Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conversion Therapy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents tell Columbia council to keep cityordinance banning conversion therapy amid AG review
Summary
Multiple speakers at a Columbia City Council meeting urged the council not to repeal Ordinance 20-21-21, which bans licensed practitioners from providing so-called conversion therapy to minors, citing health and safety concerns and a recent Attorney Generalopinion.
Dozens of residents and health professionals urged the Columbia City Council on Tuesday to keep in place the city's ordinance that bars licensed providers from practicing so-called conversion therapy on minors.
The speakers responded to a letter from South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson recommending repeal. "Conversion therapy is not merciful. Conversion therapy is not justice, and conversion therapy is not humble," the Rev. Karen Ramasson told the council, citing religious reasons for opposing repeal. "Please oppose such an idea."
The presenters framed the issue as a public-health and child-protection matter. PJ Whitehurst, a community health worker and safe-space outreach coordinator, said he has worked with LGBTQ youth experiencing homelessness and housing insecurity and warned of harm if the ordinance is undone. "Conversion therapy is not therapy. It's child abuse," Whitehurst said, adding that repealing the ban would "be the cause of their abuse" and could contribute to suicides among youth.
Christina Picozzi, executive director of the Harriet Hancock Center, said she delivered a letter signed by more than 400 residents and leaders urging the council to maintain Ordinance 20-21-21. "This ordinance does not prevent practitioners from being religious," Picozzi said. "It ensures licensed professionals are using evidence-based ethical practices with their clients." She said the letter contains 429 signatures from residents and stakeholders.
Licensed counselors and clinician-educators also addressed the council, arguing the ordinance aligns with professional ethical standards. Curtis Keesler, a licensed professional counselor who works with at-risk youth, told the council that professional codes of ethics prohibit imposing a therapist's personal values on clients and that licensed professionals can be disciplined under state law if they cause harm. "The ordinance applies equally to all providers regardless of religion and restricts specific conduct, not belief or speech," Keesler said.
Dr. Wynn Purvis, a counselor educator and seasoned clinician, said reparative interventions are not evidence-based therapy and described conversion practices as "pseudoscience" and abusive. "Conversion and reparative practices are pseudoscience," Purvis said. "This is abuse, and we do not need to permit that to happen."
Advocates framed the city ordinance as narrowly targeted at licensed professionals, not clergy or pastoral counseling. Matthew Butler, advocacy strategist for the ACLU of South Carolina and board president of the Harriet Hancock Center Foundation, said the ordinance "protects children" and "draws a moral and legal line when a licensed professional offers so-called conversion therapy to a child." Butler urged the council not to retreat in the face of the attorney general's letter.
Speakers asked council members to weigh medical and professional guidance from major health organizations that have concluded conversion therapy is harmful. Several turnouts emphasized faith-based opposition to conversion practices: Raven Kelly Dinwiddie, who identified herself as a person of faith and a member of Reformation Lutheran Church, told the council "Conversion therapy is not kind. Conversion therapy is not loving. Conversion therapy is not of Jesus."
The council did not take an immediate vote on repeal during the public-comment segment. Several speakers explicitly referenced the attorney general's communication; the meeting later moved to an executive session on legal advice for pending matters unrelated to the ordinance. The record shows robust public engagement on the issue, with at least seven speakers addressing the council during public input.
Council members did not indicate any formal decision on the ordinance during the portion of the meeting recorded in the transcript; the attorney general's recommendation and local testimony were the central focus of the remarks.
The city clerk recorded speakers' names and addresses for the official record. The matter remains subject to any future council action and potential legal review noted in state correspondence.
