Europe is moving toward criminal liability. America is protecting the right to practice it.
In a vote of 57 to 18, the Dutch Upper House has made conversion therapy a criminal offense, joining a growing chorus of nations that have concluded the practice causes measurable harm and warrants legal prohibition. The law imposes fines and imprisonment on those who attempt to alter another person's sexual orientation or gender identity — a practice the medical community has long condemned but never fully extinguished. The Netherlands acts at a moment when the United States moves in a different direction, with its courts increasingly treating such bans as threats to free expression rather than shields for the vulnerable. This divergence asks an old question anew: when does the protection of conscience end and the infliction of harm begin?
- Decades after the medical establishment formally rejected the premise that sexual orientation is a disorder, the practice it once legitimized continues — and now carries criminal penalties in the Netherlands.
- The law targets a harm that is not theoretical: UN reports and global psychiatric bodies have documented lasting psychological and physical damage in those subjected to conversion therapy, often children with no power to refuse.
- With 57 of 75 senators in favor, the Dutch vote was not close — reflecting a broad political consensus that vulnerable people require protection the market and the church have not provided.
- Across the Atlantic, the legal ground is shifting in the opposite direction: the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Chiles v. Salazar and the Sixth Circuit's decision in Catholic Charities v. Whitmer have framed conversion therapy restrictions as First Amendment problems, not solutions.
- The result is a transatlantic fault line — Europe extending criminal liability to practitioners while American courts extend constitutional shelter to the practice itself, leaving the question of who bears the cost unresolved.
On Tuesday, the Dutch Parliament criminalized conversion therapy, with the Upper House approving the Act on the Criminalization of Conversion Acts by a decisive 57-to-18 margin. Practitioners who attempt to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity now face fines of up to €27,500 and up to two years in prison.
The practice is not a relic. It emerged in the late 19th century on the assumption that sexual orientation was a defect to be corrected, and it survived even after the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its diagnostic manual in 1973 — a moment that should have rendered it obsolete. It persisted, particularly in religious settings and particularly targeting minors. A 2020 UN report confirmed what survivors had long described: severe psychological and physical harm, inflicted on people who often had no choice in the matter.
The Netherlands joins a widening international movement toward prohibition. The United States, by contrast, has no federal ban, and recent court decisions have weakened the patchwork of state-level protections that existed. The Supreme Court's ruling in Chiles v. Salazar subjected conversion therapy restrictions to strict constitutional scrutiny, effectively dismantling Colorado's ban. The Sixth Circuit followed by blocking Michigan's law on First Amendment grounds.
The divergence is not merely legal — it reflects a deeper disagreement about whose interests the law is meant to serve. The Dutch law answers that question in favor of the person on the receiving end of the practice. American courts, at least for now, have answered differently, and the consequences of that answer will unfold in the states that choose to test it.
On Tuesday, the Dutch Parliament took a step that much of Europe has already taken and the United States has struggled to achieve: it made conversion therapy a crime. The Upper House voted 57 to 18 in favor of the Act on the Criminalization of Conversion Acts, a law that treats efforts to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity as a criminal offense. Those convicted face fines up to €27,500 and up to two years in prison.
Conversion therapy is not new. The practice emerged in the late 19th century, built on the premise that sexual orientation was something broken that could be fixed. Practitioners deployed hypnosis, exposure therapy, and religious intervention—whatever they believed might work. For decades, the medical establishment lent it credibility. Then, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, acknowledging what many already knew: sexual orientation is not a disorder. That decision should have ended the practice. It did not.
The harm is well documented. A 2020 United Nations report concluded that conversion therapy inflicts severe psychological and physical damage on those subjected to it. The World Psychiatric Association and other major medical bodies have reached the same conclusion. Yet the practice persists, particularly in religious contexts, and particularly targeting minors who have no say in whether they undergo it.
The Netherlands joins a growing list of countries that have criminalized the practice. But the United States presents a starkly different picture. There is no federal ban. Twenty-three states and Washington, D.C. prohibit licensed healthcare providers from subjecting minors to conversion therapy, and four states have imposed restrictions. But these protections have proven fragile. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Chiles v. Salazar that restrictions on conversion therapy—specifically on talk therapy—must meet strict scrutiny, a demanding legal standard. That decision effectively struck down Colorado's ban. Months earlier, in December, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Michigan's ban in Catholic Charities v. Whitmer, citing First Amendment concerns. Both rulings treated conversion therapy restrictions as potential violations of free speech.
The contrast is stark. Europe is moving toward criminal liability for practitioners. The United States is moving toward protecting the right to practice it, at least in certain contexts. The Dutch law represents a judgment that protecting vulnerable people from harm outweighs other considerations. American courts, at least recently, have reached a different conclusion. What happens next in the U.S. will depend on whether other states attempt new bans and how courts respond—or whether the Supreme Court's recent decisions settle the matter for a generation.
Notable Quotes
The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973, reflecting the view that sexual orientation is not a disorder requiring treatment— American Psychiatric Association
A 2020 United Nations report found that conversion therapy practices inflict severe pain and suffering and called for a global ban— United Nations
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does the Netherlands need a criminal law for this? Isn't it already condemned by doctors?
Condemnation from medical bodies doesn't stop people from doing it. The law makes it a crime, not just unethical. That's a different kind of enforcement.
Who gets prosecuted? The therapist, the parent, both?
The law targets practitioners—people offering the service. Parents aren't the focus, though that's a harder question legally.
Two years seems light for something that causes lasting psychological damage.
It's comparable to other European penalties. The point is criminalization itself—making it clear the state won't tolerate it.
Why is the U.S. going the opposite direction?
Courts are treating it as a free speech issue. If you ban talk therapy, are you restricting what people can say? That's a different legal framework than Europe uses.
So someone in Michigan can still do this legally?
The ban was blocked, yes. And Colorado's was struck down. It's a real gap in protection, especially for minors who can't consent.
Will this Dutch law matter internationally?
It signals something. When major democracies criminalize it, it becomes harder to defend elsewhere. But the U.S. isn't following that path yet.