Washington – The Supreme Court approved on Monday that the laws in Colorado, California, and 20 other countries to ban the licensed consultants to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors.
Starting with California in 2012, the legislature prohibited the state of “conversion therapy” on the grounds that it was ineffective and harmful. They said these treatments had led to increased rates of depression, anxiety and suicide.
But the judges voted to hear a 1st application application Claim of Kaley ChilesA licensed consultant from Colorado who claims the law violates her rights to freedom of expression and the free practice of religion.
She said her clients “looking for Christian advice to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, to change sexual behavior or to grow in the experience of harmony with their physical body.”
She says she does not want to convert young customers to convert or “heal”, but argues that the state may not “censor” its conversations.
The complaint was filed by the freedom of alliance defense, a Christian legal group that initiated in the name of a cake manufacturer and a website designer who refused to work on weddings for same-sex couples in the name of a cake manufacturer and a website designer.
If the court reflects the law of Colorado, the judgment would almost certainly reflect on the similar laws in California and elsewhere.
The new case tests whether the “professional language” is subject to strict regulation by the state.
The judges have confirmed the California and Colorado laws against “conversion therapy” by deciding that states have a broad authority to regulate the practice of medicine and health care. This includes the licensing and misconduct laws that doctors or other medical specialists can punish to give dangerous or extremely inappropriate treatment recommendations.
To defend his law, the prosecutors in Colorado said that the Christian legal authority argues that “the advice of their patients distinguishes their patients through a chat with their own college with their own college.”
Consultants who violate the law can be fined or lose their license. The state found that its law “does not apply to those who offer services outside of professional health context, such as religious ministers or life consultants”.
Colorado's lawyers asked the court to confirm the view that “the 1st change enables the states to adequately regulate professional behavior in order to protect patients from inferior treatment, even if this regulation puts a strain on the language”.
But conservatives, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, say the states use these laws to enforce their own views.
“There is a violent public debate about how to help minors with gender dysphoria best,” said Thomas, and the state “silenced a page of this debate”.
He Refuted two years ago Together with the judges Samuel A. Alito and Brett M. Kavanaugh, when the court rejected a similar challenge for freedom of speech as a “renovation law” from the state of Washington.
“Licensed consultants can talk to minors about gender -specific dysphoria, but only if they convey the state -recognized message of the encouragement of minors to research their gender identities. Another message is forbidden – even if the consultant's customers ask for help to accept their biological sex, ”said Thomas.
It takes at least four votes to hear an appeal that indicates that one or more of the judges now agree with Thomas.
The court will hear arguments in the case of Chiles against Salazar.
A parallel dispute over state laws that limit the treatment of gender dysphoria is still pending before the Court of Justice.
Tennessee and 23 states conducted by Republicans have recently passed laws that banned doctors the prescription of puberty blockers or hormones for minors with gender dysphoria.
The bidding management sued and claimed that the state was involved in unconstitutional discrimination based on gender identity.
However, when the judges heard the case in December, the Conservatives of the court said that they were inclined to maintain the law of Tennessee on the basis of the state in order to regulate the medical practice.