Appeals court upholds ban on conversion therapy in Colorado
Conversion therapy is often used against LGBTQ+ youth to forcibly change their gender identities and sexualities. (Getty)
A federal appeals court has upheld a law to ban conversion therapy for minors in Colorado following a lawsuit which argued that the law infringed on free speech.
The ban on conversion therapy, also known as House Bill 1129, bans state-licensed mental health providers from trying to ‘reform’ a child’s trans or non-binary gender identity or same-sex attraction.
A lawsuit was filed against the ban, arguing that it violated free speech rights. However, in a 2-1 decision, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law and refused a request to prevent the ban from being enacted.
Several LGBTQ+ advocacy groups supported the law and filed briefs to the court to argue that it was necessary to prevent LGBTQ+ youth from the “dangers of conversion therapy”.
In a statement, the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ senior staff attorney, Chris Stoll, said: “We are extremely pleased with today’s decision, which allows Colorado to continue protecting its LGBTQ children and adolescents from the dangers of conversion therapy.
“These discredited practices, which falsely promise to be able to change a young person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, have been rejected as unsafe by every major medical and mental health organisation in the country.”
The original law suit came from a licensed professional counsellor in Colorado Springs named Kaley Chiles who believes that same-sex sexual relations is sinful due to her strong Christian faith.
Chiles filed the suit with the help of the right-wing legal group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who were displeased with the decision when it was announced.
In a post on X, the group referred to House Bill 1129 as Colorado’s “Counselling Censorship Law”.
“The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counsellors. Counsellors shouldn’t be used as a tool to impose the government’s biased views on clients. Counselling is speech, not conduct, and it must be treated as such under the First Amendment,” the group wrote, adding that they would be considering “all options to stop the unlawful attempt at speech censorship”.
Both Chiles and ADF said that they would be appealing the court’s decision.
