The Supreme Court
Andrew Harnik / Getty images
hide
tilting legend
Andrew Harnik / Getty images
The Supreme Court held arguments on issues of sexuality and government regulation on Tuesday. Again, a case oppose conservative Christian groups against the LGBTQ community.
The question in the case is conversion therapy. It is generally defined as the treatment used to cure the attraction of a person with the same sex; In other words, make a homosexual person and heal a person’s desire to change their gender identity by putting them at ease with their sex at birth.
Each major medical organization of the American Medical Medical Association at the American Psychological Association has repudiated the practice, noting that it does not work, and rather leads to a deep depression and to suicidal thoughts in minors. Following these results, half of the States prohibited the practice for those under 18.
Jessica Ritter is one of the many former patients in conversion therapy who now opposes treatment. Raised in a devout Christian family, she says that her first kiss was with another girl and that she was devastated when the relationship ended because of the belief that she would go to hell – so devastated that she impatiently adopted the therapy of conversion.
“You are broken, then you do all the things they tell you to do, and it does not work,” she said, adding that it had taken her years to recover.
Conservative Christian Legal Group Alliance defending freedom, as well as the therapist of Colorado, Kaley Chiles, question the ban on conversion therapy, saying that she violates the right of freedom of expression of a therapist in Talk-therapy therapy.
“I want to be able to actually work and create therapeutic relationships that are not hampered by the values and the position of our state,” says Chiles, adding that for the moment it must refuse customers who want conversion therapy.
Representing the Chiles at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, lawyer James Campbell will tell the judges that what Chiles does is a pure therapy of speech, and therefore that it is protected by the guarantee of the freedom of expression of the Constitution.
“The state can determine who is qualified to be an authorized advisor. It can determine that they have the right education, that they have sufficient experience,” he said. “But what the state cannot do is come and say:” You can have a conversation on a subject, but not if you are going to talk about this point of view. “” That, he argues that it is “discrimination from a blatant point of view”.
The Colorado General Philip Weeiser counts that the law of the State only applies to minors and allows any person of any age to request advice on therapy for conversion from religious organizations without being subject to laws on state licenses. But, he adds, states have the right to force approved therapists and other health professionals to respect established medical care standards.
“If you remove the ability of states to protect patients from lower quality care, you open the door to all kinds of discredited treatments,” he said.
Each part of this debate must face an embarrassing fact.
The memories deposited by people approving conversion therapy are strongly based on Cass Review, a study commissioned by the National Health Service of Great Britain, which revealed that last year, there was not enough evidence to justify the transgender care affirming minors. In particular, the journal Cass has reached a very different conclusion with regard to conversion therapy, condemning it as not supported by professional scientific and medical advice.
As for the position of Colorado, his opponents note that the main medical associations have not always been right. Indeed, the American Psychiatric Association in fact listed homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973.
The Attorney General Weiser replies that medical science is evolving over time.
“There were times when we did not know that smoking cigarettes, three packets a day, caused cancer. But now that we know that it is the case, it is bad for a doctor to tell people to smoke cigarettes … It would be lower care for standards, just as conversion practices are careful care.”
A decision in the case, Chiles c. Salazar is expected in summer.
