By Jennifer Roback Morse April 16, 2026, at The Blaze
Colorado’s victory for therapeutic freedom is a welcome pushback against the rule of groupthink, but the battle has just begun.
Colorado’s ban of so-called “conversion therapy” has finally been exposed for what it really is: an attack on free speech.
In the recent decision Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado had violated the First Amendment by censoring the free speech of psychological professionals in the name of banning “conversion therapy.”
That’s a grab-bag term invented by activists to demonize traditional counseling aimed at helping patients pursue happiness as they see fit.
Cruel denial
In fact, Colorado’s “Must Stay Gay” law didn’t restrict — as its advocates claimed — cruel or coercive treatments. Instead the law prohibited therapists from serving clients who sought help in diminishing unwanted sexual compulsions.
For instance, imagine a married dad struggling with temptations to commit adultery with young, even underage, males. Or consider a sexual abuse victim suffering from gender dysphoria who wishes to accept her physical sex instead of submitting to disfiguring, sterilizing surgery and a lifetime of dangerous hormones.
The LGBTQ lobby pushed hard for this law, akin to an equally draconian ban in California, falsely claiming that any therapy aimed at altering sexual feelings was “unscientific” and “harmful.”
‘Changed’ for the better
My own organization, the Ruth Institute, filed a detailed amicus curiae debunking such claims, citing published studies by eminent professionals showing that talk therapy with willing clients is often beneficial and virtually never harmful. People do successfully change their patterns of sexual attraction and behavior, with or without therapy.
The Changed Movement collects their stories. We at the Ruth Institute have interviewed many such people. In fact, objective studies show that there are more “ex-gays” than “gays.” “Must Stay Gay” laws like Colorado’s depend on legislators’ ignorance of such facts.
‘Egregious assault’
