Across different countries, legislative efforts to ban conversion practices are facing intense scrutiny from both religious liberty advocates and legal experts. While some government officials maintain that broad legal bans are necessary to protect individuals from what is being labeled as “coercive practices”, some Christian organizations argue that poorly framed legislation risks criminalizing routine pastoral care, parental guidance, and traditional biblical teaching on marriage and sexuality.
In the United Kingdom, the government published its draft Conversion Practices Bill for England and Wales, fulfilling a long-standing political commitment. The draft legislation outlines severe penalties, including unlimited fines and up to five years in prison, for those engaging in prohibited conversion activities. In 2025, previous Equalities Minister Olivia Bailey defended the bill, stating that conversion practices are rooted in the harmful assumption that sexual orientation or gender identity can be forcibly altered. The government maintains that the law is designed to target coercive behaviour, such as forced or intensive prayer sessions meant to “cure” an individual while preserving standard preaching and teaching.
However, major UK faith organizations warn that the bill’s broad wording fails to safeguard basic religious freedoms. Simon Calvert, Deputy Director for Public Affairs at The Christian Institute, criticized the vague scope of the proposal, warning that it brings private family discussions between parents and children under potential criminal investigation. Calvert encouraged believers not to be intimidated, advising them to address questions about sexuality with grace and biblical truth.
Christian Concern Chief Executive Andrea Williams argued that the bill is unnecessary because physically abusive practices are already prohibited by existing criminal law. She noted that at the heart of the Christian gospel is spiritual transformation, warning that vague restrictions surrounding “controlling or coercive words” create an avenue for false accusations against pastors and parents who offer requested guidance. Furthermore, Peter Lynas, the UK Director of the Evangelical Alliance, warned that subjective definitions of abuse leave ministry leaders exposed to legal risks years after a conversation takes place.
A similar constitutional battle is unfolding in the United States. In Michigan, state officials faced legal halts regarding the enforcement of conversion therapy restrictions following challenges brought by faith-based practitioners and legal groups. Critics in Michigan emphasized that state bans targeting voluntary, faith-aligned counselling violate the First Amendment protections guaranteeing free speech and the free exercise of religion. Courts in multiple U.S. jurisdictions have increasingly questioned government bans on talk therapy cross constitutional lines.
These parallel developments highlight an ongoing global debate over state regulation and religious liberty. As lawmakers move to enact new prohibitions, Christian campaigners emphasize that legislation must clearly protect consensual counselling, pastoral prayer, and orthodox doctrine, ensuring that efforts to prevent coercion do not turn into state interference with religious faith.
