Supreme Court shoots down a Conversion Therapist's Challenge to Law Banning Conversion Therapy - The New York Times
Supreme Court Turns Away Challenge to Law Banning Conversion Therapy
Even the SC didn't want to put up with his nonsense.
“States do not lose the power to regulate the safety of medical treatments performed under the authority of a state license merely because those treatments are implemented through speech rather than through scalpel,” Judge Ronald M. Gould wrote for the panel.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh dissented.
Because of course they did.
“This petition asks us to consider whether Washington can censor counselors who help minors accept their biological sex,” Justice Thomas wrote. “
Amazing. Every word in that sentence was wrong.
Gift article, so anyone should be able to read it :)
Thank you!!!
Supreme court making a good decision just to see what it feels like.
🤖 I'm a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles: ::: spoiler Click here to see the summary The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would not hear a First Amendment challenge to a Washington State law banning professional counseling services intended to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation.
In dissent on Monday, Justice Thomas wrote that the question posed by Mr. Tingley’s appeal was substantial and deserved the Supreme Court’s attention.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against Mr. Tingley, saying the government was free to regulate the conduct of medical professionals.
Mr. Tingley is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian law firm and advocacy group that has litigated many cases for clients opposed to abortion, insurance coverage for contraception, and gay and transgender rights.
The group has won a series of victories at the Supreme Court, most recently on behalf of a Colorado web designer who said she did not want to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings.
“This court recently reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision to uphold a law compelling crisis pregnancy centers to disseminate government-drafted notices.”
Saved 76% of original text. :::
The challenged law forbids licensed therapists there from performing conversion therapy, which it defines to include “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”
Gee, now I'm wondering if anyone's tried Aromantic conversion therapy. If not, I should shut up so don't give anyone ideas.
wait til they try to ban aromatic attractions
It used to be a thing in ye old days
I'm sure it's fake on principal. First of all, the subheading:
Washington State, like more than 20 other states, bars licensed therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors in their care.
NYT shouldn't be publishing such misleading headlines but @Wahots@pawb.social why are you repeating their misinformation?
I am less than 50 words in. Still time to be proven wrong.
The Supreme Court said on Monday that it would not hear
first half of the first sentence of the first paragraph and already we have dumb bullshit. This is what happens to 99% of everything submitted to the US spreme court. Rejected.
But thing special. Means NOTHING
“This case is not the first instance of the Ninth Circuit restricting medical professionals’ First Amendment rights, and, without the court’s review, I doubt it will be the last,” he wrote. “This court recently reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision to uphold a law compelling crisis pregnancy centers to disseminate government-drafted notices.”
Uh "crisis pregnancy centres" in the US context are usually sham medicine covertly religious anti-choice situations pretending to be a low rent planned parenthood. Doesn't anyone know what is being referred to here? I am guessing the "government drafted notice" may not be so heinous but idk.
And then parents wonder why their children don't talk about their private lives.
Not only would you have emotionally abused me. When the state protects me, you would have sued for the right to abuse me.