After a 90-minute oral argument on October 7, the majority of the Supreme Court appears to be eager to overturn Colorado’s ban on licensed counselors seeking to change the sexual orientation and gender identity of minors. The ruling could overturn similar conversion therapy bans in 23 states and the District of Columbia.
Conversion therapy attempts to change the appeal and gender dysphoria of same-sex by teaching patients to suppress impulses and modify their behavior to suit traditional concepts of gender and sexuality. This practice is often misrepresented as “curing” same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria, but even many practitioners acknowledge that such feelings cannot be removed, and only provides a way to manage or resist them.
Extreme forms of conversion therapy have included physical distress, psychological abuse, aversive techniques, induced vomiting, and even ect, but most practitioners now focus on what is called “talk therapy,” in which therapists try to guide patients towards specific goals, such as reducing same-sex attraction.
Currently, no states prohibit adults from receiving conversion therapy, but nearly 20 states have enacted laws prohibiting licensed therapists from using conversion therapy to minors. Four other states have issued executive orders and adopted regulatory guidelines restricting treatment for minors, but minors often receive therapy at the urgent recommendation of their parents, rather than their own choice.
Social conservatives who oppose homosexuality and reject the concept of gender identity argue that parents should have the right to send their children to therapists who help them to align their children’s lives and behaviors with their preferred religious beliefs.
Colorado’s certified counselor Kayley Childs reported that she is challenging the state’s ban on conversion therapy, claiming it violates her right to practice what she calls “faith-based counseling” in order to help clients with the goal of being comfortable and peaceful. The Washington Post.
Chiliz argues that minors and parents who ask her for help are devout and want a “life in faith” led by the Bible. She said she limits her work with minors to “talk therapy,” and argues that the Colorado ban violates her right to free speech and prevents her from providing guidance to young people who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria.
“This one topic is now being treated differently from literally all other topics in counseling,” Chiliz said. postand lament that many mainstream medical associations support a more “positive” approach to LGBTQ identity. “This is not a way to deal with addiction, eating disorders, or depression.”
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Chile’s challenge in March after a lower court ruled that it would uphold the Colorado ban and regulate professional conduct rather than speech. The ruling marked a change for the High Court, which previously refused to hear similar challenges to the ban in Washington, California and New Jersey.
Colorado lawyers argue that the Supreme Court has long granted the state’s authority to regulate medical practices to protect patients from substandard care, even if the regulations could limit the therapists’ personal statements.
in Court overview The 21 state attorney general filed with the court argued that conversion therapy should be maintained because it is insecure, ineffective and does not meet accepted standards for mental health care. They argue that the treatment is not worthy of First Amendment protection, as it increases the risk of suicide and depression among LGBTQ young people.
Lawyers also warn that overturning the ban on conversion therapy could undermine the state’s authority to regulate professional conduct within the borders.
Most major healthcare and mental health institutions have rejected conversion therapy as unscientific and warned that those who received treatment could suffer permanent mental damage.
a Survey in 2013 Eighty-four percent of survivors of conversion therapy said their experiences remained plagued and caused lasting harm, ranging from “neurological breakdowns” to shame, depression, self-loathing and suicidal thoughts.
A recent medical study published in May found that conversion therapy could also cause physical health problems. Young adults assigned to men at birth and received this therapy were three times more likely to be diagnosed with hypertension and exhibited higher levels of inflammation, both of which were risk factors for worsening heart health.
Social conservatives have argued that research highlighting the harms of conversion therapy confuses talk therapy with “aversive” methods. James Campbell, lawyer for Chile’s leading anti-LGBTQ organization Alliance Defending Freedom I said The judges said Tuesday that “Colorado cannot prove the damage because it does not cite studies that are at issue here: voluntary remarks between licensed experts and minors.”
It appears that some conservative judges tend to be on their side with the Chilean side. Chief Justice John Roberts cited previous rulings in which the court refused to distinguish between professional conduct and speech, noting that “just because they are engaged in conduct does not mean that their words are not protected.”
Judge Samuel Alito questioned whether the court should rely on current medical agreements that convertive therapy deemed harmful or ineffective. He asked Colorado Attorney General Shannon Stevenson, “Has medical consensus ever been politicized and taken over by ideology?” This suggests that professional organizations may have been pressured to adopt an approach that “affirms” LGBTQ identity.
Judge Amy Connie Barrett asked Stevenson for the best evidence that conversion therapy could cause harm. “People have been trying conversion therapy for 100 years, but there is no record of success. Despite the fact that people have tried this practice, no studies have shown that it may be effective.”
She added that the harm “causes you by telling someone that you have something innate to change.”
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the court’s liberal members, pointed out that the court recently upheld a state law restricting physicians’ provision of gender-affirming care to minors with gender dysphoria, questioning whether the attitudes of conservative colleagues may be contradictory.
Hashim Muppan, a representative of the U.S. Department of Justice who supports overturning the law, rebutted that the two cases were not comparable. He noted that Chile’s challenge focuses on the First Amendment, but that Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care does not involve physicians’ rights to freedom of speech.
Despite the court’s conservative majority, LGBTQ advocates argue that states should retain the right to prohibit therapists from conduct that causes long-term harm to patients.
“Conversion therapy is a simple and straightforward fraud,” U.S. Rep. Ted Lew (D-Calif.) said in a statement. Liu previously proposed a bill that labeled the act as “fraudulent” as exploiting family members and failing to fulfill his promise to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Conversion therapy is based on the false premise that being LGBTQ is unwanted or unhealthy,” says Iran Meyer, senior senior public policy researcher at the Williams Institute. The institute has conducted several studies on the practice and has submitted a court preparatory document in favour of Colorado law.
“Studies have shown that this is ineffective and involves serious harm in changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity,” Meyer added, “this is why major professional organizations are overwhelmingly rejecting this practice.”
Source: Metro Weekly – www.metroweekly.com
