SCOTUS ruling stirs First Amendment discourse<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a case arguing that a ban on conversion therapy was a violation of free speech, igniting debate over free expression in the health care services field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In its ruling in Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court found that a lower court had \u201cerred\u201d in upholding Colorado\u2019s 2019 ban on conversion therapy, with justices saying that because the law \u201cregulates speech based on viewpoint.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the court didn\u2019t rule on the actual constitutionality of Colorado\u2019s ban on conversion therapy \u2014 a scientifically discredited practice of attempting to \u201cconvert\u201d LGBTQ people to align with heterosexual or cisgender norms. Justices last week sent the case back to lower courts and asked that a higher standard be applied to the law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The core question is whether conversion therapy is something that a government can regulate, like it does for health care. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Observers saw parallels between this decision and other state-level regulations that have entered cultural discourse in recent years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Several states have laws that require abortion care providers to convey certain information to patients, including information about fetal pain and unsupported claims that abortions could increase the risk of breast cancer. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDoctors who provide abortions have been forced to tell patients things that are untrue, forced to give them pamphlets that say untrue things,\u201d Zoe Taylor, a family physician in Washington state and a former fellow at the Physicians for Reproductive Health advocacy group, told The Hill. <\/p>\n\n\n\n