This International Transgender Day of Visibility, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against a Colorado law that banned the practice of conversion therapy on minors. This ruling has far-reaching effects and raises the question of whether pseudoscientific practices such as conversion therapy should be regulated as medical treatments or protected under free speech.
The Supreme Court’s Decision in Chiles v. Salazar
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Chiles v. Salazar, stating that Colorado law “censors speech based on viewpoint” and violated the First Amendment. This outcome is aligned with recent decisions in favor of “religious discrimination” and skepticism of LGBTQIA+ rights.
Christian counselor Kaley Chiles petitioned the Court, stating, as “a practicing Christian, [she] believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex” and hopes to “reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body.”
Ultimately, Chiles and the Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the Minor Conversion Therapy Law violated her First Amendment rights to religion and free speech.
Chiles argued that MCTL barred any professional discussion with minors regarding LGBTQIA+ topics unless it was explicitly affirming or positive, making it impossible for parents to find therapists with “alternative viewpoints.”
Colorado disagreed, arguing that MCTL simply barred therapy that only tried to convert LGBTQIA+ people and allowed for therapists to fully explore identity with patients – and that religious ministers are explicitly exempt from MCTL to interact with minors as long as it is marketed as religious counseling.
Free Speech, Religious Rights, and Legal Contradictions
I want to point out that there is something deeply hypocritical and ironic about the basis for this decision, although Republicans have become inept at digesting hypocrisy in recent years.
Rights granted under the First Amendment are important. Freedom of speech includes protecting speech you don’t necessarily like – this is a viewpoint that even the ACLU has historically backed. I believe that Colorado should NOT ban conversion therapy purely because of free speech, but they should be allowed to ban and regulate medical practices based on scientific evidence.
That being said, it is hypocritical of the Supreme Court to rule that states cannot ban conversion therapy due to one’s First Amendment rights but also rule that states have the authority to fully ban abortion and gender-affirming care.
Forcing individuals to give birth regardless of circumstance, including rape, can be seen as unethical and immoral – a violation against one’s personal religion or spirituality, even if it is not part of any official doctrine. Allowing states to fully ban gender-affirming practices that had been previously supported by medical research for decades, like puberty blockers, seems contradictory to this decision.
What Is Conversion Therapy?
Conversion therapy is defined as a pseudoscientific practice of changing someone’s sexual orientation, romantic orientation, gender identity, or gender expression – especially to align with heterosexual cisgender norms. Conversion therapy has been proven to be ineffective and causes significant long-term psychological harm.
Conversion therapy includes a range of practices, such as talk therapy, aversion therapy (also known as electric shock therapy or emetic therapy), chemical and surgical castration, hypnosis, brain surgery, prayer, exorcism, and “corrective” rape.
Conversion therapy is considered pseudoscience because it has been proven to be ineffective. Psychology, like many sciences, has had plenty of pseudosciences within its history – like hypnosis, phrenology, and polygraphs.
Use of conversion therapy is associated with higher rates of depression, substance use, and other mental health issues compared to individuals not exposed to conversion therapy. Despite this, religious advocates argue they have an innate right to practice conversion therapy as part of their mission to save the world from queerness.
Want to learn more about conversion therapy? Here are some films I recommend:
- Pray Away (2021)
- Boy Erased (2018)
- But I’m a Cheerleader (1999)
- The Miseducation of Cameron Post (2018)
Research About Conversion Therapy:
- American Psychological Association: Evidence Against “Conversion Therapy”
- UCLA Williams Institute: Conversion Therapy and LGBT Youth
- The Trevor Project: Time Since Exposure to Conversion Therapy and Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors Among LGBTQ+ Young People
What This Ruling Means for LGBTQ+ Youth
The Supreme Court’s ruling potentially affects LGBTQIA+ minors across the nation. Zero states have restricted conversion therapy use on adults, although 23 states have minor-related laws that may be impacted by Chiles v. Salazar.
This is a dangerous practice that has been condemned by every major medical association in the country. Today’s decision does not change the science, and it does not change the fact that conversion therapists who harm patients will still face legal consequences
Today’s reckless decision means more American kids will suffer. The Court has weaponized free-speech to prioritize anti-LGBTQ+ bias over the safety, health, and well-being of children. So-called ‘conversion therapy’ is pseudoscience, not real therapy. It has been condemned by every mainstream medical and mental health association and harms families, traumatizes children and robs people of their faith communities. It is cruel and should never be offered under the guise of legitimate mental healthcare.
What Happens Next?
Laws such as MCTL are not entirely defunct, and conversion therapy is still able to be banned and regulated, despite this decision. The Supreme Court’s ruling states that MCTL relied too heavily on ‘non-neutral viewpoints.’
MCTL and similar laws will need to be revised to focus on regulation as medical practice rather than restriction of individual rights. However, this still puts minors in jeopardy during this in-between period while state legislatures work to revise their laws.