Bill > SB201

Introduced Session

Legislative Counsel's Digest: Under existing law, the Legislature has the power to regulate licensed health care professionals for the benefit of the public s health, safety and welfare and to protect the well-being of patients from ineffective or harmful professional services. (Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 122-23 (1889); Hawker v. New York, 170 U.S. 189, 191-95 (1898); State ex rel. Kassabian v. State Bd. of Med. Exam rs, 68 Nev. 455, 463-65 (1951)) In exercising that power, the Legislature has enacted existing laws that regulate homeopathic physicians, advanced practitioners of homeopathy, homeopathic assistants and certain mental health professionals including psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed marriage and family therapists, certain registered nurses and certain licensed clinical or independent social workers. (Chapters 630, 630A, 632, 633 and 641-641B of NRS) The purpose of this bill is to protect the well-being of children who are under 18 years of age by prohibiting such licensed health care professionals from providing children with conversion therapies, which are any practices or treatments that seek to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of the children. In section 1 of this bill, the Legislature finds and declares that there is a legitimate and compelling need to protect the well-being of children from the harmful and destructive effects of conversion therapies because such therapies have not been proven to be medically or clinically effective but have been shown to have a high potential to cause substantial harm to the physical and psychological well-being of children who are much more vulnerable to the potentially traumatic effects of such intensive conversion therapies. To carry out the Legislature s objectives, section 1.5 of this bill prohibits homeopathic physicians, advanced practitioners of homeopathy, homeopathic assistants and certain mental health professionals from providing sexual orientation or gender identity conversion therapies to children who are under 18 years of age. However, there is nothing in this bill that regulates or prohibits licensed health care professionals from engaging in expressive speech or religious counseling with such children if the licensed health care professionals: (1) are acting in their pastoral or religious capacity as members of the clergy or as religious counselors; and (2) do not hold themselves out as operating pursuant to their professional licenses when so acting in their pastoral or religious capacity. This bill is modeled on similar laws enacted in California and New Jersey. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 865 et seq.; N.J. Stat. Ann. 45:1-54 et seq.) In interpreting those laws, courts have determined that the laws do not regulate or prohibit licensed health care professionals from engaging in expressive speech or religious counseling with children who are under 18 years of age if the licensed health care professionals: (1) are acting in their pastoral or religious capacity as members of the clergy or as religious counselors; and (2) do not hold themselves out as operating pursuant to their professional licenses when so acting in their pastoral or religious capacity. In addition, courts have also held that the laws: (1) are a constitutional exercise of the legislative power to regulate licensed health care professionals for the benefit of the public s health, safety and welfare and to protect the well-being of children from ineffective or harmful professional services; (2) do not violate any rights to freedom of speech, association or religion and are not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (3) do not violate any other fundamental or substantive due process rights of licensed health care professionals or the parents or children who seek their professional services. (Pickup v. Brown, 740 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 134 S.Ct. 2871 and 2881 (2014); Welch v. Brown, 834 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, No. 16-845, --- S.Ct. --- (May 1, 2017); King v. Governor of New Jersey, 767 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 2048 (2015); Doe v. Governor of New Jersey, 783 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S.Ct. 1155 (2016))

AI Summary

Nelson Araujo (D)*,  Kelvin Atkinson (D)*,  Maggie Carlton (D)*,  Richard Carrillo (D)*,  Lesley Cohen (D)*,  Aaron Ford (D)*,  Dina Neal (D)*,  David Parks (D)*,  Julia Ratti (D)*,  Pat Spearman (D)*,  Christopher Brooks (D),  Yvanna Cancela (D),  Nicole Cannizzaro (D),  Mo Denis (D),  Patricia Farley (NP),  Edgar Flores (D),  Lisa Krasner (R),  Mark Manendo (D),  James Ohrenschall (D),  Tick Segerblom (D),  Heidi Swank (D),  Tyrone Thompson (D),  Joyce Woodhouse (D),  Steve Yeager (D), 

Approved by the Governor. Chapter 23. (on 05/17/2017)

Official Document