Supreme Court Debates Legitimacy of Conversion Therapy Amid Landmark Case

Supreme Court Hears Case on Conversion Therapy, Raising Questions About Medical Expertise In a surprising move, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that challenges state bans on conversion therapy, a practice aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. The Republican justices seemed eager to strike down these bans, sparking concerns about the court's stance on medical expertise. The case centers around Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors, which was enacted in 2017. At least half of the states have similar laws prohibiting this practice for patients under 18. However, the Supreme Court's conservative majority appears to be questioning the validity of these bans. During oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito expressed skepticism about the scientific basis for banning conversion therapy, stating that "there is no conclusive evidence" that it causes harm. This sentiment was echoed by other Republican justices, who seemed to be challenging the medical consensus on this issue. Dr. Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist and expert on conversion therapy, countered these claims in an interview with Vox. "The overwhelming scientific evidence shows that conversion therapy is not only ineffective but also causes significant harm to individuals, particularly minors," he said. "It's essential for policymakers and the courts to rely on credible medical research when making decisions about public health." Conversion therapy has been widely discredited by major medical organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA) and the American Medical Association (AMA). These groups have stated that conversion therapy can lead to depression, anxiety, and even suicidal thoughts in individuals who undergo it. The Supreme Court's decision on this case will have significant implications for public health policy. If the court rules against state bans on conversion therapy, it could embolden proponents of this practice, potentially putting more minors at risk. As the nation waits with bated breath for the court's ruling, experts urge caution and emphasize the importance of consulting healthcare professionals when seeking advice on sensitive topics like sexual orientation or gender identity. "It's crucial to rely on credible sources and medical expertise when making decisions about one's health," said Dr. Drescher. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in Chiles v. Salazar by the end of the term, which concludes in June 2026. *Reporting by Vox.*