News and Events => Political and Legal News => Topic started by: Jessica_Rose on April 06, 2026, 06:17:37 PM Return to Full Version
Title: The Supreme Court’s conversion therapy ruling is being misunderstood
Post by: Jessica_Rose on April 06, 2026, 06:17:37 PM
Post by: Jessica_Rose on April 06, 2026, 06:17:37 PM
The Supreme Court's conversion therapy ruling is being misunderstood
https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/supreme-court-conversion-therapy-explained
Christopher Wiggins (6 April 2026)
The U.S. Supreme Court's 8–1 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar landed with the force of a culture war flashpoint, with some headlines declaring conversion therapy "legalized." Advocates warn of harm, while supporters call it a victory for free speech. But legal experts say the truth is both narrower and more substantial.
The decision, they argue, turns on a technical First Amendment question of how Colorado wrote its law, while leaving intact the overwhelming medical consensus that conversion therapy is harmful. But it also makes it harder for states to proactively protect LGBTQ+ minors from the practice.
"This was a case about the First Amendment, not about whether conversion therapy works or is safe," Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for LGBTQ+ Rights, said during a press briefing with reporters.
Colorado's law barred licensed therapists from engaging in so-called "conversion therapy" with minors. The court's majority found the statute unconstitutional because it regulated speech in a way that was not "viewpoint neutral," effectively allowing affirming counseling while prohibiting non-affirming approaches. That distinction, largely invisible outside legal circles, is what drove the outcome.
"The court was exclusively concerned with the construction of the statute," Minter said, emphasizing that the justices did not weigh in on the scientific validity or harms of conversion therapy.
Despite sweeping interpretations, the court did not declare conversion therapy safe, ethical, or medically accepted. "Nothing in this opinion is an endorsement of conversion therapy," Minter said.
https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/supreme-court-conversion-therapy-explained
Christopher Wiggins (6 April 2026)
The U.S. Supreme Court's 8–1 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar landed with the force of a culture war flashpoint, with some headlines declaring conversion therapy "legalized." Advocates warn of harm, while supporters call it a victory for free speech. But legal experts say the truth is both narrower and more substantial.
The decision, they argue, turns on a technical First Amendment question of how Colorado wrote its law, while leaving intact the overwhelming medical consensus that conversion therapy is harmful. But it also makes it harder for states to proactively protect LGBTQ+ minors from the practice.
"This was a case about the First Amendment, not about whether conversion therapy works or is safe," Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for LGBTQ+ Rights, said during a press briefing with reporters.
Colorado's law barred licensed therapists from engaging in so-called "conversion therapy" with minors. The court's majority found the statute unconstitutional because it regulated speech in a way that was not "viewpoint neutral," effectively allowing affirming counseling while prohibiting non-affirming approaches. That distinction, largely invisible outside legal circles, is what drove the outcome.
"The court was exclusively concerned with the construction of the statute," Minter said, emphasizing that the justices did not weigh in on the scientific validity or harms of conversion therapy.
Despite sweeping interpretations, the court did not declare conversion therapy safe, ethical, or medically accepted. "Nothing in this opinion is an endorsement of conversion therapy," Minter said.
Title: Re: The Supreme Court’s conversion therapy ruling is being misunderstood
Post by: BlueJaye on April 06, 2026, 08:40:56 PM
Post by: BlueJaye on April 06, 2026, 08:40:56 PM
I can't see this as being any different from saying doctors have the right to harm patients. If a doctor wants to convince a patient to do something harmful and unnecessary, this would give them the right to do so without penalty. Its an absurd ruling.