On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors likely violates the First Amendment rights of counselors by restricting “viewpoint-based” talk therapy. The case was brought by Kaley Chiles, a Colorado Springs-based Christian counselor who was represented by conservative legal advocacy organization Alliance Defending Freedom.
“The Supreme Court recognized correctly that Kaley’s counseling conversations are speech and are protected by the First Amendments, and that Colorado’s law is viewpoint censorship,” said ADF attorney Suzanne Beecher during an appearance yesterday on the Ross Kaminsky show. The Southern Poverty Law Center designated ADF as an anti-LGBT hate group
“We’re deeply disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against Colorado’s conversion therapy ban,” said Colorado Representatives Alex Valdez (D-Denver) and Karen McCormick (D-Longmont) in a news release. “We will say it loud and clear – conversion therapy does not work, and many mental health and medical organizations agree that conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful. The LGBTQ+ community already faces higher rates of depression and suicide, and conversion therapy only makes things worse.”
Approximately 50 people gathered outside of Chiles’ practice in Colorado Springs on Wednesday to protest the Supreme Court’s decision. “The claim that providing needed health care to trans youth is torture and mutilation, when allowing discredited medical practices to proceed, is the real torture,” said Lenny L., a volunteer with New Era Colorado. “The Supreme Court’s decision sets an alarming precedent that leaves queer youth open to dangerous and discredited practices not to protect children, but to subject them to harmful encounters that leave them eight times more likely to attempt suicide.”
Beecher attempted to make a distinction between the services offered by Chiles and the umbrella term “conversion therapy,” which has used practices such as aversion therapy and extreme methods like electroshock therapy in an effort to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
“The Colorado law was extremely broad, and what it prevents Kaylee Chiles from doing is having voluntary conversations with minors on certain topics, if the goals set by the minors themselves are not in line with the government’s viewpoint,” said Beecher. “Kaley would be able to counsel kids in a ‘gender transition,’ but if they, because of their faith or any other reasons, came to her and they wanted to find peace with their bodies, to have their bodies align with their sex, then under Colorado’s law, she’s forbidden from having these conversations — these voluntary conversations — to help kids find that alignment and find that comfort with their bodies.”
Colorado legislators have introduced new legislation in an effort to protect survivors of conversion therapy. House Bill 1322 would allow an individual who was subject to conversion therapy to bring a civil cause of action against professionals who caused damages from efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, Colorado law requires these claims to be filed within two years. The bill would remove this time restriction, and if the impacted individual has passed away, their representative could bring a survival action within five years of the individual’s death.
“While the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Colorado’s conversion therapy ban law is deeply harmful, we’re not giving up the fight to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ Coloradans,” said Rep. Karen McCormick (D-Longmont) in a news release. “It can take years for an individual to realize that the trauma of conversion therapy has caused anxiety, depression or other long-term health impacts, but Colorado law only allows two years to file a damages claim against a provider. Our bill addresses this gap, allowing LGBTQ+ Coloradans time to heal and a fair process to hold those who have caused long-lasting impacts accountable.”
Beecher noted that the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t overturn Colorado’s law. “The Supreme Court recognized what Kaylee’s doing in these voluntary conversations is speech and that Colorado’s law is viewpoint discrimination,” she said. “So the case is now going back down to the lower court and they’re going to need to decide the case consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision, which is very strongly showing that there’s viewpoint discrimination. So the government would have to clear an extremely high bar to enforce it against counselors like Kaylee who are just having these voluntary conversations with kids to pursue their own goals.”
