Supreme Court Could Legalize LGBTQ Conversion Therapy—The Consequences Could Cost Billions

Forbes - Mar 10th, 2025

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Chiles v. Salazar, a case challenging Colorado's prohibition on LGBTQ conversion therapy for minors. This case is set to determine the constitutionality of laws that restrict specific conversations between counselors and clients based on viewpoint. Conversion therapy, aimed at altering a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, is widely criticized for its ineffectiveness and harmful consequences, including mental health issues and increased suicide risk. These practices, banned in over 20 states, impose an estimated $9 billion annual economic burden, as reported by a 2022 JAMA Pediatrics study.

The case was initiated by Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor, who argues that Colorado's ban infringes on her First Amendment rights by preventing her from guiding clients to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. The challenge highlights the ongoing legal and societal battles over LGBTQ rights, with potential significant repercussions for state-level bans on conversion therapy and related economic impacts. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has previously ruled on several high-profile LGBTQ rights cases, underscoring the broader significance of this case as the court continues to influence the legal landscape regarding LGBTQ issues.

Supreme Court First Amendment Economic Impact Colorado Lgbtq Rights Conversion Therapy Chiles V. Salazar The Trevor Project

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive and well-researched examination of the Supreme Court case concerning conversion therapy bans. It effectively balances the presentation of legal and economic aspects, supported by credible sources such as *JAMA Pediatrics* and The Trevor Project. The story is timely and of significant public interest, addressing ongoing debates about LGBTQ rights. While the article is generally clear and accessible, it could benefit from more diverse perspectives and expert opinions to enhance engagement and balance. Overall, the article is a strong piece that informs readers about a crucial legal issue with potential widespread implications.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports on the Supreme Court's decision to hear a case about state bans on conversion therapy, which is supported by the cited case *Chiles v. Salazar*. It correctly defines conversion therapy and notes its ineffectiveness and harmful effects, as supported by multiple studies. The economic impact figures from a 2022 study in *JAMA Pediatrics* are presented with precision, though they require further verification for absolute accuracy. Overall, the factual claims are well-supported, but the economic impact figures and study methodology are areas needing additional verification.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by presenting both the legal arguments against conversion therapy and the perspectives of those who support it, such as Kaley Chiles. However, it predominantly focuses on the negative aspects and economic burdens of conversion therapy, which may overshadow the legal arguments presented by its proponents. While it does mention the First Amendment arguments, the article could benefit from more detailed exploration of the opposing viewpoints to ensure a comprehensive balance.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to explain complex legal and economic issues. It effectively breaks down the components of the study and the legal case, making it accessible to a general audience. However, the inclusion of more direct quotes from legal documents or experts could enhance clarity by providing authoritative voices on the legal aspects. The article maintains a neutral tone, which aids in clarity and comprehension.

Source quality

The article references credible sources, including a study published in *JAMA Pediatrics* and a survey by The Trevor Project. These sources are authoritative in the field of LGBTQ research and provide a solid foundation for the article's claims. However, the article does not cite any legal experts or court documents directly, which could enhance the reliability of the legal analysis. The reliance on a study with noted methodological limitations also slightly impacts the source quality.

Transparency

The article clearly outlines the source of its economic impact figures and the study's methodology, including its limitations. It discloses that the study is based on self-reported data, which is a crucial factor for readers to consider. However, the article could improve transparency by providing more context on the legal arguments and the potential implications of the Supreme Court's decision. Additionally, more information about the study's funding and potential biases would enhance transparency.

Sources

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/supreme-court-state-bans-conversion-therapy-lgbtq-children-119630365