The Problem With Conversion Therapy Bans

In September 2024, a coalition of 20 state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court case that upheld Tennessee's ban on pediatric gender medicine. The law, SB1, made it a crime to prescribe puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones to minors for the purpose of treating gender dysphoria, and the officials, all from blue states, described it as a stark departure from the norms of medical regulation, accusing Tennessee of second-guessing the judgment of health care professionals.

The post The Problem With Conversion Therapy Bans appeared first on .

‘Must Stay Gay’ laws face their overdue reckoning



The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that could reshape counseling freedom across America. The law at issue is one of several so-called “conversion therapy bans” that restrict what therapists may say to their clients.

The Ruth Institute calls them what they are: “Must Stay Gay” laws.

The fight for counseling freedom isn’t about forcing anyone to change. It’s about defending every person’s right to seek help aligned with their own beliefs and goals.

These laws silence counselors and harm families, especially young people struggling with trauma, anxiety, and sexual confusion. The question before the court is simple: Does the First Amendment allow a state to dictate which viewpoints a licensed therapist may express?

A strong signal from the court

The central issue in Chiles is viewpoint discrimination. Colorado’s law allows therapists to affirm a child’s same-sex attraction or gender confusion — but forbids them from helping a client resist or change those feelings.

Justice Samuel Alito captured the absurdity in one hypothetical, which I paraphrase (the whole argument is here):

An adolescent male comes to a licensed therapist; he feels uneasy and guilty about feeling attracted to other boys. He asks the therapist to help him feel better as a gay man. Colorado law permits this. Another adolescent male goes to a licensed therapist and asks him to help him feel less attracted to other boys. Colorado law forbids this.

That’s government picking sides in a moral debate, not equality under the law.

When pressed, Colorado’s attorney stumbled badly. Alito then asked whether “medical consensus” has ever been wrong. She hesitated, and he reminded her of Buck v. Bell,the notorious 1927 decision that upheld forced sterilization based on “progressive” science. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed the common progressive opinion at the time: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

In closing, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Campbell, who represents therapist Kaley Chiles, delivered the knockout line:

The state of Colorado allows a 12-year-old girl to seek counseling to affirm her so-called gender identity as a boy without parental consent — but forbids her, even with her parents, from seeking help to accept herself as female.

That’s blatant viewpoint discrimination. On this point, the justices seemed receptive.

Junk science and the ‘born this way’ myth

The state also claimed that no one has ever changed their sexual attractions — a claim as false as it is arrogant. One counterexample disproves it, and there are thousands. Our amicus brief cites studies and testimonies from men and women who experienced real change, often through talk therapy.

Colorado’s attorney dug herself in deeper, asserting that all theories linking abuse or family dynamics to sexual identity have been “debunked.” They haven’t. The research she relies on doesn’t distinguish between minors and adults, licensed and unlicensed therapists, or talk therapy and coercive “aversion” practices.

That’s ideology, not science. And the justices noticed.

RELATED: Christian counselors fight for freedom of speech before the Supreme Court

Photo by Sakorn Sukkasemsakorn via Getty Images

The state’s lawyer also leaned on the claim that being gay is innate and immutable. She presented no evidence for that assertion, only the assumption that it must be true. But twin and genetic studies contradict it. Many people once identified as LGBT and no longer do. They exist, they matter, and they expose the lie behind the “born this way” narrative.

What comes next

The court offered no hints about how it will rule on the immutability question. But the justices heard enough to know that Colorado’s law enforces one approved orthodoxy and punishes dissent. That’s unconstitutional — and morally indefensible.

The fight for counseling freedom isn’t about forcing anyone to change. It’s about defending every person’s right to seek help aligned with their own beliefs and goals.

Here at the Ruth Institute, we’ll keep pressing the truth: “Must Stay Gay” is not OK.

Christian counselors fight for freedom of speech before the Supreme Court



This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

RELATED: Free speech is a core American value

stellalevi via iStock/Getty Images

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

SCOTUS decides: Should conversion therapy be ILLEGAL?



In 2019, a law was passed in Colorado that banned counselors from attempting to change a minor client’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including behaviors or gender expressions. Effectively, they banned conversion therapy.

However, there is an exception.

“The counselor can offer assistance to a person undergoing gender transition. So, you can help them one direction, you just can’t help them the other direction,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck explains on “The Glenn Beck Program.”

And one woman is taking on the law, arguing that her free speech is being violated.

Kaley Chiles is a licensed counselor and Christian out of Colorado Springs who specializes in addiction, trauma, sexuality, gender dysphoria, and other mental health concerns. Her clients are those seeking religiously informed care that aligns with biblical teachings, especially on sexuality and gender.


Prior to 2019, Chiles was fine. She counseled clients, including minors, and helped many with gender dysphoria.

Now, her lawsuit has gone all the way to the Supreme Court.

“That’s the court case that the Supreme Court heard yesterday. … Is counseling freedom of speech? Can I not counsel based on my religious dictates? Colorado says no. This is going to be a huge case,” Glenn says.

“I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God, and the family is central to the Creator’s plan for eternal destiny of his children. ... I believe all human beings, male and female, are created in the image of God,” he continues.

“We have people in black robes deciding whether that can be said by me, by you, by a counselor, by a priest. In Colorado today, that counselor cannot sit down with that minor and say what I just said. It’s against the law in Colorado,” he says. “Is that the freedom that the left is preaching for?”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

‘Blatant Viewpoint Discrimination’: Alito Slams Colorado For Telling Therapists They Can’t Affirm Kids’ Natural Sex

Associate Justice Samuel Alito exposed the absurdity of a Colorado law prohibiting so-called “conversion therapy” for minors during a high-profile case before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The moment came during oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case focused on a legal challenge brought by Colorado resident Kaley Chiles. A licensed therapist who provides […]

Gorsuch, Barrett Blast Colorado’s Double Standard On Talk Therapy For Kids With Gender Dysphoria

Under Colorado's argument, a state could "forbid a regulated licensed professional from affirming homosexuality if that were consistent with the then-prevailing 'standard of care.'"

How we help 'gay' men and women 'Leave Pride Behind'



You may have noticed that corporate America’s enthusiasm for Pride Month has waned.

But business leaders aren't the only ones pulling back from public celebration of “Pride.” Many ordinary people are retreating from full-on support for the demands of the LGBT lobby.

Our Leaving Pride Behind campaign amplifies the powerful testimonies of men and women who have walked away from homosexual behavior and identity.

Most importantly, many people who once identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or transgender have abandoned that identity. In some cases, they have completely reinterpreted their own past behaviors, thoughts, feelings, and political commitments. These brave men and women have left Pride behind.

Over the rainbow

If you’ve sensed that Pride-themed advertising has declined since 2023, you’re not wrong. A new survey finds that 43% of Fortune 1,000 companies are dialing back their external support for Pride Month in 2025. Social media feeds, once filled with rainbow branding, are strikingly subdued this year. No embarrassing displays by nonbinary “influencers” trying to sell beer. No doubt, the business community is responding to the views of the broader public.

A recent survey revealed that nearly 60% of Americans now prefer corporations to stay neutral on political and social issues.

At the same time, many Americans are questioning the goals and tactics of LGBT activism. People are starting to realize the cost of this ideology, particularly when it conflicts with faith, family, and biological reality. People are repelled by the sight of parents losing custody of their children for failing to “affirm” the child’s “gender identity.” Ordinary folk are cheering when J.K. Rowling takes down trans activists online.

'Obergefell' remorse

And people also intuit that redefining marriage in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case opened the door to transgenderism in the schools, drag queen story hours, and much more. As a result, the public is rethinking its commitments to policies such as genderless marriage. Gallup polling shows public support for same-sex marriage has dipped from 71% in 2022 to 68% in 2025. Among Republicans, the drop is even more dramatic — from 55% to just 41% over the past three years.

Even more interesting and significant is the group of people that we at the Ruth Institute refer to as those who have “left Pride behind.” Some in the public refer to this group of people as “ex-gays.” We hesitate to use this terminology, because most of them do not refer to themselves in this way. They might refer to themselves as “once gay.” They might call themselves “overcomers” or “people who have journeyed away from an LGBT identity.”

Many of them do not accept the term “gay” as an identity label in the first place. At most, they regard the term “gay” or “same-sex attracted” as a description of an attribute, which may or may not be permanent. For many people, “gay” is emphatically not an identity. So they certainly do not want to call themselves “ex-gay.”

Stories of transformation

That is why we at the Ruth Institute refer to them as people who have left Pride behind. Our Leaving Pride Behind campaign amplifies the powerful testimonies of men and women who have walked away from homosexual behavior and identity. These interviews include stories of transformation, healing, and faith. They challenge the destructive ideology that sexual orientation or gender identity is permanent and must be celebrated through political activism.

These brave men and women have left Pride behind, not just metaphorically, but literally. They’ve humbled themselves enough to say, “I was on the wrong path. I am willing to take responsibility for myself, my choices, and the totality of my life.” They risk the ridicule and censure of people they thought were their friends.

Amazingly, many of the people who have left Pride behind have also left other baggage. They have had bad things done to them. They’ve left blame behind. They’ve done things for which they are deeply sorry and ashamed. They’ve left toxic shame behind. They’ve done the best they could in deeply trying and confusing situations. They’ve left excuse-making behind.

In short, they have peace in their lives.

Evading the evidence

The LGBT political establishment thinks these people don’t exist. According to the “official voice” of the LGBT community, no one can change sexual orientation. People who say they have changed are either kidding themselves and will surely revert to their natural gay selves any minute, or they weren’t really gay in the first place.

That is a cop-out, evading the evidence rather than confronting it. This attitude is also deeply disrespectful. If corporate America can leave Pride behind, so can once-gay individuals. Personally, I have the utmost respect for those who have chosen to leave Pride behind.

I invite you to visit the Ruth Institute's YouTube channel. Get acquainted with the stories of those who have left Pride behind. Are they all lying or kidding themselves? Decide for yourself. I’m convinced that these are brave and honest individuals who have earned my respect.

Supreme Court will hear challenge to Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for non-straight youth



The U.S. Supreme Court indicated Monday that it would hear a First Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of Colorado's 2019 counseling censorship law, which prohibits so-called "conversion therapy" for minors.

The controversial state law, an amendment to Colorado's Mental Health Practice Act, prohibits psychiatrists and mental health care providers from encouraging an individual to reconsider their sexual preference or to "change behaviors or gender expressions."

Under the law, a mental health professional who fails to indulge delusions or affirm homosexual inclination could face disciplinary actions, lose his license, and/or receive hefty fines. The law does not, however, similarly prohibit gender ideologues from encouraging confused children in therapy sessions to embrace the delusion that they are actually members of the opposite sex or to undergo sex changes.

Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian who specializes in trauma but has also helped minors with eating disorders and gender dysphoria, filed a federal lawsuit in September 2022, alleging that the censorship law violates the Free Speech Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as applied to her.

'Their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions.'

Court documents indicate that Chiles has long worked with "adults who are seeking Christian counseling and minors who are internally motivated to seek counseling." Her clients, many of whom found her through referrals from churches or word of mouth, apparently uphold a biblical worldview that includes "the concepts that attractions do not dictate behavior, nor do feelings and perceptions determine identity"; that "their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions"; and that "God determines their identity according to what He has revealed in the Bible rather than their attractions or perceptions determining their identity."

Chiles indicated that she does not try to help minors alter their sexual preferences or identity if they are not seeking change. Rather, "she seeks only to assist clients with their stated desires and objectives in counseling, which sometimes includes clients seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body."

'It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech.'

While she has yet to receive a complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the Colorado law has chilled her speech and adversely impacted both her counseling and ability to help minors.

The case, Chiles v. Salazar, made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, where a Biden judge and Obama judge affirmed a lesser court's ruling in a 2-1 vote that the ban regulated Chiles' conduct rather than her speech.

Chiles' attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom filed a petition with the Supreme Court in November, asking whether "a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause."

ADF president and general counsel Kristen Waggoner stated, "The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government's biased views on her clients."

"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," continued Waggoner. "Colorado's law prohibits what's best for these children and sends a clear message: The only option for children struggling with these issues is to give them dangerous and experimental drugs and surgery that will make them lifelong patients."

A ruling in Chiles' favor would threaten similar prohibitions in 27 states against helping minors overcome their confusion.

When the Supreme Court decided in December 2023 not to hear a First Amendment challenge to a similar "conversion therapy" ban in Washington state, Justice Samuel Alito noted in his dissent that he would have granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, adding, "In recent years, 20 States and the District of Columbia have adopted laws prohibiting or restricting the practice of conversion therapy. It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech, and all restrictions on speech merit careful scrutiny."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!