Washington – The judges of the Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the problem of free regime for state laws against “conversion therapy” and will probably cause measures that violate the 1st amendment.
California And more than 20 other states have adopted laws prohibiting licensed consultants to call or encourage adolescents -geys or transgender people to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Laws were adopted in response to the history of dangerous and discredited practices, including treatment methods that caused nausea and vomiting or introduced electric blows.
Legislators and medical experts said that such efforts to “treat” adolescents LGBTQ+ were cruel and ineffective and caused prolonged harm. But these laws of “conversational therapy” were challenged by a number of Christian consultants who believe that they can help young people who want to talk about their feelings and their sexual identity.
The court heard on Tuesday Kaley Chiles appealAdvisor from Colorado-Springs, Colorado. She says that she is a gospel Christian, but does not seek to “cure” young people from a single -sex attraction or change her gender identity.
She sued, claiming that the state law was striving to “censor” her conversations and threatens her with punishment.
She lost to the federal judge and the US court, both of which stated that the state has the right to regulate the practice of medicine and prevent low -quality health care.
But the Supreme Court voted to hear its appeal.
“This law prohibits voluntary conversations, censorship widely adhered to discussion of moral, religious and scientific issues,” her lawyer James Campbell said.
The judges, both conservative and liberal, in the visible one, agreed with the law of Colorado violated the 1st amendment of a guarantee of freedom of speech.
“What is regulated here is pure speech,” said Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Moreover, according to him, state law complies with a double standard. This will punish a licensed consultant who will agree to talk with a adolescent client who wants to “overcome the same-sex attractions”, but not if she calls on the teenager to accept or confirm these attractions.
Judge Elena Kagan said that she also saw a potential violation of the 1st amendments. And Judge Sonya Sotomayor said that there is less evidence that only the TOK therapy has done real harm.
She also wondered if there was a consultant to the Colorado consultant, because she was not charged with violation of the law. But none of others approved this idea.
In defense of the law, General Supporter Colorado Shannon Stevenson said that the law applies only to licensed consultants. This does not apply to others, including religious ministers.
The practice of medical care “is an individual area. The doctor does not have the right of the 1st amendments to give improper advice to patients, ”she said.
But most of the judges said that the 1st amendment does not allow the state to punish consultants, because their views do not comply with the state.
How about the era when “homosexuality was professionally considered a disorder of mental health?” He asked Judge Nile M. Gorsuch. Can a state by law punish an “regulated licensed professional for confirming homosexuality?”
The state lawyer agreed that at that time it could be possible depending on the standard of medical care.
Judge Amy Koni Barrett and others suggested that consultants could still face a court claim for medical negligence, even if the court runs, the state law violates the 1st amendment.
The Trump administration joined the case on the side of the Colorado Consultant and called on the court to decide on her on the basis of free speech.
In 2012, California was the first state to take a ban on convertible therapy for minors. Having signed this measure, Governor Jerry Brown called such a therapy “garbage science”, which led to depression and suicide.
This measure was challenged on the basis of free speech, but the 9th District Court of Appeal supported it on the grounds that it regulated medical treatment with professionals.
But the 1st amendment was repeatedly used to challenge laws with the participation of LGBT people+ people.
Twice in recent years, the Supreme Court ruled for owners of the Colorado business, who objected to the provision of services for a same -sex wedding.
One custom -made wedding cakes, as well as other developed websites for weddings. They filed a court for exemption from the state law on civil rights, which demanded from enterprises to provide equal services to customers without taking into account sexual orientation.
They were represented by an alliance that protects freedom, a Christian law group, which also represents Chile.
In June, the conservative majority of the court decided on Tennessee and supported the laws on the Red States, which prohibit the use of sexual ripper and sex hormones for transgender adolescents.
The court’s opinion stated that he was postponing the States because there were sharp debates about the proper handling of young people with gender dysphoria.
The case heard on Tuesday – Chile against Salazar – was the first of two in this term with the participation of LGBT+rights. In December, judges will hear arguments about whether Western Virginia can ban transgender school athletes with participation in sports teams for girls.
