The Problem With Conversion Therapy Bans

As the Supreme Court wrestles with their legality, psychologists and psychiatrists say the bans prevent them—and their patients—from exploring alternatives to hormone treatment and surgery

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 officials objected, they said, because Tennessee’s law “bans care entirely, rather than merely regulating it.” Their brief continued, “SB1 prohibits an entire population group from accessing care with substantial benefits and limited evidence of risks—regardless of individual patient circumstances … Even when forms of treatment involve heightened medical risks, States rarely enact categorical bans.”

What the officials didn’t say was that, over the past decade, each of their states has banned a different gender-related treatment: talk therapy that helps kids struggling with gender dysphoria come to terms with their bodies rather than modifying them with hormones.

Or at least that’s how critics of conversion therapy bans see the laws, which prohibit efforts to change a patient’s “gender identity”—including through voluntary counseling—and are now being challenged before the Supreme Court. The case, Chiles v. Salazar, was brought by a Colorado therapist who says the state’s ban on conversion therapy violates her First Amendment rights by restricting what she can discuss with her patients. If the High Court agrees, it could void similar laws in over 20 states.