Welcome to Breakpoint, a daily look at an ever-changing culture through the lens of unchanging truth for the Colson Center. I'm John Stone Street. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case with profound implications for free speech rights as well as for those with gender dysphoria. Kaylee Chiles is a licensed counselor in Colorado.
Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, she sued the state of Colorado over its counseling censorship law. Which prohibits counselors from helping clients, especially children, reconcile their identity with their sex through talk therapy. As the law now stands, counselors like Chiles face fines up to $5,000 for every violation. Chiles claims that she has patients who want to discuss issues that, as she put it, quote, Implicate Christian values about human sexuality and the treatment of their own body. while avoiding things like harmful drugs and questionable medical procedures.
Though Chiles does not guarantee her clients that the issues relating to gender identity, gender roles, or sexual attraction will be fully resolved, She quote believes clients can accept the bodies that God has given them and find peace. Charles contends that Colorado's law amounts to censorship and violates her First Amendment rights, muzzling her right to speak from her deeply held beliefs. It restricts her from having conversations that her clients want to have about their struggles with sexuality and identity. Colorado claims that the ban on so-called conversion therapy is based on, quote, overwhelming evidence that efforts to change a child's sexual orientation or gender identity are unsafe and ineffective. In making that claim, the state relies on studies that have little follow-up on the subjects of their research.
and which are based on self-reporting. That can be really problematic. In contrast, the UK's CAS review and a recent review from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have both exposed the overall lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of Gender dysphoria, so-called treatments like cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers, and the surgical removal of healthy body parts. According to ADF Chief Legal Counsel Jim Campbell, who argued the case before the Supreme Court yesterday, quote, there is a growing consensus around the world that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings.
Colorado's law harms these young people by depriving them of caring and compassionate conversations with a counselor who helps them pursue the goals they desire. In other words, Colorado only permits counselors to have conversations with children. that affirm the state's view of so-called gender identity. And which serve so-called gender affirmation. And for Colorado, affirming means encouraging a child to transition.
away from his or her God given sex through chemicals, hormones, and surgery, all of which leave permanent damage. And yet, Colorado bans counselors from helping children who want to become comfortable with their bodies and calls that conversion therapy. In effect, Colorado is co-opting professional counseling conversations to to impose gender ideology on therapist. and patience. This case will determine whether or not Christian counselors can continue to help individuals, including children, who are struggling with their identity as male or female.
More than 50 friend of the court briefs were filed with the Supreme Court for this case, from federal and state officials to counseling groups, people who have detransitioned, mental health researchers, and families who rely on this kind of counseling to help their children. Free speech advocates also weighed in, given the implications of this case for interpreting the First Amendment. As Campbell insisted, quote, the government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors. And that's exactly what this law does.
Now, it's always dangerous to predict just how the Supreme Court will decide a particular case based on the oral arguments. But most of the judges seemed poised to rule against Colorado and in defense of free speech. At the center of the debate is whether or not professional speech can be, as Colorado wants it to be, walled off from the First Amendment. In fact, strictly speaking, This case is not really about medical treatment. The talk therapy that Chals provides consists of voluntary conversations between her and her patients.
In other words, this is not about conduct. Which states have more leeway to regulate? It's about pure speech. Professional speech is no less protected by the First Amendment than any other kinds of speech. On this ground alone, the Supreme Court should reject Colorado's attempt to control and co-opt voluntary professional conversations.
Deciding for Colorado would not only require overturning precedent about speech rights, but would also turn professional speech into a government playground for censorship. Thankfully, the justices do not seem to be willing to take that risk. Let's hope and pray as much. For the Colson Center, I'm John Stone Street with Breakpoint. Today's Breakpoint was co-authored by Ian Speer.
If you're a fan of Breakpoint, leave us a review wherever you download your podcast. And for more resources to live like a Christian today, go to breakpoint.org.
