Supreme Court rejects Colorado's conversion therapy ban

But their policy is not the First Amendment's.The Constitution does not protect the right of some to speak freely; it protects the right of all. It safeguards not only popular ideas; it secures, even and especially, the right to voice dissenting views. Consistent with these principles, our precedents have expressly rejected the State and dissent's notion that 'professional speech' represents some 'separate category of speech' subject to 'diminished constitutional protection.'Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter, arguing medical speech is different than generic free speech, as patients need to rely on sound industry-aligning advice.In the worst-case scenario, our medical system unravels as various licensed healthcare professionals — talk therapists, psychiatrists, and presumably anyone else who claims to utilize speech when administering treatments to patients — start broadly wielding their new-found constitutional right to provide substandard medical care.It is baffling that we could now be standing on the edge of a precipitous drop in the quality of healthcare services in America. But the Court sees fit to bring us one step closer to that fate today, she wrote.Catch up quick: Therapist Kaley Chiles, represented by lawyers from the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, contends the 2019 law acts as a de facto gag order on counselors to censor speech. The high court agreed to hear the case after the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, which it determined was a legal regulation of professional conduct incidentally involving speech. But in their petition to the Supreme Court, Chiles' lawyers argued that the law is a viewpoint-based infringement on her freedom of speech.Because the state disagrees with her views on gender and sexuality, her lawyers write, it puts itself in Chiles's counseling room, forbidding her from discussing the values she and her clients share.Additionally, they stated that Chiles uses only talk therapy in her practice, in which she does not seek to 'cure' clients of same-sex attractions and works only with voluntary clients who determine their own goals.The other side: The Colorado Attorney General's Office defended the law as a necessary regulation on professional conduct to protect patients from harmful treatment.Central to Petitioner's position is her claim that mental health professionals' counseling of their patients is no different from a chat with one's college roommate, such that both interactions receive the same First Amendment protection, Colorado's opposing brief read. Not so. Between the lines: Mental health professionals and patient advocates say that treating such speech as First Amendment speech could set a precedent under which any counseling is claimed to be free speech and no longer subject to professional standards, Axios' Adriel Bettelheim and Maya Goldman previously reported.Eight health care scholars, in an amicus brief filed by the Human Rights Campaign, contended that siding with Chiles could upend professional conduct regulations.They wrote that her view could jeopardize numerous state laws that regulate different aspects of psychotherapy and extend well beyond the specific context of conversion therapy.More than 20 states have banned conversion therapy for minors.The bottom line: The practice can contribute to significant psychological stress and long-term harm and has been widely rejected by the leading professional medical and mental health associations.Losing those protections against conversion therapy treatment would just in itself cause incalculable harm, said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, previously told Axios.Go deeper: Supreme Court upholds Tennessee ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth