Supreme Court Ruling on Conversion Therapy
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson found herself alone in her dissent regarding the Supreme Court’s recent decision on a Colorado law banning conversion therapy. The ruling, which passed with an 8-1 majority, determined that this ban was a case of viewpoint discrimination specifically affecting Casey Chiles, who was forbidden from providing therapy to children struggling with their gender identity.
In a lengthy dissent, spanning 34 pages, Jackson expressed her concern about the implications of this ruling. She described it as “playing with fire” and worried that it could have severe consequences for American health care.
Jackson emphasized the bizarre nature of the court’s decision, suggesting that it threatens to degrade the quality of health care in the country. She expressed disbelief that such a risk persists in the 21st century, especially when modern science should guide better practices in medical care.
While Jackson voiced fears that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent for dismantling the health care system, Justice Elena Kagan urged her to reconsider the established principles of the First Amendment. In a separate concurring opinion, Kagan, along with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, asserted that First Amendment protections should be upheld irrespective of the government’s stance.
Kagan also presented a hypothetical scenario mirroring the Colorado law—from a different perspective. Rather than prohibiting therapy aimed at changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, this imagined law would ban therapy that supports those identities. She noted that the First Amendment would still apply in such a case.
She deemed the Chiles case a classic illustration of viewpoint discrimination, arguing that the court’s rationale failed to adequately address laws that may be content-based yet viewpoint-neutral.
Kagan pointed out that Jackson’s dissent claims this category of laws does not exist or is very small. Still, Jackson cites several specific examples, which could indicate a broader risk to various forms of speech.
Additionally, Kagan raised concerns that the ruling could lead to unforeseen and potentially harmful consequences, hinting that it might leave certain medical practices, like speech therapy, without necessary oversight or regulation.
Jackson backed her arguments with what she claimed was a consensus among medical professionals asserting that conversion therapy is detrimental. She argued that this practice not only fuels stigma against individuals’ identities but also promotes unrealistic objectives that can lead to feelings of shame and lasting psychological distress.
In recent months, significant medical organizations have begun to reevaluate their positions on the care of minors experiencing gender dysphoria. For instance, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons has taken a stance against gender reassignment surgery for minors, advocating for postponement until they reach at least 19 years of age.
