When I read the news that the Supreme Court is going to hear a challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy (in Chiles v. Salazar), my reaction was: what the hell? The framing “cured” feels like a cruel joke. There is nothing to cure. To imply otherwise is dehumanizing — like saying you need a cure for your religion or your skin color.

Here’s where we are, why this case matters, and how to respond — firmly but responsibly.

This is a long article than my message of support for the LGBTQIA+ community.

What’s Chiles v. Salazar?

In March 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge by a licensed therapist (Kaley Chiles) to a Colorado statute prohibiting conversion therapy for minors. (Reuters)

• Colorado’s law (sometimes called the “Minor Therapy Conversion Law”) bans licensed mental health professionals from engaging in any therapeutic practice that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” (The Trevor Project)
• The law explicitly exempts counselors “engaged in the practice of religious ministry.” (Supreme Court)
• Chiles argues the law violates her First Amendment rights — that it censors her speech (i.e. therapeutic speech) based on viewpoint. (Supreme Court)
• In lower courts, Colorado succeeded in defending it by classifying conversion therapy bans as regulation of professional conduct, not pure speech. The 10th Circuit supported that distinction. (Justia Law)
• But Chiles contends that banning certain speech — e.g. “you can change” — is viewpoint-based suppression. (Supreme Court)

If the Supreme Court sides with Chiles, it could open the door to therapists legally prescribing “talk cures” that aim to reverse or suppress LGBTQ identities — even though medical consensus says such “therapies” have no legitimacy and are harmful.

What the Medical & Mental Health Fields Say (Spoiler: No, There Is No Cure)

Let’s get this straight: no major medical or mental-health authority supports conversion therapy. All the credible evidence says it’s wrong, harmful, and a product of anti-LGBTQ bias.

1. The consensus: discredited, dangerous, ineffective

• The American Psychological Association (APA) rejects so-called “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE). Their resolution notes that conversion therapy “puts individuals at a significant risk of harm” and is not effective in changing sexual orientation or gender identity. (American Psychological Association)
• The American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, and many others issue similar condemnations. (American Medical Association)
• The APA also has a recent statement affirming that psychotherapeutic treatment for transgender and nonbinary youth should aim to explore identity, not force change, because supportive care reduces mental health risks. (updates.apaservices.org)
• A 2024 APA Monitor article reviews how many states try to regulate therapists, restricting harmful practices like conversion therapy. (American Psychological Association)

2. Empirical research — harm, not healing

• The Williams Institute estimates ~700,000 LGBTQ adults in the U.S. have been subjected to conversion therapy; about 350,000 experienced it as adolescents. (Williams Institute)
• Studies show people who undergo conversion therapy are significantly more likely to attempt suicide, experience depression, anxiety, substance abuse, social isolation, and lower capacity for intimacy. (What We Know)
• One analysis of transgender youth found that exposure to conversion therapy increased the probability of a suicide attempt by 17 percentage points — a roughly 55% higher risk. (ScienceDirect)
• A meta-review of 47 peer-reviewed studies found that 12 of them concluded conversion therapy is ineffective and/or harmful, noting links to depression, suicidality, anxiety, etc. (What We Know)
• A study on GICE (gender identity change efforts) showed that those exposed and with prior suicidality had higher odds of psychological distress, healthcare avoidance, and other negative outcomes. (PMC)
• An economic analysis from The Trevor Project (JAMA Pediatrics) estimated that the harms of conversion therapy cost the U.S. $9.23 billion annually, largely driven by its mental health consequences. (The Trevor Project)

In short: There is zero credible scientific base for claiming conversion therapy “works.” The data overwhelmingly point to injury, not cure.

Why Does the Supreme Court Even Get to Decide This?

The case isn’t purely about whether conversion therapy should be allowed or banned. It’s about how far states can regulate the practices of licensed professionals when those practices involve speech.

The tension: free speech vs. professional regulation

• The First Amendment generally protects speech, but courts have long allowed professional regulation — medical boards, licensing, malpractice oversight, standards of care. You can’t just say anything as a doctor.
• Colorado contends its law falls into that category: the state regulates therapeutic conduct, not ideology. (Justia Law)
• Chiles argues that the law suppresses expression (her “views” about conversion) based on viewpoint and thus mutes free speech protections. (Supreme Court)
• The 10th Circuit supported Colorado: it held the law regulates professional conduct rather than speech, and thus is permissible. (Justia Law)
• The Supreme Court’s decision could shift or weaken the boundary between “speech” and “conduct” in licensed professions.

Why this case matters beyond LGBTQ topics

If the Court rules that regulating a therapist’s expressive content is unconstitutional (even when harmful), it could undermine states’ ability to oversee medical, legal, psychological, and other licensed professionals in many domains — not just LGBTQ care.

That means a ruling for Chiles would not only allow therapists to “talk cure” LGBTQ clients, but also limit regulation of professionals whose speech is controversial in other contexts (medical misinformation, pseudoscience, etc.).

“Cure the Gay”? No. Let’s Be Clear: There Is No Cure, Only Denial.

We have to begin with a foundational moral truth: there is nothing inherently wrong or disordered about being LGBTQIA+. Saying someone needs a “cure” is a statement of prejudiced ideology — not science.

It’s akin to saying someone needs a cure for being left-handed, or being Muslim, or being autistic. Identity is identity — not pathology. The push to “cure” queers is an attempt to coerce conformity under the guise of treatment.

Using licensed professionals to carry out this coercion is especially insidious. Therapy is supposed to heal, to help people live with less shame, trauma, or anxiety. When a so-called “therapy” instead tries to erase or deny a core part of someone’s self, it becomes violence masquerading as care.

How to Position This: What You Can Say

Here are messaging principles you can use if you’re writing or campaigning:

1. Name the lie and the danger
   Use phrases like “so-called conversion therapy,” “dangerous ‘cures’ attempt,” or “ideology masquerading as treatment.” Make it clear: this is not legitimate mental health care.
2. Emphasize that identity isn’t broken
   Being LGBTQIA+ is not an error to be fixed. It’s part of human diversity. No “cure” ever was necessary — only acceptance, support, and safety.
3. Center the evidence and harm
   Cite the professional consensus and empirical studies showing damage, suicidality, and dysfunction caused by these interventions.
4. Frame the stakes — not just for LGBTQ+ folks
   Explain why this case matters to everyone: if the state cannot regulate professional speech in harmful contexts, many consumer protections and standards of care could crumble.
5. Offer a positive alternative
   Don’t just oppose — affirm. The model that should guide mental health is affirming care, not corrective care. Counselors should help clients explore identity, resilience, and coping — not coerce conformity.
6. Avoid inflammatory extremes — but don’t whitewash
   You don’t have to hurl insults. You can be firm and moral without name-calling. But don’t soften the truth — someone is trying to rewrite identity into disorder.

What the Court Should Do — And What We Can Demand

In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court should:

• Recognize that states have a compelling interest in protecting minors from harmful, discredited practices backed by no science.
• Uphold that the line between conduct and speech still allows the regulation of treatments — even when speech is involved — when harmful.
• Resist turning licensed professionals into free-for-all conveyors of ideology under the protection of “speech.”

Beyond the Court, activists, legislators, and communities should:

• Push for bans on conversion therapy at state and federal levels (many states already do)
• Strengthen professional licensing boards to sanction therapists who harm clients or practice pseudo-science
• Increase access to affirming mental health care and reparative support for survivors
• Mobilize public education so people understand this is not debate about beliefs — it’s about harm to real people

Final Thought: This Is Not a Difference of Opinion — It’s a Fight for Human Dignity

To all the LGBTQIA+ folks, allies, and sincere advocates: we must be unwavering in rejecting that identity is illness. We must insist that therapy be a space of healing and liberation — not erasure.

If Chiles v. Salazar allows licensed professionals to “talk-cure” queer people, the consequences will ripple dangerously far.

We don’t need to be petty or vitriolic to make the case. But we need moral clarity, scientific rigor, and unflinching defense of people’s right to exist as they are.

Would you like me to turn this into a published op-ed (with byline, structure, word limit) or a social media thread? I can adapt it however you like.

• Vox
• Reuters
• washingtonpost.com