Today, the US Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Chile v. Salazar, where a counselor is contesting Colorado’s law that restricts her ability to engage in voluntary discussions with her clients.
Kaylee Chile sees her work as intertwined with her Christian beliefs. Although she is open to all clients, she often finds those who share her values. However, Colorado law bars her from discussing certain topics related to gender and sexuality. For instance, she’s prohibited from having conversations aimed at helping clients align with their biological sex but can engage in discussions promoting gender transition.
If Kaylee happens to breach this regulation, even if initiated by the client, she risks hefty fines and potentially losing her license.
This law signifies a troubling precedent where a state can dictate what a professional can or cannot express during private interactions with a client.
Picture this scenario: It reflects a tragic story replicated across the nation. A young girl, Jane Doo, grows up in a single-parent home after being abandoned by her father. Her mother does what she can, juggling multiple jobs to ensure Jane’s emotional well-being. Compounding their struggles, Jane suffers abuse at the hands of her mother’s new boyfriend, leading her into a vortex of guilt and shame about her body. Entering adolescence, Jane begins to fantasize about life being simpler as a boy.
One stabilizing element in Jane’s tumultuous life is her mother’s commitment to bringing her to church, where she learns she was created with purpose as a girl. She eventually turns to Kaley for guidance, seeking to feel more at ease in her own skin.
Kaley typically supports clients like Jane by probing the roots of their distress, establishing goals, and equipping them with psychological tools to tackle feelings of guilt and shame. Many young people come to accept their biological identities. Yet, under Colorado law, Kaley finds herself constrained from helping Jane achieve her aims. Directing her conversation elsewhere to comply with regulations, she refrains from offering the guidance Jane desperately seeks.
Feeling hopeless, Jane and her mother do not pursue further counseling and instead turn to a medical professional. Upon learning of Jane’s confusion regarding her gender, the doctor promptly initiates a treatment plan geared towards transitioning Jane to a boy, beginning with hormone blockers and later testosterone. When Jane’s mother expresses her concerns, the doctor chillingly asks, “Would you prefer a living son or a dead daughter?”
In this whirlwind, Jane starts hormone injections. Her voice lowers, facial hair begins to grow, and she starts accumulating weight, developing heart issues and facing a risk of diabetes. All the while, medical professionals assure her that she’s living her authentic life, while she feels trapped in a body that doesn’t feel right.
At 17, Jane undergoes a double mastectomy. Post-surgery, her wounds become infected, yet the medical facility neglects the issue and sends her home. The pain escalates to an unbearable extent, forcing Jane to rush to the emergency room for care that should have been provided initially.
While she endures this pain, she waits for relief that never seems to arrive.
It’s unsettling to acknowledge that this isn’t a far-fetched tale—it’s an unfortunate reality for many. The testimonies of people who have detransitioned reveal a significant issue that resonates in at least 22 other states sharing similar laws to those in Colorado. More and more, young people are battling feelings of gender discomfort, often without access to licensed counselors to help them navigate these complex feelings.
There are healthier, more supportive approaches that can protect minors, unlike the one-way path leading to lifelong medical challenges. Alliance Defending Freedom, where I serve as Vice President of Appeals, represents Kaylee in her legal challenge, pushing the Supreme Court to allow counselors to provide genuine assistance to youth without imposing harmful ideologies.
