Why I voted for Columbia’s conversion therapy ban and still support it | Opinion

As a former Columbia City Council member and now as a South Carolina state senator, I have always believed our policies must reflect compassion, research and the voices of the people we serve.

That belief guided my work on City Council when we passed a ban on the harmful and discredited practice of conversion therapy for minors in 2021. It is also why I recently stood in the Senate to fight a dangerous budget proviso that now threatens millions of dollars in funding for the city of Columbia — simply because we chose to protect our most vulnerable youth.

The decision to champion a local ban on conversion therapy wasn’t made lightly. I listened to countless stories from young people in Columbia — brave, bright LGBTQ+ youth who told me about their fears, their trauma and the rejection they’ve faced.

I heard from parents and healthcare professionals, including pediatricians and mental health experts, who made it abundantly clear: Conversion therapy is not only ineffective, it’s deeply harmful.

According to The Trevor Project, young people who undergo conversion therapy are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide than as those who don’t. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and numerous other every major health organizations have all denounced the practice.

In response, we took action. The city relied on science not ideology and became the first municipality in South Carolina to ban conversion therapy for minors. We did so because we believed — rightly — that every child deserves to grow up feeling safe, accepted and loved for who they are.

This year, however, a budget proviso was included in the state’s budget proposal for next fiscal year passed by the General Assembly that would financially penalize the city of Columbia unless the council we repeals its this ordinance. If the proviso it remains in the final state budget, Columbia could lose millions of dollars in state funds that support essential services — from public safety and infrastructure to youth programs and community development.

That loss would ultimately hurt taxpayers and residents far removed from this issue.

The senator who proposed this proviso does not represent Columbia. I do. And let me be clear: This effort is not about fiscal responsibility — it’s about punishing a city for taking a moral stance that some legislators don’t agree with. This is a textbook example of government overreach.

The proviso violates the principle of home rule, stripping away the authority of local elected officials to make decisions that reflect the values of their communities. More than that, it sets a dangerous precedent — one where cities can be bullied into reversing protections for vulnerable residents under the threat of losing critical funding.

We should all be alarmed by this. If Columbia can be punished today for protecting LGBTQ+ youth, what’s next? Will cities be forced to abandon other health, safety or equity measures to satisfy political agendas in the State House?

I urge citizens across Columbia and South Carolina to pay close attention. These tactics are more than political games — they carry real consequences for real people.

Local governments must be able to serve their residents without fear of retaliation from lawmakers who don’t even represent them.

Columbia made the right decision and should not be punished for it.

This story was originally published May 20, 2025 at 5:00 AM with the headline "Why I voted for Columbia’s conversion therapy ban and still support it | Opinion."