Subsequent studies, including research by the Williams Institute and The Trevor Project, have found that people subjected to conversion therapy are significantly more likely to experience suicidal thoughts or attempts than their peers.
A recent medical study published in May found that conversion therapy may also cause physical health problems. Young adults assigned male at birth who underwent the practice were three times more likely to be diagnosed with high blood pressure and showed higher levels of inflammation — both risk factors for poor heart health.
Social conservatives counter that studies highlighting harm from conversion therapy conflate “aversive” methods with talk therapy. James Campbell, an attorney with the anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom — which represents Chiles — told the justices on Tuesday that “Colorado can’t prove harm because it hasn’t cited a study focusing on what’s at issue here — voluntary speech between a licensed professional and a minor.”
Several conservative justices appeared inclined to side with Chiles. Chief Justice John Roberts cited past rulings where the Court declined to draw a distinction between professional conduct and speech, noting, “Just because they’re engaged in conduct doesn’t mean that their words aren’t protected.”
Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether the Court should rely on the current medical consensus that deems conversion therapy harmful or ineffective. He asked Colorado Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson, “Have there been times when the medical consensus has been politicized — has been taken over by ideology?” suggesting that professional organizations may have been pressured to adopt “affirming” approaches to LGBTQ identity.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Stevenson for her best evidence that conversion therapy causes harm. Stevenson replied, “People have been trying to do conversion therapy for a hundred years with no record of success. There is no study, despite the fact that people tried to advance this practice, that has ever shown that it has any chance of being efficacious.”
She added that the harm “comes from telling someone there’s something innate about yourself that you can change.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, one of the Court’s liberal members, questioned whether her conservative colleagues were being inconsistent, noting that the Court recently upheld state laws restricting doctors from providing gender-affirming care to minors with gender dysphoria.
Hashim Mooppan, representing the U.S. Department of Justice — which supports overturning the law — countered that the two cases are not equivalent. He noted that Chiles’ challenge centers on the First Amendment, while Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care does not involve doctors’ free speech rights.
Despite the Court’s conservative majority, LGBTQ advocates argue that states should retain the right to bar therapists from practices that cause long-term harm to patients.
“Conversion therapy is a scam, plain and simple,” said U.S. Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) in a statement. Lieu has previously introduced legislation to classify the practice as “fraudulent” for exploiting families and failing to deliver on its promises to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
“Conversion therapy is based on the false premise that being LGBTQ is undesirable or unhealthy,” said Ilan Meyer, a Distinguished Senior Scholar of Public Policy at the Williams Institute, which has conducted multiple studies on the practice and submitted an amicus brief supporting Colorado’s law.
“Research shows it is ineffective at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity and is associated with significant harm,” Meyer added, “which is why major professional organizations have overwhelmingly rejected the practice.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.