"Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson explained in her dissent that the majority's decision affirms the constitutional rights of anti-LGBTQ+ therapists while disregarding the rights of trans-affirming doctors and abortion providers."
"The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, claims to preserve Americans' 'inalienable right to think and speak freely,' but it effectively sides with anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments."
"Jackson warned that the majority's ruling could have 'potential long-term and disastrous implications' for various medical regulations, making them vulnerable to First Amendment challenges."
"The court's decision in Chiles v. Salazar represents a significant setback for LGBTQ+ rights, particularly for the protection of vulnerable minors from discredited and abusive practices."
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that laws preventing counselors from attempting to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity are presumptively unconstitutional under the First Amendment. This decision undermines protections established in over half the states, which aimed to shield children from harmful conversion therapy practices. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent highlighted the ruling's hypocrisy and potential long-term consequences for medical regulations, emphasizing the court's bias towards anti-LGBTQ+ therapists while neglecting the rights of supportive medical professionals.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]