those plans harder and riskier for Montana’s small businesses and agricultural producers. The Credit Card Competition Act (CCCA), also known as the Durbin-Marshall bill, may be marketed as pro-competition, but its real-world consequences would fall squarely on local businesses, farmers, ranchers, and the community banks they rely on.

We have seen before what happens when Washington underestimates the importance of these institutions. After the 2010 Durbin Amendment regulated debit card interchange fees, small banks were forced to roll back services or merge with larger institutions. The result was a steady erosion of community banking, particularly in rural states like Montana where alternatives are limited.

The Credit Card Competition Act threatens to repeat that mistake on an even larger scale.

Montana’s economy depends on relationship banking. In rural towns and small cities alike, smaller, community banks are often the only institutions willing to take the time to understand a seasonal business, a start-up operation, or a multigenerational farm. These lenders don’t just process transactions — they provide the credit that allows businesses to hire workers, buy equipment, and survive lean months. By decreasing the revenue small banks receive from credit card transactions, the Credit Card Competition Act does the exact opposite of what its name implies—it consolidates financial resources with larger banks and forces smaller, more local, lenders to limit credit access and cut services.

Research indicates that legislation like the CCCA would cost community banks billions of dollars annually in lost revenue. For Montana banks, that lost revenue would translate directly into fewer small business loans, tighter credit standards, and less flexibility for agricultural producers who depend on operating loans to get through the year.

Community banks are not a niche player in small business finance — they are the backbone. Nationwide, they provide the majority of small business credit and the vast majority of farm loans. In Montana, where agriculture, tourism, construction, and energy drive local economies, weakening community banks means weakening the businesses that sustain our state as a whole.

Analysts have warned that the CCCA would also make unsecured credit harder to access as banks respond by tightening eligibility requirements. For a new Montana business owner trying to finance inventory or payroll in January, or for a rancher seeking seasonal credit, that tightening could have catastrophic consequences. This comes at a time when Montana businesses are already navigating higher input costs, workforce challenges, and economic uncertainty.

Supporters of the CCCA promise savings by claiming that credit card fees would decrease, but what they don’t mention is that small businesses in rural states like Montana will get left in the dust with less available credit, and fewer choices.

As a state legislator, I believe that decisions made in Washington should strengthen — not undermine — the small businesses and farms that form the backbone of Montana’s economy. As we begin a new year defined by planning, investment, and opportunity, Congress should learn from past mistakes and reject the Credit Card Competition Act.

Senator Gillespie represents Senate District 9 in the Montana State Legislature.