Controversy Over Conversion Therapy in the United States

Recently, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Childs v. Salazar, which challenges Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy, a controversial practice aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This type of therapy is considered ineffective and harmful and has been banned in many U.S. states.

What is Conversion Therapy?

Conversion therapy is a set of methods aimed at changing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. This may include talk therapy, medication, hypnosis, or “aversive” techniques such as electric shocks or inducing vomiting. These programs are sometimes conducted by religious ministries or healthcare professionals.

Studies have shown that these therapies are not only ineffective but also dangerous. They have been linked to post-traumatic stress disorders and increased suicidal thoughts. A study conducted in 2020 found that LGBTQ individuals who underwent conversion therapy were nearly twice as likely to consider suicide compared to those who did not.

Legal Challenges to Conversion Therapy Bans

Kali Childs, a licensed professional counselor, challenged Colorado’s law in 2022. Her attorneys argued that the law should be subject to a higher level of judicial scrutiny because it restricts Childs’ freedom of expression, causing her “irreparable harm.”

The attorneys argue that Colorado’s law limits Childs’ freedom of expression by preventing her from providing talk therapy. However, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the talk therapy provided by Childs is part of regulated professional conduct and not merely speech.

Positions of Health and Psychological Organizations

Many health and professional organizations support the ban on conversion therapy, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. These organizations consider conversion therapy to be unsupported by reliable scientific evidence.

In an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court, the associations argued that describing talk therapy as mere speech misunderstands its therapeutic use and purpose. They emphasized that licensing requirements exist to ensure therapies are provided safely and effectively.

Conclusion

The debate over conversion therapy in the United States represents a significant legal and scientific challenge. While some professionals view these practices as part of their freedom of expression, the potential harm and lack of scientific support for these therapies raise serious concerns about their use. As awareness of the associated risks increases, legislative efforts to ban them continue, reflecting a shift in social and professional understanding of these sensitive issues.