In Chiles v. Salazar, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, found that Colorado’s gay and transgender conversion therapy ban encroached on a professional therapist’s right to speak freely with young patients about sensitive sex and gender-related issues in a therapeutic setting, subjecting the ban to the strictest legal scrutiny.
The reaction was immediate and predictable — some stakeholders immediately predicted the revival of barbaric conversion therapy practices of the past, such as forced electroshock or nausea-inducing medication.
As the sponsor of Utah’s own legislation governing the relationship between professional therapists and child patients, and as a law professor who advised on the legislation, we were inundated with inquiries about the possible effect of the ruling on Utah’s HB228, passed in 2023. The short answer is that we don’t believe the ruling will have any impact at all because of crucial provisions in our law making it “viewpoint neutral.”
In 2021, a Colorado-like bill was proposed in Utah and rejected by our Legislature. In response, Utah’s governor placed a well-meaning prohibition on gay and trans conversion therapy into regulation. Unfortunately, like Colorado’s law, it barred not just medieval aversive practices but also regulated talk therapy. As in Colorado, only therapists who provided “acceptance, support and understanding” received express protection against charges of “unprofessional conduct”; everyone else was left to fear for their licenses.
In other words, talk therapy was fine, as long as that talk complied with state mandates. This was not a healthy or balanced solution.
The first rule of therapy is to ask questions, to explore what is on a client’s mind. Requiring therapists to solely affirm a child’s thoughts or feelings violated that foundational rule and was never going to properly serve LGBTQ+ youth. It also had broader consequences. Therapists who asked questions, explored feelings or offered nuanced guidance risked losing their licenses. Many left the state, retired or stopped seeing children entirely.
Then in 2023, Utah scrapped that regulation and started over with a simple principle: Both children and therapists must be free to speak. HB228 was the product of months of open dialogue and negotiation, eventually resulting in the remarkable shared endorsement of groups like the Utah Eagle Forum and Equality Utah.
By taking a step back and working together, Utah was able to collaborate on the only unanimously enacted state conversion therapy ban in America — enacted by the single most conservative state to ban such practices. As Americans wonder what comes next after Chiles, Utah demonstrates an important truth: For children to be protected, therapists’ right to free speech must be honored.
Unlike Colorado’s law, Utah’s legislation is viewpoint-neutral. Rather than dictating conversation, Utah’s law protected virtually everything a therapist would want to explore with a minor client through “safe harbors.” Therapists can talk with kids about body image, family dynamics, social media use, religious beliefs or risky behaviors — and children can raise doubts, fears or questions — without being funneled into a single script of affirmation. Destructive aversive practices remain banned — but dialogue, exploration and honesty are protected.
The results speak for themselves. HB228 passed unanimously; not a single person testified in opposition at any stage. As noted, it drew endorsements across the spectrum, from socially conservative groups to LGBTQ+ advocates. It carries forward an ethos developed in Utah during the 2015 landmark “Utah Compromise” — respect all persons in the law while preserving constitutional rights.
It neither compels affirmation nor dictates a particular path. That is the fundamental distinction from Colorado: Children can explore and express themselves, and therapists can fulfill their ethical obligations without fearing for their livelihoods.
Protecting children from harm does not require silencing dialogue by either suppressing or compelling speech.
Laws that speak only to one side of any problem are fragile. Colorado now finds itself in the position of well-meaning protections evaporating when they collide with therapists’ constitutional speech rights. There must be a balance in such matters.
Protecting children from harm does not require silencing dialogue by either suppressing or compelling speech. True protection requires two-way communication, inquiry and space for children and counselors to talk and reason. That makes for durable, fair and effective laws.
By protecting everyone’s interests in the same law, Utah’s conversion therapy ban shows that the rights of LGBTQ+ youth needn’t be pitted against the rights of therapists or parents. The right outcome is clear — laws must protect both vulnerable youth and the professionals who serve them. Once again, Utah was able to show the way.