Watch Renee’s testimony on SF 23 above, or read the full text below.
Madam chair and members,
My name is Renee Carlson. I serve as General Counsel for TNL.
Life isn’t easy. We know this from the testimonies heard today.
Because every person’s story is different, access to trusted counselors is critical for all Minnesotans.
Moreover, counselors and clients should direct the conversations about a client’s counseling experience, not the government.
But SF 23 doesn’t allow either. It stifles personal counseling goals by censoring constitutionally protected speech of licensed counselors, clients, and many others, which is likely to result in a vacuum of care, leaving patients who voluntarily seek counseling without any options.
SF 23’s unconstitutional discrimination based on content and viewpoint permits speech that helps a person change his or her gender identity or embrace same-sex attractions. Yet bans speech, that helps a person address unwanted same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion.
The U.S. Supreme Court has “long protected the First Amendment rights of professionals”—such as therapist and counselors, and signaled that counseling censorship laws such as SF 23 violate these rights and principles regarding free speech.
And, just a few years ago, the 11th circuit court of appeals struck down a FL law with similar yet even narrower language than SF 23, holding it was an infringement on constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment, stating ““People have intense moral, religious, and spiritual views about [counseling related to sexuality and identity]…. And that is exactly why the First
Amendment does not allow communities to determine how their neighbors
may be counseled about matters of sexual orientation or gender.”
Our own 8th Circuit has been clear that speech is not conduct simply because the government says it is.
SF 23’s consumer fraud provision makes this bill the most expansive counseling censorship bill in the country. The bills vague and overly broad language leave counselors, clients, and all others expected to comply with the prohibitions confused about what is actually prohibited.
However, under the proposed bill, faith-based organizations engaging in faith-driven activities could be subjected to severe legal consequences and ruinous lawsuits.
Minnesotans of diverse faith backgrounds will be caught between liability under the law and strong moral convictions.
Further, these provisions are unnecessary, as current Minnesota law already holds licensed professionals accountable.
There is no justification for legislation that violates Minnesotan’s freedom of speech in a very private setting, while imposing severe legal consequences for Minnesotans who simply want to live consistent with their deeply held beliefs.