admin
The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a high-stakes challenge to Colorado’s 2019 ban on so-called “conversion therapy” for minors, and hardworking Americans should pay close attention. The case pits a licensed therapist’s First Amendment claim against a state law that effectively forces counselors into an affirmation-only approach when treating troubled youth; the Court’s decision will decide whether states can silence professionals who disagree with the medical establishment.
The petitioner, Christian counselor Kaley Chiles, argues that Colorado’s law censors viewpoint-driven conversations between therapists and clients and violates free speech and religious liberty, a fight now framed as Chiles v. Salazar at the Supreme Court. Lower courts upheld the law, but the justices granted review and will hear arguments in the fall term, making this a watershed moment for free expression in medicine and counseling.
Colorado’s statute bans licensed mental health professionals from engaging in treatments that attempt to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity, with disciplinary penalties for violators; critics rightly point out the law’s practical effect is to shut down any questioning of a youth’s gender conclusions. What the left calls “protecting kids” often operates as a blunt instrument that leaves no room for honest clinical inquiry, second opinions, or parental involvement in deeply consequential decisions.
Colorado officials insist the law regulates dangerous practices, citing mainstream health groups who denounce conversion therapy and warning of psychological harms, and the state claims it is protecting children from charlatan approaches. But government proclamations about “accepted” medical consensus do not give state bureaucrats a blank check to silence dissenting professionals or to dictate a single ideological approach to therapy.
This case isn’t just about one therapist or one state; it’s about whether the government can impose a political catechism on private conversations between licensed professionals and families. The debate has produced split rulings across circuits and sharp disagreements about whether these laws regulate conduct or punish disfavored speech, which is why the Supreme Court’s intervention is necessary to restore constitutional guardrails.
Conservative Americans should be crystal clear: parents, therapists, and religious Americans deserve protection from heavy-handed laws that remove nuance from care and weaponize licensing boards against conscience. The fight for free speech in the counseling room is a fight for parental rights and medical freedom—if the Court allows viewpoint-based restrictions to stand, the ripple effects could reach far beyond this single statute.
At a time when elites in government and academia push a one-size-fits-all ideology on children, the Supreme Court has the chance to reaffirm basic liberties and stop states from converting health care into a political enforcement arm. Patriots who value liberty and honest medicine should watch this case closely and demand that the Court defend free thought, professional judgment, and the fundamental right of parents to seek real help for their children.
