US Supreme Court Rules Against Colorado’s Ban on Youth Conversion Therapy
TL/DR –
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a Colorado law that banned conversion therapy for youths under 18, overturning it on the grounds of potentially infringing on free speech rights. The decision could impact similar laws in 23 other states, which seek to prevent licensed clinicians from changing a young patient’s gender identity or sexual orientation. The ruling also raises questions about whether states can regulate what healthcare providers are allowed to say to minors, with concerns about potential harmful effects on medical regulation in the U.S.
US Supreme Court Strikes Down Colorado Ban on Conversion Therapy
This week, the US supreme court voted 8-1 against a Colorado law prohibiting “conversion therapy” for minors. This crucial ruling could potentially affect transgender and queer youth nationwide and has wider implications for healthcare.
The 2019 Colorado law barred licensed therapists from attempting to alter a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation. Colorado is one of 23 states with similar restrictions.
The case, Chiles v Salazar, was initiated by licensed counselor Kaley Chiles. Chiles argued that the ban on conversion therapy infringed on her free speech rights to discuss her faith-based beliefs on “biological sex”. She was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group known for major anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ+ cases.
The court’s decision stated that Colorado’s ban censored Chiles’ speech and moved the case to a lower court for further review. Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, both liberals, sided with the conservative majority. However, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that states have the right to restrict “dangerous therapy” that may cause “lasting psychological harm”.
Several medical groups, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, have condemned these methods, stating they are not evidence-based. They have linked conversion therapy to higher rates of depression and suicide attempts.
The Guardian spoke to several legal experts and advocates about the implications of this ruling for Colorado and other states, the reactions of advocates, and why two liberals sided with Chiles.
Implications of the Ruling
The supreme court ruled Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban “presumptively unconstitutional”, as it limited Chiles’ speech based on her views. They sent the case back to an appeals court for “strict scrutiny”, a much higher standard of review, which experts believe Colorado will fail to meet. Nevertheless, the law remains in effect for now.
Effects on Other States
The Chiles ruling could also jeopardize bans in states like California that have been restricting these practices for over a decade. Many of the measures enacted throughout the US are similar to Colorado’s ban, and so could be affected by the supreme court’s ruling.
Impact on Youth Subjected to Conversion Practices
If bans are overturned, patients would need to hold harmful clinicians accountable individually. The absence of preventative regulation could lead to a resurgence of harmful practices, impacting youths by increasing rates of suicidality, anxiety, and depression.
Potential Regulation Alternatives
Lambda Legal supports a proposed bill in California that would allow survivors of conversion practices to seek civil remedies through malpractice lawsuits, irrespective of the time elapsed since the therapy.
Possible Broader Impacts
Justice Jackson’s dissent emphasized the “potential long-term and disastrous implications of this ruling”. She warned that stripping a state of its ability to regulate licensed medical professionals’ speech “opens a dangerous can of worms” and “risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing”.
Liberal Justices’ Alignment with Conservative Majority
Justices Kagan and Sotomayor concurred with the majority due to their belief that Colorado’s law was a clear case of “viewpoint discrimination”. Kagan suggested the law might not have conflicted with the first amendment if it were a “viewpoint-neutral law”.
—
Read More Health & Wellness News ; US News