top of page

Isabel Brown Questions Colorado’s New Counseling Restrictions on The Isabel Brown Show


Top Points

  • Colorado’s new law limits what counselors can say about gender transition decisions: The legislation bans licensed therapists from discouraging or questioning a client’s decision to pursue gender-affirming care, categorizing such discussions as a form of conversion therapy.

  • Critics, including Isabel Brown, say the law restricts open dialogue and professional freedom: Dissenters argue that therapists risk punishment for asking questions about readiness or long-term effects, making it harder to ensure patients make fully informed decisions.

  • Right-leaning commentators see the law as government overreach: They contend that it limits free speech, undermines parental rights, and enforces a one-sided approach to therapy, reflecting a broader national divide over medical freedom and ideological influence in healthcare.


Full Report:

On a recent episode of The Isabel Brown Show, commentator Isabel Brown focused on a new set of laws in Colorado that restrict what counselors can say when discussing gender-affirming care with clients. The legislation, which updates professional ethics guidelines for therapists and mental-health providers, has sparked significant debate about free expression, medical caution, and the role of counseling in sensitive identity decisions.


What the Law Says

The law prohibits licensed counselors and therapists from attempting to discourage a client from pursuing gender-affirming treatments such as hormone therapy or surgical transition. It effectively categorizes such conversations as a form of conversion therapy, even if they involve questions about readiness or long-term implications.


Supporters of the measure say it protects transgender individuals, particularly minors, from being invalidated or pressured to change their gender identity. They argue that affirming care reduces mental-health risks and promotes safety for a vulnerable population.


Brown Raises Questions About the Limits of Dialogue

On her show, Isabel Brown gave voice to a growing group of dissenters who see the law as overly restrictive. She argued that counseling is meant to be a space for open conversation, not one-sided affirmation. According to Brown, many mental-health professionals worry they could now face disciplinary action simply for asking a client whether they feel ready to proceed with gender transition treatments.


Brown questioned whether the legislation confuses compassion with compliance. She suggested that exploring all possibilities, including waiting, seeking additional opinions, or considering alternative forms of support, should not be viewed as discrimination or conversion therapy. She emphasized that true counseling requires honesty and curiosity, not a checklist of legally approved questions.


Concerns About Professional Freedom

Several mental-health professionals interviewed or cited on the show expressed concern that the law could create a chilling effect. They fear that therapists will avoid discussing complex emotional or physical aspects of transition out of fear of violating state rules. Brown noted that for some dissenters, this law goes beyond protecting patients and begins to police thought and speech within therapy rooms.


Critics also raised ethical questions about whether young people, particularly minors, can fully understand the lifelong consequences of medical transition. They argue that prohibiting counselors from even asking probing questions removes a critical safeguard intended to help patients make informed, well-considered decisions.


Broader Debate and Right-Leaning Criticisms

Brown placed Colorado’s legislation within the wider national conversation about gender-affirming care. Several states have recently passed laws that take opposite approaches, with some restricting access to treatment for minors and others expanding legal protections for it. This patchwork of laws, she said, reflects deep divisions in how society defines care, consent, and the role of medical professionals.


Right-leaning critics of the Colorado law often frame their opposition around three main points. First, they argue that it restricts free speech and professional judgment, limiting what counselors can say even when acting in good faith to ensure patient well-being. Second, they claim that it undermines parental rights and informed consent, especially when it comes to minors making irreversible medical decisions. Third, they believe the law reflects a growing tendency for government to impose ideological positions in healthcare, rather than allowing open, evidence-based discussion between providers and patients.


Those on the right generally contend that mental-health professionals should have the ability to ask clarifying or challenging questions without fear of punishment, seeing this as an issue of medical ethics rather than politics. They call for policies that encourage thorough evaluation, transparency, and family involvement, rather than limiting dialogue.


A Call for Open Conversation

The episode concluded with Brown urging policymakers, therapists, and citizens to keep dialogue open rather than closing it off through legislation. She argued that honest discussion between patients and counselors, families and doctors, and lawmakers and constituents is essential to finding common ground in an increasingly polarized debate.


References


bottom of page