A Thoughtful Response to the Supreme Court’s Decision on Conversion Therapy
A recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States striking down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors has understandably generated strong reactions. For many in the LGBTQIA+ community, and for clinicians who work closely with them, this moment may bring up concern, confusion, and a renewed need for clarity.
As a psychologist who provides LGBTQIA+-affirming care, I want to offer a perspective that is both grounded and measured. Legal decisions shape the framework we work within, but they don’t change what we know clinically, ethically, and relationally about supporting people well.
What the Ruling Does—and Doesn’t Do
The Court’s decision focuses on constitutional questions, particularly around free speech and the limits of state regulation. It does not endorse conversion therapy as effective or beneficial. Rather, it addresses whether states can prohibit certain forms of therapeutic conversation between clinicians and clients.
That distinction matters.
Legal rulings often operate on a different axis than clinical best practices. As therapists, our responsibility is not simply to follow the law, it is to provide care that is supported by evidence, guided by ethics, and responsive to the lived experience of our clients.
What We Know About Conversion Therapy
Across major professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association (APA) there is broad consensus that conversion therapy is not an evidence-based practice and carries significant risk of harm.
Clients who have undergone these interventions often report:
Increased shame and self-criticism
Worsening depression or anxiety
Strained relationships with family, community, or self
In some cases, increased risk of self-harm
At its core, conversion therapy is built on the assumption that something fundamental about a person needs to be changed or corrected. From a clinical standpoint, that framing tends to undermine the very conditions that support healing: safety, acceptance, and authenticity.
An Affirming Approach to Care
In contrast, LGBTQIA+-affirming therapy takes a different stance. It does not assume pathology. It does not aim to direct someone toward a particular identity or outcome. Instead, it creates space for individuals to understand themselves more clearly, relate to their experiences with less shame, and make choices that are aligned with their values.
This kind of work is not about persuasion, it’s about support.
It involves:
Helping clients explore identity in a non-judgmental way
Addressing the impact of stigma, discrimination, or internalized beliefs
Strengthening resilience, relationships, and self-understanding
Supporting mental health in a way that is consistent with who the person actually is
These are not abstract ideals, they are practical, evidence-informed approaches that guide day-to-day clinical care.
Navigating a Complex Moment
For LGBTQIA+ individuals and families, this ruling may feel unsettling. It may raise questions about safety, about access to affirming care, and about how systems of support are evolving.
At the same time, it’s important to recognize what remains unchanged:
Professional ethical standards still guide clinical practice
Most licensed providers continue to follow affirming, evidence-based approaches
There is a strong and growing network of clinicians committed to LGBTQIA+ mental health
In other words, while the legal landscape may shift, the foundation of good care remains steady.
Moving Forward
Moments like this invite both reflection and intention.
As clinicians, it reinforces the importance of being clear about the kind of care we provide and the values that guide it. As clients or community members, it can be an opportunity to seek out providers who are transparent, affirming, and grounded in evidence-based practice.
If you are looking for support, it is reasonable and important to ask direct questions about a provider’s approach to LGBTQIA+ issues. Feeling safe, respected, and understood is not optional in therapy; it is essential.
Final Thoughts
The intersection of law, ethics, and mental health is rarely simple. This decision from the Supreme Court of the United States will continue to be discussed and interpreted in many ways.
From a clinical perspective, however, the path forward remains clear: provide care that reduces harm, supports authenticity, and helps people build lives that feel meaningful and sustainable.
