社区黑料

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

was originally reported by Kate Sosin of .听

The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Tuesday that a Colorado ban on conversion therapy for youth violates the free speech rights of a Christian counselor, clearing the way for a practice that goes against the recommendations of every major medical association in the country.

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson .

鈥淭oday鈥檚 reckless decision means more American kids will suffer,鈥� she said. 鈥淭he Court has weaponized free-speech in order to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health and wellbeing of children.鈥�

Conversion therapy is a in which providers attempt to change a youth鈥檚 sexual orientation or gender identity, often through extremely harsh methods including acts of physical, psychological and sexual abuse against minors 鈥� , chemically induced nausea and hypnosis, among others.

The and recommended it be banned.听 Twenty-three states and Washington, D.C., have laws banning conversion therapy for minors.

The decision comes on , a global day celebrating transgender lives and culture every March 31.

Some LGBTQ+ advocates note that while the ruling favors a discredited practice, it leaves most avenues of regulating conversion therapy untouched.

鈥淚 think the most important thing to understand about the decision today is that it only takes one way of regulating conversion therapy off the table,鈥� said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights.

Tuesday鈥檚 ruling throws out Colorado鈥檚 ban, but does not strike down bans in other states, which advocates feared could be a worst-case scenario. The case, Chiles v. Salazar, was brought by Christian counselor Kaley Chiles, who argued that the ban violated her free speech rights. Chiles says she only offers talk therapy and does not use physical interventions or prescribe medications.

The ruling does not declare conversion therapy safe or effective. It also leaves intact the ability of medical licensing boards鈥� to investigate conversion therapy practice as fraudulent.

Minter said in a statement that the ruling still leaves room to discipline providers in states where it is banned.

“This decision is narrowly about how conversion therapy can be regulated. It does not mean that conversion therapy is safe or legal. Conversion therapy is still medical malpractice and consumer fraud,” Minter said. “Every major medical organization in this country condemns it. Survivors can still bring malpractice and consumer fraud claims.鈥�

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that Colorado鈥檚 law applies beyond 鈥減hysical interventions,鈥� and restricts free speech.

鈥淐olorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same,鈥� the opinion read. 鈥淏ut the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth.鈥�

The majority held that the right to free speech applies equally to licensed medical professionals as to all Americans.

As the lone dissent, argued that the majority 鈥渇ailed to appreciate the crucial context鈥� of Chiles鈥� case. 鈥淐hiles is not speaking in the ether; she is providing therapy to minors as a licensed healthcare professional,鈥� she wrote.

Neither side disputed Colorado鈥檚 authority to regulate medical treatments and providers or claimed that a state doing so is unconstitutional, she said.

鈥淪o, in my view, it cannot also be the case that Colorado鈥檚 decision to restrict a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech is presumptively unconstitutional,鈥� Jackson added. 鈥淚n concluding otherwise, the Court鈥檚 opinion misreads our precedents, is unprincipled and unworkable and will eventually prove untenable for those who rely upon the long-recognized responsibility of states to regulate the medical profession for the protection of public health.鈥�

This is the first of three LGBTQ+ blockbuster cases before the court this term. Two others, , were heard at the same time earlier this year.

Grace Panetta contributed reporting.

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 社区黑料鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.