Democratic challenger Rebecca Cooke has drawn heat for wavering on whether the federal government should ban conversion therapy, reversing earlier forum answers after pressure from the progressive wing and stirring attacks from Republicans who call the flip-flop proof she can’t be trusted on core cultural issues in a Trump-leaning swing district.
Cooke, who is campaigning to unseat Rep. Derrick Van Orden, repeatedly demurred at public events when asked if Congress should pass a nationwide prohibition on conversion therapy. Her initial stance favored leaving decisions to states and local governments, a position that appealed to voters wary of federal overreach.
That hands-off posture shifted after progressive activists pushed back, and Cooke later said the federal government should bar the practice. Conversion therapy typically refers to counseling aimed at changing someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, and it has become one of the flashpoints in the nation’s debate over parental rights, free speech, and mental health care.
The issue picked up steam after the Supreme Court struck down a Colorado ban, citing First Amendment concerns, a ruling that left Democratic activists searching for a legislative response. That legal backdrop turned Cooke’s cautious answers into a vulnerability in a district where cultural issues sway undecided voters.
Cooke is trying to thread a narrow needle in a district that leans toward President Trump, where she must first win a primary and then appeal to moderate and conservative voters in November. That balancing act explains why she switched from state-level deference to endorsing a federal ban once activists pressured her campaign.
Her Democratic primary is complicated by a left-leaning challenger, Emily Berge, who helped pass Eau Claire’s local ban on conversion therapy and has been explicit in her opposition to the practice. Berge, a former city council president and therapist, told audiences, “As a therapist, conversion therapy has no place in our society, in our culture.”
At an earlier forum in La Crosse, Cooke told a moderator she favored “local communities having control.” She later expanded on that sentiment, saying, “I’m in favor of that sort of local control when making policies like this,” which raised questions about how consistent her positions really are.
When the same topic came up at a June candidate forum in Platteville, Cooke answered “no” when asked if federal legislation should ban conversion therapy, a reply that amplified frustration among progressives. The exchange was widely circulated and helped prompt the candidate to clarify her stance publicly.
Progressive voters reacted strongly online, arguing that state-by-state protections were insufficient. “I find it interesting that not in one, but TWO forums you said you would leave conversion therapy up to the states to decide,” one user wrote on Facebook. “That is not protecting the LGBTQ community.”
Another critic put the case bluntly: “I don’t know how you can say ‘Happy Pride’ if you aren’t willing to stand up for people you want to represent in Congress,” an account replied. “If you are willing to sell out the LGBTQIA+ community for votes, who is next?” Those messages helped force Cooke’s campaign to respond.
Cooke later said she “misunderstood” the moderator’s question and issued a follow-up statement saying she supported a federal ban, and at a July forum clarified, “I do not support conversion therapy whatsoever.” The back-and-forth gave Republican opponents a ready line of attack about credibility and consistency.
Van Orden’s campaign and Republican allies seized on the reversal as evidence Cooke is trying to be two different candidates for two different audiences. “Rebecca Cooke is so desperate to appease the far-left woke mob that Wisconsin voters can’t be sure where she actually stands,” RNC spokesman Hunter Lovell said, adding, “She’s trying to be one candidate for liberal activists and another for everyone else.”
Cooke’s record shows longtime support for expanding LGBTQ rights and she has made the Equality Act a centerpiece of her campaign, a move that plays well with national Democrats but raises conservative concerns about implications for women-only spaces and sports. She also counts endorsements from national progressive groups, which Republican critics point to as proof she’s aligned with the party’s activist wing rather than the district’s majority.
The political math complicates any easy prediction: President Trump won the district by a solid margin in 2024, yet Cooke narrowed the gap in a rematch and lost by under three points last cycle. With the contest rated a toss-up by nonpartisan forecasters, Cooke’s perceived inconsistency on high-profile cultural issues could be decisive in November.
