Senate commission hears contested views on Project 184’s ban on conversion therapy for minors

San Juan—Lawmakers and faith leaders clashed at a Senate commission hearing on Project 184, a proposed amendment to Puerto Rico’s mental‑health code and child‑protection statutes that would ban conversion therapies for minors.

Pastor René Pereira Morales, who identified himself as a Baptist minister, told the Comisión de Iniciativas Comunitarias, Salud Mental y Adicción that he opposes the bill because, in his view, its definition of "terapia de conversión" is overly broad and could criminalize parents and faith‑based institutions that offer spiritual counseling. "Mediante esta legislación, se criminaliza a todo padre o madre que procure educar y ayudar a su hijo basándose en el principio de que la conducta ... está ligada al elemento biológico natural," Pereira Morales said, and he urged the panel to consider an alternative definition he submitted to the commission.

Senator Rafael Bernabé, in contrast, said the project’s purpose is narrow: to "prohibir someter a menores a terapias de conversión." He told the panel the bill does not criminalize parental speech or religious instruction and emphasized that, as drafted, it targets professionals who provide mental‑health services to minors. "Este proyecto lo único que hace es prohibir someter a menores a terapias de conversión," Bernabé said.

Several senators pressed both sides on a central point: the wording of the statutory definition. Joan M Rodríguez Bebe and Ada García expressed concern that the phrase "cualquier esfuerzo" ("any effort") in the bill could be interpreted so broadly that ordinary parental guidance, faith‑based counseling or pastoral support might fall within its scope. Rodríguez Bebe told the panel that much of the controversy "surge por la vaguedad de la definición" and asked the authors and proponents to clarify possible interpretations.

The hearing included repeated clarifications that witnesses and senators agree on one substantive prohibition: extreme, coercive, or abusive practices — for example, aversive treatments such as electroshock or forced procedures — should be banned. Pereira Morales said he also opposes practices that "implican dolor, tortura, maltrato físico o emocional." But he and others warned that, as written, the bill could be interpreted to include voluntary pastoral counseling or services provided by faith‑based organizations.

An attendee who identified himself as a former judge (speaker 2) and others proposed technical amendments to narrow the bill’s reach, including language clarifying that the prohibition applies to licensed health‑care providers and affirming parental authorization requirements for medical interventions. The ex‑judge recommended aligning the mental‑health code amendment with existing child‑welfare provisions to make explicit when an intervention becomes a reportable act of maltreatment.

At the end of the panel, lawmakers agreed to review the alternative definitions and documentation offered during the hearing and to continue deliberations after the lunch recess. The commission recessed for one hour to allow staff and members to study the submitted texts and consider narrower language to resolve the tensions raised during testimony.

The commission did not take a vote at the hearing. The authors of Project 184 and the committee staff will review the alternative definition proposed by some witnesses and may propose drafting changes before further consideration.