A group of Christian counselors, including Pamela Eisenreich and Wyatt Bury, along with Missouri State Attorney General Andrew Bailey, have filed a lawsuit challenging two local conversion therapy bans. The ordinances in question were enacted by Kansas City in 2019 and Jackson County in 2023. These ordinances prohibit the practice of conversion therapy on minors, which is a controversial treatment aimed at changing an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. With the ordinances in place, practicing conversion therapy can lead to fines or jail time.
The plaintiffs' arguments center on freedom of speech and religion. They argue that parents often seek their help for their minor children struggling with gender identity and sexual orientation issues, believing that the bans prevent them from having consensual conversations about these matters that should not be intertwined with or censored by the government. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue that the ban prevents them from sharing beliefs stemming from their Christian faith, thus limiting their freedom to exercise their religion.
The primary constitutional question is whether local governments can restrict certain counseling practices rooted in religious beliefs without violating the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause, which states that "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise of religion," has been interpreted by courts to protect religious beliefs while also allowing for some regulation or limitation of religious practices when they conflict with important government or state interests.
I argue that the conversion bans are constitutional due to the compelling state interest to protect minors. In Minersville School District V. Gobitis (1940), the Supreme Court ruled that Jehovah Witnesses’ could be expelled for refusing to salute the flag at school, despite the actions going against their religious convictions, because of the importance of national unity and national security. Similarly, there is a compelling state interest in this instance but rather than national unity it is safety. The present case presents an even more compelling state interest of protecting minors from known harm.
Numerous medical and psychological associations have condemned conversion therapy as ineffective and damaging, particularly for young people. Research demonstrates the severe psychological impacts of this practice - a 2022 study revealed that young people who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide compared to those who did not. These documented, life-threatening consequences demonstrate why state intervention is necessary. The conversion therapy bans can serve as a crucial public health function by protecting all minors, with particular importance for LGBTQ+ youth, who represent an especially vulnerable population.
Furthermore, the bans are neutral because they apply equally to all those regardless of their faiths. Catholic counselors who see this type of therapy as an extension of their faith may claim that the ordinance does not apply equally to them because it prohibits their free exercise, it is a medical and therapeutic ban rather than a religious ban. Therefore, allowing an exception to a professional standard could be a slippery slope and set a dangerous precedent. If religious beliefs could override professional standards designed to protect public health and safety, professionals might more consistently claim religious exemptions from evidence-based standards of care, which could be dangerous for public health.
In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Scalia, held that Oregon could deny plaintiff's unemployment benefits, despite claims that it was against the Free Exercise Clause, because the state's laws were "neutral laws of general applicability". This means the laws were found to be constitutional because they weren't specifically targeting religious practice, but rather applied to everyone equally regardless of religion affiliation. Similarly, the conversion therapy bans in Kansas City and Jackson County regulate professional conduct without targeting religious beliefs specifically. Just as the Court found Oregon's drug laws constitutional despite their impact on Native American religious practices, these bans should be upheld despite their effect on religious counselors.
In conclusion, while religious liberty is a fundamental constitutional right, the conversion therapy bans in Kansas City and Jackson County represent a necessary limitation of that right because of the compelling state interest in protecting minors. Therefore, the conversion therapy bans represent a constitutional exercise of government regulation to safeguard public health while maintaining religious neutrality. This case illustrates the ongoing challenge of balancing religious freedom with the state's responsibility to protect the health and safety of its citizens, particularly vulnerable populations.
Sources:
9 comments:
In discussing this case, I think it is important to note that Minersville School District was overruled and therefore the precedent isn't necessarily valid. While it was an important case, 3 years after the court ruled that the practice of requiring students to salute the national flag did not violate a child's First and 14th Amendment rights, the decision was overturned by West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. In this case, the Court ruled that compelling students to salute the flag violates their right to choose their own beliefs. They asserted that flags should not receive deference that retains constitutional benefits, which ultimately established the First Amendment's protection of students' freedom of speech and freedom from government restriction on religious beliefs. Thus in saying this Im not sure Minersville is not relevant to this case since the ruling of Minersville violated the rights of children and therefore did not protect them which is why it was overturned and ruled by the West Virginia State Board of Education that the “compelling state interest to protect minors” was actually to protect them from being forced to salute to the flag. In saying this, however, I do agree with you, that in regards to the First Amendment, the conversion therapy bans are constitutional. These conversion therapy places were banned because they were psychologically harmful to minors. In banning these places the government is not trying to prevent Christians from freely practicing their religion but is merely trying to protect minors from being coerced into changing their sexuality and gender. Their intention is not to restrict Christians from practicing their religion. When parents send their kids to these conversion therapy places, I do not view this as a means of freely exercising their religion. These parents merely have children with sexualities and gender orientations that go against those of their Christian faith, which is why they are sending them to these places. These conversion places in themselves are not religious, they are just teaching kids Christian ideals and values. Therefore banning these places, I beleive, is constitutional
I think I have to agree with Emma. There are not only numerous statistics that show the detriment these procedures can bring, but when just looking at the constitutionality of this question, I think it is there in order to protect "peace and good order".
As Emma wrote, there is a slippery slope problem here, where allowing an exception to a professional standard could set a dangerous precedent.
"If religious beliefs could override professional standards designed to protect public health and safety, professionals might more consistently claim religious exemptions from evidence-based standards of care, which could be dangerous for public health".
This is super important to note, and I find the argument for protecting children to be very applicable here. Children are not even close to being done developing both physically and mentally, and so from an ethical perspective, they are not fully autonomous decision makers and while their parents my act paternalistically, this would be an example where a professional (and there is an argument to be made that state legislature as well) should be able to make an executive decision to prevent these procedures until later down the line in development.
The intention behind this law is to protect minors from potentially harmful or abusive procedures, which is 100% a noble goal. Since conversion therapy has such an extensive history of bringing physical and mental harm as well as coercive actions, it makes sense for the law to step in and add this restriction for the sake of public safety. The institution of these laws are not unconstitutional, so long as they do not go further in a direction that condemns one viewpoint on the existence of sexuality and gender or another. Traditional conversion therapy is out of the picture here, but religious groups should not be censored on their viewpoints. Basically, so long as the intention and application continues to be to prevent harm to children here, and not to reject a certain world view from being expressed in other ways, then the law should be within its respective limits.
I agree with you, Emma. A conversion therapy ban would be neutral in the establishment and, in turn, a "burden" or "indirect burden" on all religions. If the government bans these conversion therapies overall, then it is neutral in standing. In this case, there is also the effect of peace and good order when referring to the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. Conversion therapy, while a parent's choice to send their child there, can have huge mental and physical repercussions for the child and their peers. Children are the building blocks of our future and if these religiously charged camps continue to have effect on their developing minds, this will have an effect on "peace and good order".
I agree. Having a ban on conversion therapy would be neutral. Since this ban would affect all religions, it would be considered a neutral law. Limiting a practice that has been shown to cause psychological injury is in line with the Free Exercise Clause's balance between peace and good order. The government has always had a strong interest in safeguarding children. Parents do have rights. However, the children’s welfare must be protected and be a priority.
I also agree with Emma and the comments above. The conversion therapy ban is a constitutional application of state power. As Emma argues, the ban serves a compelling interest of protecting minors from harm that has been proven to occur in such situations. This is a neutral law of general applicability, and is not specifically targeting Christianity. While religious freedom is important, there needs to be limitations put in place when it comes to medical standards or things that cause harm.
I agree with all the comments above. A conversion therapy ban would be a neutral standing as it would prevent all religions from practicing this type of therapy. As well I agree that the government has a compelling interest to ban conversion therapy due to the harm they cause on those who are struggling with their sexuality. I feel like this relates to the idea of belief v. practice. Parents may believe this is their moral obligation from their religion, however the practice is harmful and therefore the government should take action.
I was on the fence about the compelling state interest of conversion bans, until you listed all of the research on how this form of therapy is extremely harmful for children. That paragraph in itself solidified my agreement with your view that the bans should be regarded as constitutional. I agree with all of the comments regarding the state action as neutral because no specific religion or religion is being endorsed or benefitted. The ability of states to protect minors who are especially vulnerable should be our top priority.
I also agree with the comments others have posted. A conversion therapy ban is not aiding certain religions, instead it is neutral. Therefore state interest in this case is compelling, because there is no favoring of religion. Also considering children in this case is important, the court has a right to protect children.
Post a Comment