The Supreme Court's conversion therapy ruling is being misunderstood

""This was a case about the First Amendment, not about whether conversion therapy works or is safe," Shannon Minter stated, highlighting the ruling's focus on legal technicalities rather than the practice's validity."

""The court was exclusively concerned with the construction of the statute," Minter explained, indicating that the justices did not evaluate the scientific validity or harms associated with conversion therapy."

""Nothing in this opinion is an endorsement of conversion therapy," Minter clarified, reinforcing that the ruling does not imply that conversion therapy is safe, ethical, or medically accepted."

The Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar focused on First Amendment issues related to Colorado's law against conversion therapy for minors. The court found the law unconstitutional for not being viewpoint neutral, allowing affirming counseling while prohibiting non-affirming approaches. Legal experts emphasize that the ruling does not endorse conversion therapy or address its safety. Major medical organizations maintain that conversion therapy is harmful, and the decision complicates state efforts to protect LGBTQ+ minors from such practices.

Read at Advocate.com