The Supreme Court weighs the transfer in the case of Colorado: NPR

The Supreme Court hears arguments on Tuesday on issues of sexual activity and government organization. Once again, the issue dug the conservative Christian groups against the LGBTQ community.

In the case in the case is the transfer treatment. It is generally defined as the treatment used to treat a person’s appeal to the same sex; In other words, to make the gay person straight, and treat a person’s desire to change his sexual identity by making him comfortable for their sex at birth.

Each major medical organization from the American Medical Association has replaced the American Psychiatric Association for this practice, and found that it does not work, and instead leads to deep depression and suicide ideas in the palace. As a result of these results, half of the states are banned for those under the age of 18.

Jessica Reter is one of the many former transfer patients who are now opposing treatment. She grew up in a religious Christian family, and she says that her first kiss was with another girl, and that she was destroyed when the relationship ended because of the belief that she would go to hell – and she is so destroyed that she adopted the passion for the treatment treatment.

“You are broken, then you do all the things they tell you to do, and she does not work,” she says, adding that it took her years to recover.

The conservative Christian legal group alliance defies the defense of freedom, along with the Colorado Cali Chelse processor, the ban on the treatment treatment, and is appointed to violate the right of the therapist to freedom of expression to speak of speaking.

“I want to be able to work honestly and create treatment relationships that are not hindered by the values ​​and location of our state,” says Chilies, adding that it must now remove customers who want to treat the transfer.

Lawyer James Campbell represents the judges that what Chile is doing is the one that represents Chelse is a purely modern treatment, and thus protects him from ensuring freedom of expression in the constitution.

“The state can determine who is qualified to be a licensed advisor. It can determine that they have correct education, and that they have enough experience,” he says. “But what the state cannot do is to appear and say:” You can have a conversation on a topic, but not if you are going to talk about it from this perspective. “This, argues that” just discrimination in the view. “

Colorado Public Prosecutor Philip Pfizer opposes that the state law applies only to minors and allows anyone of any age to seek consultations of transferring treatment from religious organizations without being subject to state licensing laws. He adds that the states have the right to require licensed therapists and other medical professionals to adhere to the applicable medical care standards.

“If you take the ability of countries to protect patients from low care, you open the door to all kinds of doubtful treatments,” he says.

Each side of this debate must deal with an embarrassing truth.

The summaries provided by those that support the transfer treatment depending on the Cass review, a study commissioned by the state’s national health service in Britain, which only found that there was not enough evidence to justify the transgender people from caring for minors. It is worth noting that the Cass review reached a completely different conclusion when it comes to transfer treatment, and its condemnation as not supported by medical directive science and medical guidance.

As for Colorado’s position, their opponents notice that major medical associations were not always right. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association included homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973.

The public prosecutor answers that medical sciences develop over time.
“There were times when we did not know that smoking cigarettes, and three packages a day, caused cancer. But now that we knew that, it is wrong for the doctor to tell people of smoking cigarettes … This will be a below required level of care, just like transferring practices is the required level of required.”

Decision in the case, Chiles V. SaalazarIt is expected that the summer.