Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conversion Therapy Ban topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cuyahoga County Council adopts ordinance banning conversion therapy for minors and vulnerable adults
Summary
After extensive public comment, Cuyahoga County Council voted to adopt Ordinance 20250003 to prohibit conversion therapy on minors and vulnerable adults; sponsors and community groups urged the vote as life‑saving, while some members cautioned about legal context.
Cuyahoga County Council voted Tuesday to adopt an ordinance prohibiting conversion therapy for minors and vulnerable adults, concluding three readings on Ordinance 20250003.
The ordinance, sponsored by Councilman Robert Schlepper, was adopted after public comment from dozens of residents and advocacy groups urging the council to act. Council members said the measure protects vulnerable people from a practice they and many medical organizations described as harmful.
The measure amends county code sections identified on the agenda and bars licensed or unlicensed practices intended to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity when used on minors or defined vulnerable adults. Councilman Schlepper moved to adopt the ordinance; the motion was seconded and the council voted to adopt the measure on third reading.
Public commenters representing social‑service and advocacy organizations described conversion therapy as abusive and linked it to worse mental‑health outcomes. Robert Deming, a social work student and intern with the National Association of Social Workers Ohio chapter, told the council, “Conversion therapy violates that principle. It causes lasting trauma, especially for LGBTQIA+ youth.” Stephanie Ash, who identified herself as a licensed social worker, told council members that the practice is “not therapy” and urged passage in the name of public safety and evidence‑based care.
Speakers from the LGBT Community Center of Greater Cleveland and other local groups urged the council to adopt the ordinance now as a local protection amid what they called hostile state and federal policy shifts. Supporters said municipal bans complement protections already enacted in some Cuyahoga municipalities.
During council discussion, members thanked the sponsor and several said the ordinance aligned with county values and the scientific consensus cited by witnesses. Some members raised procedural or legal questions during debate and noted pending litigation in other states that could affect future challenges to local ordinances; Councilman Gallagher urged colleagues to consider potential state and federal developments but said he would support the measure now as a local protection.
The ordinance does not specify an effective date on the council floor transcript and contains no detailed enforcement timeline in the spoken record. The county executive asked that his name be added as a supporter of the ordinance on the record.
The vote finalized council action on the ordinance; details about implementation, enforcement procedures, or potential referrals to county departments were not specified in the meeting record.
