APA On The Supreme Court Ruling

APA Statement on the Supreme Court Decision in Chiles v. Salazar

March 31, 2026

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) is deeply concerned that the Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar will potentially harm many LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly minors, who will no longer be protected by state laws against conversion therapy.

Being LGBTQ+ is not a mental illness or disorder. Conversion therapy — efforts to change sexual orientation and gender identity — is not a legitimate therapeutic treatment. Leading health care entities, the APA among them, have concluded that these are potentially harmful, discredited practices and are not supported by scientific evidence.

We urge the families of LGBTQ+ individuals, faith-based institutions, and therapists to avoid these harmful practices.

So according to the Supreme Court it is okay to torture someone in the name of religious... Does this mean that "Human Sacrifices" are okay again? Because that is what Conversion therapy is all about brain washing!

The The Iowa Psychological Association said,

The APA affirms that scientific evidence and clinical experience indicate that sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) put individuals at significant risk of harm;

APA encourages individuals, families, health professionals, and organizations to avoid SOCE;

APA affirms that same-gender and multiple-gender attraction, feelings, and behavior are normal variations in human sexuality, being LGBTQ+ is not a mental disorder, and APA opposes portrayals of sexual minorities as mentally ill because of their sexual orientation;

APA opposes making claims that sexual orientation can be changed through SOCE and;

APA, because of evidence of harm and lack of evidence of efficacy, supports public policies and legislation that oppose, prohibit, or aim to reduce SOCE, heterosexism, and monosexism and that increase support for sexual orientation diversity.

But the 1^st Amendment according to the Supreme Court out weights the harm it does.

Jennifer Levi, one of the lawyers at GLAD wrote on her Facebook page,

Here is why the "it cuts both ways" argument is wrong.

Every medical regulation incorporates a viewpoint. That is not a bug. It is the entire point. Justice Jackson explains this plainly. When a state says a dietician cannot tell an anorexic patient to eat less, it is taking the viewpoint that encouraging restriction is harmful. When a state says a doctor cannot recommend cigarettes, it is taking the viewpoint that smoking causes cancer. When a state requires oncologists to follow science-based protocols rather than selling patients on unproven supplements, it is taking the viewpoint that medical consensus matters. Nobody calls those regulations unconstitutional. Nobody demands that states ban the opposite advice in order to achieve some kind of viewpoint neutrality before they can regulate professional conduct.

That is because we have understood, really until yesterday, that regulating medical care is different from regulating speech in the public square. When a state licenses a professional – and that is all that was at issue in Colorado -- and holds them to a standard of care, it is not entering the marketplace of ideas. It is doing what states have done for a very long time: deciding what treatments licensed professionals may offer to patients who are trusting them with their health and their lives. The viewpoint embedded in that decision is not censorship. It is the entire basis of professional licensing.

So does that mean quacks with their miracle snake oil remedies are covered by the 1^st Amendment