Washington – On Monday, the Supreme Court approved a challenge to freedom of expression of laws in Colorado, California and 20 other states that prevent licensed advisers from seeking to change sexual inclination or sexual identity of minors.
Starting with California in 2012, the state lawmakers banned “transfer treatment” on the basis that it was ineffective and taxes. They said that these treatments have increased depression, anxiety and suicide.
But the judges voted to hear the first amendment A claim from Cali ChilisA licensed consultant from Colorado, who claims that the law violates its rights to freedom of expression and the practice of free religion.
She said that her customers “are looking for advice based on Christians to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attraction, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with their physical body.”
She says she does not seek to “transform” or “treat” young customers, but she argues that the state may not “lose” their talks.
The appeal was submitted by the Alliance to defend freedom, a Christian legal group that won the provisions of the Supreme Court on behalf of the cake maker and a website designer who refused to work in weddings for couples of the same sex.
If the court sets the Colorado law, it will certainly the ruling will strike similar laws in California and other places.
The new case tests whether “professional speech” may be subject to strict regulation by the state.
The judges supported the laws of California and Colorado against “transferring the transfer” by judging that countries have a wide force to regulate medicine and health care. This includes the laws of licensing and poor practice that can punish doctors or other medical professionals to give serious or very inappropriate treatment recommendations.
In the defense of its law, Colorado lawyers said that the Christian legal appeal argues that “the advice of mental health specialists for their patients is not different from chatting with his college colleague.”
Advisors who violate or lose their license can be fined. The state noted that its law “does not apply to those who provide services outside the context of professional health care, such as religious ministers or life coaches.”
Colorado lawyers urged the court to confirm the opinion that “the first amendment allows the states to regulate professional behavior in a reasonable way to protect patients from the below required level treatment, even when this list is burdened by the way to speech.”
But the conservatives, led by Judge Clarence Thomas, say that the states use these laws to impose their own opinions.
Thomas said: “There is a fierce public debate about the best ways to help minors who suffer from a defect in the sex of the sexes,” and the state has “silenced one side of this debate.”
he Exhibitions two years ago Along with the judges, Samuel A. Alto and Brett M. Cavano, when the court rejected a heat -like challenge to the “transfer treatment” law from Washington State.
“Signed advisers can talk to minors about the gender defects, but only if they convey an accredited message from the state to encourage the palace to explore their sexual identities. Thomas said:” Expressing any other message is forbidden – even if the consultant agents ask to help accept their biological gender. ”
It takes at least four votes to hear an appeal, indicating the consensus of one or more judges now with Thomas.
The court will hear the arguments in the Chelse case against Salazar in the fall.
Still a commentator before the court is a parallel dispute over the laws of the state that limits the treatment of the gender impaired.
Tennessee and 23 states led by Republicans have adopted laws that prohibit doctors from describing adulthood or hormones for minors with dysfunction.
A lawsuit was filed against the Biden administration, and the state intended to discriminate unconstitutional on the basis of sexual identity.
However, when the judges heard the case in December, the court governors said that they tend to support a Tenisi law on the basis that the state has the authority to organize medicine.