Susan's Place Transgender Resources

US Supreme Court rejects Colorado's ban on LGBT 'conversion' talk therapy

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-supreme-court-rejects-colorado-s-ban-on-lgbt-conversion-talk-therapy/ar-AA1ZPFFD?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=68e97179e61d447ecfd86e20518b6b02&ei=110

John Kruzel (31 March 2026)

WASHINGTON, March 31 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a Colorado law that banned psychotherapists from using "conversion" talk therapy intended to change a LGBT minor's sexual orientation or gender identity, siding with a Christian licensed counselor who challenged the law on free speech grounds.

The justices, in a 8-1 ruling, reversed a lower court's decision that had upheld the law in a case brought by Kaley Chiles, who argued that it violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protections against government abridgment of free speech.

The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, rejected Colorado's argument that its law regulated professional conduct, not protected speech. The court held open the possibility that the law could apply to certain forms of conversion therapy, including so-called "aversive" physical interventions, but not to Chiles' speech at issue here.

"Colorado's law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint," Gorsuch wrote. "Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country."

Ww're feeling the pain. How could Elena and Sonia leave Ketanji to stand alone? What were they thinking? What a loss.

This makes us all the more glad that we left our homeland. We found an amazing homeland in Uruguay, where diversity is respected and protected. We celebrate our visibility here.

The U.S. is a stinking cesspit. To be honest, it was a mess before this orange lunatic took over and he is a symptom not the sole cause. It's not 'Great' - it's godawful and getting worse. Before the pandemic I was in Connecticut and the amount of homeless people was absolutely shocking. I made the mistake of walking somewhere in Hartford CT in the daylight and was followed frighteningly by groups clearly high on something. They were bussing people in from rural areas and dumping them in the city centre. As Brian Cox put it whilst in Scotland, 'I don't like being away from the U.S. for too long. There's a mercilessness I miss.'

Apologies to all my American friends. There are many truly lovely Americans and it amazes me that so many of you remain so polite and lovely. I am equally sure that it's possible to find enclaves of hope 'far from the madding crowd.' But generally your country stinks.

I very much doubt I'd ever want to return there.

xx

p.s. and for the record I am no great fan of the U.K. either.

I apologise if I went slightly OTT.

It's a reaction to the MAGA headbangers. We have similar problems in the UK, although Trump's latest lunacy seems at least to have caused a drop in support for his mini-me.

Hmm "stinking cesspit" is a bit strong Tills though I share your upset and and dislike at the treatment of the homeless and poor over there. I cannot believe that most Americans see what is going on now and are happy about it. I'm guessing that's why the No Kings protests sound so big. The UK has the same problems with anti-trans rhetoric and media whipping the morons up into a frezy about it but we do have a better social system.

I have never understood how Americans let themselves get into such an awful position regarding rights and freedoms. "The land of the free" is a myth, they are all slaves to the dollar. Far too much emphasis on wealth and not enough on social freedoms like holiday entitlement and pay, maternity leave, Welfare state, universal healthcare, the list is huge. All these rights lead to a much better, healthier society in my view. I hope the No Kings movement means they are finally finding their voice and are starting to stand up for themselves. I believe they deserve so much better than they have.

I totally get how you feel and think Tills, as I have exactly the same thoughts. Not vocalising, and trying to convince myself that not all people are bad, so a whole country can't be bad l, takes a lot of energy these days.

I'll actively say that I'm not a fan of the human race. I have the firm opinion that as a whole, we are destined to always be a destructive and overall low intelligence species. I'd like to say different, but I go by what I see.

Unfortunately the US is basically untouchable and lots of the world picks up the examples set by them. Maybe everyone was blind to the fact that anything can change on a knife edge. We took for granted the status quo, rather than planning for the worst case.

Charlotte 😻

So...., Its against the law to ban a therapy that has 0% success rate and a 27% suicide attempt rate. World health says it doesn't work! 
A sad day for Trans kids! 

Quote from: Tills on March 31, 2026, 10:04:31 PMBefore the pandemic I was in Connecticut and the amount of homeless people was absolutely shocking.

Monday evening, I looked up local news stories about the homeless. I found even more empathy and compassion than I expected. Since the extremely cold weather last August, politicians have been outdoing each other, pressing for better conditions for the homeless. They reassured their constituents that free housing, food, social services, and health care is always available to the homeless. A conservative right-wing politician went so far as to say that no one would choose homelessness if there were enough opportunities. Imagine! Opportunities as a solution!

We passed a housing co-op last week. I had read that these are buildings that are designed, built, maintained, and occupied by homeless people with government and skilled professional support. I'm intrigued.

I know that some people deliberately prefer homelessness for many reasons, but the compassion, heart, care... consensus is so wonderful. I want to experience it more closely.

Meanwhile, back in my New York homeland, my friends are fighting City Hall to let them establish warming/cooling centers and day care programs for the homeless. They are fighting neighbors who insist, "Not In My Back Yard." They are collecting and distributing food and personal care products to the needy. It's such important work that we're glad we could support as we lightened our load so we could move here.

QuoteI very much doubt I'd ever want to return there.

xx

Hear hear. We're very glad that we gave up so much to be able to be here. Now, we're eager to see where we can make a difference, now that we have the freedom and safety to speak our mind.

I have been seeing polls that reassure us that the majority of US people is compassionate about homelessness, trans, poverty, war... Something is very wrong with the US government when polling results are so widely disregarded.

Quote from: Moonflower on April 01, 2026, 03:04:08 PMMonday evening, I looked up local news stories about the homeless. I found even more empathy and compassion than I expected. Since the extremely cold weather last August, politicians have been outdoing each other, pressing for better conditions for the homeless. They reassured their constituents that free housing, food, social services, and health care is always available to the homeless. A conservative right-wing politician went so far as to say that no one would choose homelessness if there were enough opportunities. Imagine! Opportunities as a solution!

We passed a housing co-op last week. I had read that these are buildings that are designed, built, maintained, and occupied by homeless people with government and skilled professional support. I'm intrigued.

I know that some people deliberately prefer homelessness for many reasons, but the compassion, heart, care... consensus is so wonderful. I want to experience it more closely.

Meanwhile, back in my New York homeland, my friends are fighting City Hall to let them establish warming/cooling centers and day care programs for the homeless. They are fighting neighbors who insist, "Not In My Back Yard." They are collecting and distributing food and personal care products to the needy. It's such important work that we're glad we could support as we lightened our load so we could move here.

Hear hear. We're very glad that we gave up so much to be able to be here. Now, we're eager to see where we can make a difference, now that we have the freedom and safety to speak our mind.

I have been seeing polls that reassure us that the majority of US people is compassionate about homelessness, trans, poverty, war... Something is very wrong with the US government when polling results are so widely disregarded.

I'm assuming all the help for homeless you are referring to is in Uruguay?

We in the UK rely far too much on charities there should be more help available from the state but it is not an epidemic of homelessness like we see portrayed in the states. Of course we could be getting a biased view rather than reality.

I would love to believe that a majority of Americans have the beliefs you are mentioning but then a majority of Americans voted Trump into power. Or is like it is in the UK where voter turn out is very low so only the majority of the minority who voted chose him, yet that enables him to claim a mandate?

Quote from: Moonflower on April 01, 2026, 03:04:08 PMI have been seeing polls that reassure us that the majority of US people is compassionate about homelessness, trans, poverty, war... Something is very wrong with the US government when polling results are so widely disregarded.

The problem is money.

It requires a lot of money to campaign for public office. It excludes many common citizens who have more common sense than those with billions.

In that type of market, he who has the most money to spend wins the race. It has nothing to do with popular opinion, polls, or what the people really want. Most people vote for a candidate they like, not one that represents their views.

How do they know if they like them?
Ad campaigns, town hall meetings, media frenzy... all of which cost money.

If we could remove money from politics, as suggested by GOOOH (https://goooh.com/Learn.aspx), change would happen quickly. However, as stated in Murphy's Law #356:

"Change always comes from below. The man with four aces never asks for a new deal."

Those who make millions of dollars from public office will never allow that to change.

Quote from: Lori Dee on April 01, 2026, 03:33:25 PMThe problem is money.

It requires a lot of money to campaign for public office. It excludes many common citizens who have more common sense than those with billions.

In that type of market, he who has the most money to spend wins the race. It has nothing to do with popular opinion, polls, or what the people really want. Most people vote for a candidate they like, not one that represents their views.

How do they know if they like them?
Ad campaigns, town hall meetings, media frenzy... all of which cost money.

If we could remove money from politics, as suggested by GOOOH (https://goooh.com/Learn.aspx), change would happen quickly. However, as stated in Murphy's Law #356:

"Change always comes from below. The man with four aces never asks for a new deal."

Those who make millions of dollars from public office will never allow that to change.

In the UK there are very strict rules on funding for election campaigns precisely to avoid this outcome. This is probably why we have so many smaller parties who can contest our elections. While the elite do tend to take the top jobs there are a lot of mps from normal backgrounds who can hold them to account. We even have novelty candidates from parties like the Monster raving looney party! It costs just £500 deposit to run for a seat in an election (doesn't include all the posters etc though)

We recently had a by-election for a single seat in Manchester and it was won by a Green Party member who was a female plumber before getting elected. That is the norm rather than the exception. I believe that is the way forward but I can't see how you could change your system as the people who need to change it are the very people who wouldn't stand a chance if money hadn't bought them their title.

Quote from: Stottie Girl on April 01, 2026, 03:26:46 PMI'm assuming all the help for homeless you are referring to is in Uruguay?

Yes. All of the stories of politicians in the recent news stories are in Uruguay. The friends whom I mentioned who are fighting City Hall and their neighbors are in the states.

QuoteWe in the UK rely far too much on charities there should be more help available from the state but it is not an epidemic of homelessness like we see portrayed in the states. Of course we could be getting a biased view rather than reality.

I understand that many homeless people have issues that interfere with their ability to trust social workers, feel safe in enclosed spaces like you would find in a home or shelter, get along with others... but when the powerful people insist that homeless people must reform and fit into social norms, then diversity and compassion are destroyed. I personally saw homelessness in the states. It is real. It is supported by powerful people who want to dominate this planet. I see the Uruguayan government as being powered by the voters. Yes, corporate interests are also influential here, but apparently not as severe as in the US.

QuoteI would love to believe that a majority of Americans have the beliefs you are mentioning but then a majority of Americans voted Trump into power. Or is like it is in the UK where voter turn out is very low so only the majority of the minority who voted chose him, yet that enables him to claim a mandate?

I understand that many who voted for him were deceived by his sales pitch for peace and lower prices. I know that the majority of the eligible voters do not vote, but I don't recall how I know that. Certainly, polls are based on tiny segments of the population, but prestigious polls are based on criteria that scientifically makes their results reliable, based on research.

Quote from: Lori Dee on April 01, 2026, 03:33:25 PMThe problem is money.

Yes, even Bernie Sanders uses the power of money. However, I understand that Zohran Mamdani used the power of organizing volunteers to get elected, instead of money. I hope his strategy becomes viral.

Quote from: Moonflower on April 01, 2026, 03:58:34 PMYes, even Bernie Sanders uses the power of money. However, I understand that Zohran Mamdani used the power of organizing volunteers to get elected, instead of money. I hope his strategy becomes viral.

He does seem to be a bit of a pioneer. It's hard not to like him from what I have seen and heard.

Hi Everyone

Introduction
In the current SCOTUS ruling on conversion therapy speech.  The core rules (these are the key words to takeaway with) are:

• Conduct (actions) means states can regulate
• Speech (talk) means states mostly cannot

This leads directly to what is allowed in practice:

• States cannot outright ban "conversion talk therapy".
• States can regulate the conduct surrounding it
• Regulation must focus on actions, not the conversation itself

Regulation
Expect new laws trying to:

• Avoid targeting speech directly.
• Focus on conduct, consent or professional standards.
• Focus on conduct, not speech.

Apply the following rule  to all therapies, example:

• Any novel or unproven therapy must meet evidence standards
• That applies to everything, not just one viewpoint
• Ban coercion
• Ban deceptive claims
• Require informed consent

Limits on Regulation
Evidence standards must be genuine and workable.  They must be clear, achievable and applied consistently across all therapies.  If standards are impossible or selectively enforced, courts will treat them as a disguised ban on a specific viewpoint.

Practical impact matters more than wording.  Courts look at real world effect.  If a law makes a practice almost impossible or only burdens one side in reality, it risks being struck down.  The shift in framing must therefore move from "You cannot say this." to "You may say it, but you cannot claim effectiveness without evidence, cannot coerce, must disclose risks and remain legally accountable for harm."

Way forward
The likely legal approach going forward is that instead of banning conversion speech therapy, one should implement the following:

• Strict professional standards.
• Strong disclosure requirements.
• Liability for harm.
• Limits on misleading claims.

States with existing bans should review their laws in light of this ruling and adjust them to focus on conduct, consent and professional standards rather than speech.

Disclaimer (Personal Opinion)
I agree with the majority of the Supreme Court in this case as I believe in the first amendment. I want conversion therapy (speech as well) banned anyway.  In my view, the evidence strongly suggests it is ineffective and potentially harmful.

Best Wishes Always
Sarah B
Global Moderator

The State of Colorado's position is that it is not banning or regulating speech, but professional conduct. This is within their authority and applies equally to all professional service providers.

By claiming Free Speech protection, a psychotherapist could convince a patient that certain government officials are evil and must be eliminated. In that case, the First Amendment would not protect them because their conduct could "incite harm" to the patient or others.

In this case, Gorsuch was wrong because "conversion therapy" has been shown to inflict harm upon the patient and could incite them to harm themselves or others.

Well, a new CNN poll shows 2/3rds of Americans disapprove of Trump's war on Iran. Without going all Goodwin on us, even Hitler didn't ever secure an outright majority. It's frightening though how much power and abuse can be wielded over a nation and world by one evil man and his cronies.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/01/politics/donald-trump-iran-war-white-house-speech-cnn-poll

My great hope is that when this whole Trump edifice comes crashing down, which it will, trans rights will return. I don't think that's unrealistic. A vast swathe of decent causes and people (e.g. see @Moonflower 's post) have been besmirched by this lunacy, including our community. In ten, twenty, years time I'm hopeful that people will look back on this lurch to the Right as a terrible mistake. The likes of Trump, Farage, Hesgeth, Putin etc. etc. will hopefully be consigned to the dustbin of history.

I studied American politics which was quite a niche topic back in the day but I found it fascinating. Years later I loved the US version of House of Cards, tainted since of course by allegations against Spacey but still a brilliant series. It goes too far, yes, but not by much.

Religion and Nationalism have been the justifications for more wars and attacks on people than anything in human history, and right now in the US we have both being used. Someone like Pete Hesgeth is a particular menace imho. But it's not limited to the US.

I have some hope that in Europe there appears to be a bit of a backlash against The Right. The recent vote in Italy on the constitution is an example, and in France's mayoral elections there were encouraging signs.

p.s. Bernie Sanders would be considered a radical and probably 'a socialist' by a majority of Americans. Good guy, and I personally like his politics, but I'd like to see our trans rights defended from the Centre ground rather than relying on radicalism.

Debates about something like conversion therapy should be as much about the harm it does, as @Lori Dee says above.

A pragmatic approach, rather than an ideological or evangelical one, might help us more? Something along the lines of: 'you may not like us, you may not even agree that we should exist, but we do and we're not going away, so accept us and let's be pragmatic and caring about us.'

Just some thoughts?

xx

Quote from: Tills on April 01, 2026, 11:07:48 PMp.s. Bernie Sanders would be considered a radical and probably 'a socialist' by a majority of Americans. Good guy, and I personally like his politics, but I'd like to see our trans rights defended from the Centre ground rather than relying on radicalism.

But Bernie is *not* radical and he's not very left of center. It's just that the whole thing has moved SO far to the right that it appears that he is. Eisenhower was about as far to the left as Bernie. Heck, Nixon was pretty close.

I know.

I just don't think we're going to get anywhere though if we peg our cause to someone like Bernie. He's just not sufficiently mainstream.

My feeling is that we need to be working to shift opinion in the two main parties. Even the GOP hasn't always been this Far Right. It's incredible to think that someone like Richard Nixon signed into law The Endangered Species Act (1973). That illustrates just how far the Party has now lurched into loony land. (For Nixon was not exactly a Commie 🤣 )

It's like the UK. Much as I love The Green Party, I also want to see Labour and even the one-nation Conservatives come back to defend our corner. Remember, Prime Minister Theresa May was ready and willing to bring in self-certified Gender Recognition. That narcissist Boris Johnson then began stirring the anti-trans anti-woke pot in a shameless attempt to grab power.

We mustn't cede the centre ground.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats The Second Coming

xx

I see your point, but do consider the fact that Zohran Mamdani won NYC. There are many who say that we need something "radical" right now, like another Dwight D Eisenhower.

If we take ourselves out to the fringes, that's how we will be considered and treated. A group on the margins becomes the marginalised.

We need to show the world that it's people like Donald Trump who are the fringe, existing out in the margins where mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. We are the sane ones, not the current GOP.

I think back to the fight for equal rights for lesbians and gays. Until as recently as 2003 homosexuality was a felony in the U.S., still enacted in c. 14 States. That's an example of what we're dealing with here.

We need to show that we are the mainstream not these loons. As I mentioned upthread, we have massively on our side the simple fact that his edifice will come crashing down because it is built on a whole pile of deluded nonsense. I want us to be ready in the centre when the backlash starts.

We don't have to go radical or react to extremism with extremism. We need to demonstrate that we are normal, lovely and loving human beings.

Let's hold the centre, however complex and hard.

xx

I get it. I'm being a bit sarcastic - trying to point out that "center" is a million miles from where we're at.

Quote from: Tills on April 02, 2026, 08:05:30 AMI know.

I just don't think we're going to get anywhere though if we peg our cause to someone like Bernie. He's just not sufficiently mainstream.

My feeling is that we need to be working to shift opinion in the two main parties. Even the GOP hasn't always been this Far Right. It's incredible to think that someone like Richard Nixon signed into law The Endangered Species Act (1973). That illustrates just how far the Party has now lurched into loony land. (For Nixon was not exactly a Commie 🤣 )

It's like the UK. Much as I love The Green Party, I also want to see Labour and even the one-nation Conservatives come back to defend our corner. Remember, Prime Minister Theresa May was ready and willing to bring in self-certified Gender Recognition. That narcissist Boris Johnson then began stirring the anti-trans anti-woke pot in a shameless attempt to grab power.

We mustn't cede the centre ground.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre   
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.

W.B. Yeats The Second Coming

xx

I love the green party too Tills and not just for the strong support for trans issues either. They are more labour than labour has been for the last 20 years at least. A true leftist party. The Tories and labour both need to be handed a humiliating defeat. The Green Party is on the rise as an anti Reform movement almost. I am hopeful they will become a significant force in the years to come. Labour and the tories need a root and branch clearout and a total re-connection with the electorate. That is not going to happen in time to stop Reform I fear. I'm putting my faith in the Greens personally. I will be voting for them in these council elections.