Committee declines to endorse SB934 after intense public debate; staff to prepare deeper analysis

The Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Committee of the California Board of Psychology voted not to recommend support for Senate Bill 934 on April 24 after extensive public comment and follow‑up questions from members.

SB934, introduced by Sen. Scott Wiener, would expand the time period during which individuals harmed by sexual‑orientation or gender‑identity change efforts could seek civil remedies. Board staff briefed the committee that the measure expresses legislative intent to create an extended look‑back window for civil claims; the committee noted the bill also touches directly on matters that fall within the board’s disciplinary authority.

Public testimony was sharply divided. Representatives of advocacy and professional groups urged consumer protections and cited research on harms from conversion therapy; other commenters—including clinicians who said their practice focuses on trauma recovery and "reintegrative" approaches—argued the bill could create a chilling effect on legitimate therapeutic work and raise open‑ended liability concerns. "When I provide expert testimony, lawmakers have been concerned that vague language creates a chilling effect," said Dr. Joseph Nicolosi Jr., a practicing psychologist.

Committee members said they support greater consumer protection but asked staff for a much more detailed legal and enforcement analysis before taking a position. "We need a deeper dive into potential liabilities, the practical effect of unlimited look‑back periods, and how that interacts with record‑keeping requirements," said one member. Executive Officer John Burke confirmed staff will prepare a fuller analysis for the full board's May meeting.

Next steps: staff will analyze SB934’s amended language, look‑back duration implications, record‑retention questions, and enforcement impacts and present findings to the full board for a policy decision.