(The Lion) — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a case on whether a Colorado law banning so-called “conversion therapy” targets a Christian counselor’s First Amendment rights.
The case, Chiles v. Salazar, centers around Kaley Chiles, a Christian and professional counselor in Colorado who has Christian clients who she said sometimes want to discuss “human sexuality and the treatment of their own body.”
At times those clients have been living “‘inconsistent with their faith or values,’ resulting in internal conflict, depression, and anxiety,” she told the Supreme Court, and those clients have voluntarily sought Christian-aligned treatment to help eliminate “unwanted sexual attractions” and to seek help in finding acceptance of their bodies and biological sex.
Yet, Colorado is one of more than 20 states that restrict how counselors can express views “on a topic of ‘fierce public debate’ – ‘how best to help minors with gender dysphoria,’” an Alliance Defending Freedom court filing on behalf of Chiles noted.
Colorado’s law prohibits some conversations between a therapist and clients under 18 – dubbing them as “conversion therapy.” The state defines conversion therapy as a “practice or treatment” that attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
The law specifies that “acceptance,” “support,” and “understanding” of gender and sexual interventions are not considered conversion therapy, nor is “assistance to a person undergoing gender transition.” ADF argued that the law is “unabashedly content- and viewpoint-based,” allowing counselors to affirm gender transitions but not to affirm a client’s biological sex.
“Colorado counselors that encourage a minor’s same-sex attractions or gender transition are free to do so. But a counselor who discusses a client’s desire to resist same-sex relationships or align the client’s sense of identity and biological sex faces steep Penalties,” the filing noted. Under the Colorado law, a counselor who engages in so-called “conversion therapy” could be fined up to $5,000 or have his or her license revoked.
Federal circuit courts have been split over whether laws such as Colorado’s target a counselor’s speech or if they merely regulate conduct – a conflict that ADF argued the Supreme Court should not allow to persist.
The state argued in a brief before the justices that the “First Amendment allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech.” It added that a professional healthcare provider can be regulated differently than laypersons under the First Amendment.
“Unlike laypersons, those who choose to practice as health professionals are required, among various other responsibilities, to provide treatment to their patients consistent with their field’s standard of care,” the brief noted, adding that Chiles’ claim would “undercut states’ long-standing ability to protect patients and clients from harmful professional conduct.”
ADF has countered by pointing to a growing body of research suggesting that youth experiencing gender dysphoria have options besides taking experimental drugs or undergoing “transitioning” procedures.
“There is a growing consensus around the world that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings,” ADF President Kristen Waggoner said in a statement. “Colorado’s law prohibits what’s best for these children and sends a clear message: the only option for children struggling with these issues is to give them dangerous and experimental drugs and surgery that will make them lifelong patients.”
She also said the government has “no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors.”
The case will be argued before the Supreme Court during its next term, which begins in October.
