The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons files an Amicus Brief in the Supreme Court in Support of the Right to Conversion Therapy
TUCSON, Ariz., June 16, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) filed its amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on June 12 against a Colorado ban on conversion therapy for minors, in Chiles v. Salazar (No. 24-539). In this case, a therapist challenges the Colorado law, similar to bans in roughly half the states, that prevents her from counseling in support of a patient's gender, while allowing transgender conversion advice.
Colorado and most blue states censor therapists from helping teenagers overcome gender dysphoria and same-sex attractions. But therapists are permitted to encourage transgender transitions and homosexuality, the brief states.
'This is a blatant content-based discrimination by government in violation of the First Amendment,' observes AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly. 'Government cannot lawfully pick sides with viewpoint censorship.'
At issue before the Supreme Court is not whether conversion therapy, which is better called gender support therapy, is beneficial to most people. Instead, the issue is whether there is a free-speech right of licensed counselors to provide such talk therapy to patients, the brief explains.
'Physicians, therapists, and other caregivers are professionals not to be censored and controlled. They must retain First Amendment freedom of speech rights after licensure which they properly enjoyed prior to licensure,' the brief argues.
AAPS quotes Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissent from a Court decision not to review a challenge to a similar Washington State law. Justice Thomas wrote in Tingley v. Ferguson (2023) that the State allows counseling of 'minors about gender dysphoria, but only if they convey the state-approved message of encouraging minors to explore their gender identities.'
'Expressing any other message is forbidden—even if the counselor's clients ask for help to accept their biological sex. That is viewpoint-based and content-based discrimination in its purest form,' Justice Thomas added.
AAPS in its amicus brief urged the Court to invalidate Colorado's ban on conversion therapy. This would also negate similar laws in about half the country.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943.
Contact: Andrew Schlafly, (908) 719-8608, [email protected], or Jane M. Orient, M.D., (520) 323-3110, [email protected]
Disclaimer: The above press release comes to you under an arrangement with GlobeNewswire. Business Upturn takes no editorial responsibility for the same.
Ahmedabad Plane Crash
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
34 minutes ago
- Fox News
Massachusetts school officials under fire for working to ban religious groups from renting facilities
A Massachusetts town is facing backlash and a potential lawsuit for a school committee proposal trying to ban religious organizations and churches from renting public school space. A letter from the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center, addressed to the members of the Salem School Committee, says that the committee is discriminating against House of Promise Church and other religious groups over a proposal, Policy 3204, that would ban religious institutions from renting or leasing space in Salem Public Schools. The proposal, included in the Salem School Committee's May 19, 2025, meeting minutes, reads, "Leases and rentals not being granted to religious organizations was added to the policy to address concerns that there may be religious organizations with values that do not align to the district's values." "I write on behalf of my client, House of Promise Church, to demand that you immediately cease any effort to discriminate against it or any other religious organization based on their religious beliefs and viewpoints," Sam Whiting, counsel of the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center (MLLC), wrote in a June 9 letter. "It is our understanding that you are in the process of approving a policy that would ban religious organizations, and only religious organizations, from renting or leasing space in Salem Public Schools," the letter reads. "This would constitute a clear First Amendment violation. Should you pass and implement this policy, we will take immediate legal action to preserve my client's rights." The MLLC letter contends that the House of Promise Church, which has reserved space in Collins Middle School auditorium for Sunday services, is being singled out. "House of Promise Church is a non-denominational Christian church that has reserved space in the auditorium of Collins Middle School for Sunday worship services for a number of years," the letter reads. It adds that the church has "used the online public reservation portal to do so. During that time, it has never received any complaints or negative feedback about its use of the property. Many other organizations also rent space from Salem Public Schools for their meetings and activities, such as the Boys and Girls Club, a daycare, and various afterschool programs." The members of the Salem School Committee reportedly voted to advance the policy on June 2 and are expected to pass the policy in a vote Tuesday. "In a conversation with Pastor Hyatt after the June 2nd meeting adjourned, Superintendent Zrike expressed that it was his understanding that if the policy passes, House of Promise Church will be immediately barred from renting space at Salem Public Schools and any current reservations will be cancelled," the letter reads. In a statement to Fox News Digital, Whiting said that the proposal is in direct violation of the First Amendment, with a nod to Salem's infamous witch trials in the 1600s. "We are astounded by Salem's blatant violation of the First Amendment, which violates decades of clear legal precedent," Whiting said. "Apparently, someone needed to inform Salem that our Constitution doesn't allow for anti-Christian witch hunts. We trust that our letter will do the trick and that the Salem School Committee will vote to reject this discriminatory policy." House of Promise Church pastor Richard Hyatt told Fox News Digital that he is "deeply troubled" by the new policy to exclude religious organizations. "To be clear, the only religious organizations currently using these buildings are churches—and no one else. Meanwhile, more than 100 secular institutions continue to have access with no threat of exclusion. This selective treatment tells me that we are not being judged on our behavior or impact, but solely on our religious identity and beliefs," Hyatt said. He added that if the proposal advances, the church will "not hesitate to pursue all legal avenues to defend our rights under the First Amendment and Massachusetts law." Fox News Digital reached out to the Salem School Committee and Superintendent Stephen Zrike for comment, but did not immediately receive a response.
UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
Supreme Court to hear New Jersey pro-life free speech case
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a faith-based pregnancy center's request, challenging New Jersey over its claim the pro-life group misled women about offering abortion services. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for October. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI. | License Photo June 16 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Christian-based pregnancy center's request, challenging New Jersey over its claim the pro-life group misled women about offering abortion services. The Supreme Court will decide later this year whether First Choice Women's Resource Centers can use federal courts to block the state's attorney general from investigating its donor, advertising and medical personnel records. First Choice, which provides parenting classes and free ultrasounds to women facing unplanned pregnancies, claims a 2023 subpoena violated its free speech rights. Attorney General Matthew Platkin "has made no secret of his hostility towards pregnancy centers," the pro-life group wrote in its petition to the Supreme Court, as it called Platkin's subpoena "invasive" for demanding access to records. "State attorneys general on both sides of the political aisle have been accused of misusing this authority to issue demands against their ideological and political opponents," lawyers for First Choice wrote. "Even if these accusations turn out to be false, it is important that a federal forum exists for suits challenging those investigative demands." Platkin argues that the subpoena he issued has yet to be enforced in state court. He also said the donor information he sought was from two websites, which he claimed may have misled people into thinking First Choice provided abortions. "Nonprofits, including crisis pregnancy centers, may not deceive or defraud residents in our state, and we may exercise our traditional investigative authority to ensure that they are not doing so -- as we do to protect New Jerseyans from a range of harms," Platkin wrote in a statement. The Supreme Court will focus on whether First Choice sued prematurely, not whether New Jersey's subpoena was valid, according to Platkin. "First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena," Platkin added. "No industry is entitled to that type of special treatment -- period." Lawyers for First Choice said the group is not seeking special treatment and believes their free speech rights are being targeted. "New Jersey's attorney general is targeting First Choice simply because of its pro-life views," Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley said in a statement. "The Constitution protects First Choice and its donors from unjustified demands to disclose their identities, and First Choice is entitled to vindicate those rights in federal court." Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for October. "We are looking forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court and urging it to hold that First Choice has the same right to federal court as any other civil rights plaintiff," Hawley added. "The First Amendment protects First Choice's right to freely speak about its beliefs, exercise its faith, associate with like-minded individuals and organizations, and continue to provide its free services in a caring and compassionate environment to people facing unplanned pregnancies."
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court to hear appeal from Chevron in landmark Louisiana coastal damage lawsuits
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear an appeal from Chevron, Exxon and other oil and gas companies that lawsuits seeking compensation for coastal land loss and environmental degradation in Louisiana should be heard in federal court. The companies are appealing a 2024 decision by a federal appeals court that kept the lawsuits in state courts, allowing them to move to trial after more than a decade in limbo. A southeast Louisiana jury then ordered Chevron to pay upwards of $740 million to clean up damage to the state's coastline. The verdict reached in April was the first of dozens of lawsuits filed in 2013 against leading oil and gas companies in Louisiana alleging they violated state environmental laws for decades. While plaintiffs' attorneys say the appeal encompasses at least 10 cases, Chevron disagrees and says the court's ruling could have broader implications for additional lawsuits. Chevron argues that because it and other companies began oil production and refining during World War II as a federal contractor, these cases should be heard in federal court, perceived to be friendlier to businesses. But the plaintiffs' attorneys — representing the Plaquemines and Jefferson Parish governments — say the appeal is the companies' latest stall tactic to avoid accountability. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit already rejected similar arguments from Chevron. 'It's more delay, they're going to fight till the end and we're going to continue to fight as well,' said John Carmouche, a trial attorney in the Chevron case who is behind the other lawsuits. He noted that the companies' appeal 'doesn't address the merits of the case.' The court's decision to hear the appeal offers the chance for 'fair and consistent application of the law' and will 'help preserve legal stability for the industry that fuels America's economy,' said Tommy Faucheux, president of the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, in an emailed statement. In April, jurors in Plaquemines Parish — a sliver of land straddling the Mississippi River into the Gulf — found that energy giant Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, had for decades violated Louisiana regulations governing coastal resources by failing to restore wetlands impacted by dredging canals, drilling wells and billions of gallons of wastewater dumped into the marsh. 'No company is big enough to ignore the law, no company is big enough to walk away scot-free,' Carmouche told jurors during closing arguments. Louisiana's coastal parishes have lost more than 2,000 square miles (5,180 square kilometers) of land over the past century, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, which has also identified oil and gas infrastructure as a significant cause. The state could lose another 3,000 square miles (7,770 square kilometers) in the coming decades, its coastal protection agency has warned. Chevron's attorneys had argued that land loss in Louisiana was caused by other factors and that the company should not be held liable for its actions prior to the enactment of a 1980 environmental law requiring companies to obtain permits and restore land they had used. The fact that the lawsuits had been delayed for so long due to questions of jurisdiction was 'bordering on absurd,' the late-federal judge Martin Leach-Cross Feldman remarked in 2022 during oral arguments in one of the lawsuits, according to court filings. He added: 'Frankly, I think it's kind of shameful.' Louisiana's Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, a longtime oil and gas industry supporter, nevertheless made the state a party to the lawsuits during his tenure as attorney general. 'Virtually every federal court has rejected Chevron's attempt to avoid liability for knowingly and intentionally violating state law,' Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement. 'I'll fight Chevron in state or federal court—either way, they will not win.' ___ ___ This story has been corrected to show that Chevron's counsel was 'pleased' with the decision by the Supreme Court, not the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
