I’m a law student and I’d like to clarify, this isn’t exactly accurate. Chiles v. Salazar is still an ongoing case in the 10th Circuit COA. SCOTUS ruled that one specific type of conversion therapy ban is subject to a high level of scrutiny, and then passed it back down to the COA for hearings to determine whether it passes that level of scrutiny. In their concurrence, Kagan and Sotomayor offered guidance on how to redraft the statute to have the same effect but face lesser judicial scrutiny.

14

I think we should convert the SCOTUS.

13

I think the law should clarity that children are not property, establish their personhood more concretely, give children a bill of rights, and then have bans on conversion therapy rest on autonomy and personhood and individual freedom rather than on healthcare or anything regarding the current legal relationship between parents and children.

5

And they're not passing judgment on whether it's a good or bad idea. They're saying addressing the question does the state have the right to tell private organizations and individuals that you're not allowed to have a group,that thinks it's wrong and counsel people how to overcome it. Like we might find that abhorrent but in general you are free to associate with whoever you want, form whatever groups you want, hold whatever religious beliefs you want, say whatever you want, and you need a clear

1

The decision makes sense. It’s free speech, not health care. So the state can’t regulate it The opposite is also true: The state can’t ban therapies that seek to affirm someone’s non-cis identity. So both are legal: therapies for affirming your gender assigned at birth and affirming a gender which is different from your gender assigned at birth

-4

hahaha there was a kid getting converted at my rehab program

-7