By a vote of 8-1, the United States Supreme Court last week struck down a draconian Colorado law that sought to ban “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ kids in Colorado. The law said that it was illegal for therapists – even those who do not accept transgenderism from a professional mental health perspective or religious standpoint and who may have been hired by parents – to try to “convert” LGBTQ minors to heterosexuality. And even aside from possible criminal law consequences, under the law, offending therapists put their licenses at risk as well.
To be sure, there were complex freedom of speech and religion issues in play – the case involved a Christian counselor who argued that the law violated the First Amendment. Indeed, the Court’s Opinion pointed to Colorado’s reach into the private, consensual conversations between professionals and those seeking their guidance which it said constituted unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. That is, this decision reinforces the principle that government cannot use its licensing power to dictate which perspectives are permissible in a counseling room. For years the activist left has relied on a highly manipulative sleight-of-hand regarding conversion therapy. They intentionally conflated voluntary, faith affirming talk therapy with physically abusive practice from decades past – like shock treatments or physical interventions – to pass sweeping bans under the guise of public health concerns.
But, as the Supreme Court reasoned, the Colorado law did not, in fact, protect children based on objective mental health principles; it actively banned speech simply because the state disagreed with the counselor’s mental health, theological and moral viewpoints.
And, significantly, while the law permitted therapists to affirm a minor’s gender transition, it strictly forbade any conversation aimed at helping a client align their feelings with their biological sex or religious values.
So, the decision reaffirms that in America, government can’t use its regulatory power to enforce ideological conformity and dictate the boundaries of acceptable thought. Notwithstanding the presumptions of the vocal left, government has absolutely no business sitting in the therapist’s office, auditing private conversations between a counselor and a patient, and threatening to revoke professional licenses simply because the advice offered is rooted in traditional principles rather than radical, new ideologies – especially when they fail the common-sense test.