Fact Check: Columbia City Council Lifts Conversion Therapy Ban Under Funding Threat
What We Know
On June 17, 2025, the Columbia City Council voted 4-3 to repeal its ban on conversion therapy for minors. This decision was made under significant pressure from South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and State Senator Josh Kimbrell, who threatened legal action against the city, arguing that the ban violated the First Amendment and state law (The State). The repeal was also influenced by a provision in the state budget that threatened to withhold $3.7 million in local funding from municipalities that maintained such bans (WIS).
The original ordinance, passed in 2021, was a landmark policy aimed at protecting LGBTQ+ youth from the widely discredited practice of conversion therapy, which has been condemned by major medical organizations like the American Medical Association (The State). The council's decision to repeal the ban has sparked outrage among LGBTQ+ advocates, who argue that it undermines the safety and rights of queer youth in the community (The State).
Analysis
The evidence supporting the claim that the Columbia City Council lifted the conversion therapy ban due to funding threats is robust. The timeline of events shows that the council faced mounting pressure from state officials, particularly following Attorney General Wilson's threat of a lawsuit (WIS). This legal pressure was coupled with the explicit threat of losing substantial state funding, which would have serious implications for the city's budget (WLTX).
The sources used in this analysis are credible and provide a clear narrative of the events leading to the repeal. The State, a local news outlet, has reported extensively on the council's decisions and the surrounding political context, making it a reliable source for understanding the implications of the repeal (The State). Additionally, WIS and WLTX are established news organizations that cover local and state issues in South Carolina, further supporting the reliability of the information presented.
However, it is important to note that while the repeal was framed as a necessity due to legal and financial pressures, it has raised significant concerns among residents and advocacy groups about the message it sends regarding the city's commitment to LGBTQ+ rights (The State).
Conclusion
The claim that the Columbia City Council lifted the conversion therapy ban under funding threat is True. The council's decision was directly influenced by threats of legal action and the potential loss of state funding, which underscores the complex interplay between local governance and state-level political pressures. The repeal not only reflects a shift in policy but also raises critical questions about the protection of vulnerable communities in the face of external pressures.
