Subscribe to the CT4F Newsletter to stay informed!
Not One Medical Association Has Changed Its Position on Conversion Therapy. Here’s Why.
No major medical, psychiatric, psychological, or counseling association has softened its position on conversion therapy since the Supreme Court ruled on Chiles v. Salazar in March 2026.
No major medical, psychiatric, psychological, or counseling association has softened its position on conversion therapy since the Supreme Court ruled on Chiles v. Salazar in March 2026. That's because the ruling settled a First Amendment question about how Colorado could restrict a licensed counselor's speech. It did not evaluate whether conversion therapy works or is safe.
Every professional body that opposed these practices before the ruling, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, still opposes them today. The American Psychiatric Association even issued a statement the same day as the ruling reaffirming that conversion therapy "is not a legitimate therapeutic treatment." For Christian parents weighing a provider's claims, the takeaway is simple: a court ruling about speech did not rewrite the medical record.
Quick Takeaways
The Supreme Court's March 2026 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar addressed a First Amendment question about how states can regulate a licensed counselor's speech. It did not evaluate whether conversion therapy works.
Every major medical and mental health association that opposed conversion therapy before the ruling, including the AMA, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the AAP, and the AACAP, still opposes it today.
The American Psychiatric Association issued a statement on the day of the ruling reaffirming that conversion therapy "is not a legitimate therapeutic treatment" and is "not supported by scientific evidence."
Courts decide legal questions. Medical associations decide clinical ones. A win on the first has never required a change on the second, and none followed here.
For families evaluating a provider, a professional association's position statement, not a courtroom outcome, remains the most reliable signal of whether a practice is considered safe.
What Chiles v. Salazar Actually Decided
In March 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that Colorado's law restricting licensed conversion counseling for minors likely violates the First Amendment when the counseling happens through talk alone. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, treated the law as a restriction on a provider's speech rather than on medical conduct, and sent the case back to a lower court for review under a tougher legal standard. The Court did not strike the law down outright, and it did not rule that conversion therapy is safe, effective, or free of risk. CT4F's full breakdown of the Chiles v. Salazar ruling walks through exactly what the decision settled and what it left open.
A Legal Question Is Not a Medical One
The justices were asked whether Colorado's method of restricting speech survives the First Amendment, not whether the underlying practice has clinical value. Those are separate questions, decided by separate institutions. Courts interpret the Constitution. Medical and mental health associations evaluate evidence and set standards of care. A ruling on what a state can require of licensed providers does not change what the research shows. That is why major medical associations continue to oppose conversion therapy after the ruling just as they did before it.
Where Every Major Association Still Stands
The record has not moved. The American Medical Association's policy opposing so-called reparative or conversion therapy remains in effect. The American Psychological Association's task force review, reaffirmed in a 2021 resolution, still concludes that changing who a minor is attracted to is not a realistic or evidence-based goal.
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry's 2018 policy states plainly that these practices "lack scientific credibility and clinical utility" and finds evidence they can be harmful. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy hold parallel positions. On the day of the ruling, the American Psychiatric Association issued a fresh statement calling conversion therapy "not a legitimate therapeutic treatment" and urging families and faith leaders to avoid it.
Why This Matters for Christian Parents
Some providers will point to Chiles v. Salazar as though it were a green light. It is not. A ruling about a counselor's right to speak is not a professional finding that a treatment helps a child. Parents deserve the full picture before trusting anyone with their son or daughter's well-being, including the documented risks these associations have spent decades studying. Families who want to protect their children and stay grounded in scripture do not need a court to validate a practice the medical field has already examined and rejected. Anyone selling conversion therapy as a proven fix is still selling something the research does not support.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court rule that conversion therapy is safe or effective? No. The Court ruled on a First Amendment question about how Colorado regulated a licensed counselor's speech. It did not evaluate the safety or effectiveness of conversion therapy itself.
Which medical associations oppose conversion therapy? The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy all oppose it.
Does the Chiles v. Salazar ruling mean Colorado's law is gone? No. The Court sent the case back to a lower court to be reviewed under a stricter legal standard. Colorado's law was not struck down, and other states' bans were not affected directly.
What did the American Psychiatric Association say after the ruling? On the day of the decision, it stated that conversion therapy "is not a legitimate therapeutic treatment" and is "not supported by scientific evidence," and it urged families, faith-based institutions, and therapists to avoid these practices.
What should Christian parents look for in a provider now? The same thing they should have looked for before the ruling: whether the provider's approach lines up with the position of established medical and mental health associations, not whether a courtroom outcome makes a practice sound newly acceptable.
Sources and Further Reading
The Ruling
Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 — Supreme Court of the United States
Chiles v. Salazar (Conversion Therapy), No. 24-539 — SCOTUSblog
Medical and Mental Health Association Positions
APA Statement on the Supreme Court Decision in Chiles v. Salazar — American Psychiatric Association
Conversion Therapy Policy Statement — American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Resolution on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, Feb. 2021 — American Psychological Association
CT4F Resources for Families
Publicaciones recientes
Not One Medical Association Has Changed Its Position on Conversion Therapy. Here’s Why.
No major medical, psychiatric, psychological, or counseling association has softened its position on conversion therapy since the Supreme Court ruled on Chiles v. Salazar in March 2026.
No major medical, psychiatric, psychological, or counseling association has softened its position on conversion therapy since the Supreme Court ruled on Chiles v. Salazar in March 2026. That's because the ruling settled a First Amendment question about how Colorado could restrict a licensed counselor's speech. It did not evaluate whether conversion therapy works or is safe.
Every professional body that opposed these practices before the ruling, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, still opposes them today. The American Psychiatric Association even issued a statement the same day as the ruling reaffirming that conversion therapy "is not a legitimate therapeutic treatment." For Christian parents weighing a provider's claims, the takeaway is simple: a court ruling about speech did not rewrite the medical record.
Quick Takeaways
The Supreme Court's March 2026 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar addressed a First Amendment question about how states can regulate a licensed counselor's speech. It did not evaluate whether conversion therapy works.
Every major medical and mental health association that opposed conversion therapy before the ruling, including the AMA, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the AAP, and the AACAP, still opposes it today.
The American Psychiatric Association issued a statement on the day of the ruling reaffirming that conversion therapy "is not a legitimate therapeutic treatment" and is "not supported by scientific evidence."
Courts decide legal questions. Medical associations decide clinical ones. A win on the first has never required a change on the second, and none followed here.
For families evaluating a provider, a professional association's position statement, not a courtroom outcome, remains the most reliable signal of whether a practice is considered safe.
What Chiles v. Salazar Actually Decided
In March 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that Colorado's law restricting licensed conversion counseling for minors likely violates the First Amendment when the counseling happens through talk alone. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, treated the law as a restriction on a provider's speech rather than on medical conduct, and sent the case back to a lower court for review under a tougher legal standard. The Court did not strike the law down outright, and it did not rule that conversion therapy is safe, effective, or free of risk. CT4F's full breakdown of the Chiles v. Salazar ruling walks through exactly what the decision settled and what it left open.
A Legal Question Is Not a Medical One
The justices were asked whether Colorado's method of restricting speech survives the First Amendment, not whether the underlying practice has clinical value. Those are separate questions, decided by separate institutions. Courts interpret the Constitution. Medical and mental health associations evaluate evidence and set standards of care. A ruling on what a state can require of licensed providers does not change what the research shows. That is why major medical associations continue to oppose conversion therapy after the ruling just as they did before it.
Where Every Major Association Still Stands
The record has not moved. The American Medical Association's policy opposing so-called reparative or conversion therapy remains in effect. The American Psychological Association's task force review, reaffirmed in a 2021 resolution, still concludes that changing who a minor is attracted to is not a realistic or evidence-based goal.
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry's 2018 policy states plainly that these practices "lack scientific credibility and clinical utility" and finds evidence they can be harmful. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy hold parallel positions. On the day of the ruling, the American Psychiatric Association issued a fresh statement calling conversion therapy "not a legitimate therapeutic treatment" and urging families and faith leaders to avoid it.
Why This Matters for Christian Parents
Some providers will point to Chiles v. Salazar as though it were a green light. It is not. A ruling about a counselor's right to speak is not a professional finding that a treatment helps a child. Parents deserve the full picture before trusting anyone with their son or daughter's well-being, including the documented risks these associations have spent decades studying. Families who want to protect their children and stay grounded in scripture do not need a court to validate a practice the medical field has already examined and rejected. Anyone selling conversion therapy as a proven fix is still selling something the research does not support.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court rule that conversion therapy is safe or effective? No. The Court ruled on a First Amendment question about how Colorado regulated a licensed counselor's speech. It did not evaluate the safety or effectiveness of conversion therapy itself.
Which medical associations oppose conversion therapy? The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy all oppose it.
Does the Chiles v. Salazar ruling mean Colorado's law is gone? No. The Court sent the case back to a lower court to be reviewed under a stricter legal standard. Colorado's law was not struck down, and other states' bans were not affected directly.
What did the American Psychiatric Association say after the ruling? On the day of the decision, it stated that conversion therapy "is not a legitimate therapeutic treatment" and is "not supported by scientific evidence," and it urged families, faith-based institutions, and therapists to avoid these practices.
What should Christian parents look for in a provider now? The same thing they should have looked for before the ruling: whether the provider's approach lines up with the position of established medical and mental health associations, not whether a courtroom outcome makes a practice sound newly acceptable.
Sources and Further Reading
The Ruling
Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 — Supreme Court of the United States
Chiles v. Salazar (Conversion Therapy), No. 24-539 — SCOTUSblog
Medical and Mental Health Association Positions
APA Statement on the Supreme Court Decision in Chiles v. Salazar — American Psychiatric Association
Conversion Therapy Policy Statement — American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Resolution on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, Feb. 2021 — American Psychological Association
CT4F Resources for Families
Publicaciones recientes
Not One Medical Association Has Changed Its Position on Conversion Therapy. Here’s Why.
No major medical, psychiatric, psychological, or counseling association has softened its position on conversion therapy since the Supreme Court ruled on Chiles v. Salazar in March 2026.
No major medical, psychiatric, psychological, or counseling association has softened its position on conversion therapy since the Supreme Court ruled on Chiles v. Salazar in March 2026. That's because the ruling settled a First Amendment question about how Colorado could restrict a licensed counselor's speech. It did not evaluate whether conversion therapy works or is safe.
Every professional body that opposed these practices before the ruling, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, still opposes them today. The American Psychiatric Association even issued a statement the same day as the ruling reaffirming that conversion therapy "is not a legitimate therapeutic treatment." For Christian parents weighing a provider's claims, the takeaway is simple: a court ruling about speech did not rewrite the medical record.
Quick Takeaways
The Supreme Court's March 2026 ruling in Chiles v. Salazar addressed a First Amendment question about how states can regulate a licensed counselor's speech. It did not evaluate whether conversion therapy works.
Every major medical and mental health association that opposed conversion therapy before the ruling, including the AMA, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the AAP, and the AACAP, still opposes it today.
The American Psychiatric Association issued a statement on the day of the ruling reaffirming that conversion therapy "is not a legitimate therapeutic treatment" and is "not supported by scientific evidence."
Courts decide legal questions. Medical associations decide clinical ones. A win on the first has never required a change on the second, and none followed here.
For families evaluating a provider, a professional association's position statement, not a courtroom outcome, remains the most reliable signal of whether a practice is considered safe.
What Chiles v. Salazar Actually Decided
In March 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 that Colorado's law restricting licensed conversion counseling for minors likely violates the First Amendment when the counseling happens through talk alone. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, treated the law as a restriction on a provider's speech rather than on medical conduct, and sent the case back to a lower court for review under a tougher legal standard. The Court did not strike the law down outright, and it did not rule that conversion therapy is safe, effective, or free of risk. CT4F's full breakdown of the Chiles v. Salazar ruling walks through exactly what the decision settled and what it left open.
A Legal Question Is Not a Medical One
The justices were asked whether Colorado's method of restricting speech survives the First Amendment, not whether the underlying practice has clinical value. Those are separate questions, decided by separate institutions. Courts interpret the Constitution. Medical and mental health associations evaluate evidence and set standards of care. A ruling on what a state can require of licensed providers does not change what the research shows. That is why major medical associations continue to oppose conversion therapy after the ruling just as they did before it.
Where Every Major Association Still Stands
The record has not moved. The American Medical Association's policy opposing so-called reparative or conversion therapy remains in effect. The American Psychological Association's task force review, reaffirmed in a 2021 resolution, still concludes that changing who a minor is attracted to is not a realistic or evidence-based goal.
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry's 2018 policy states plainly that these practices "lack scientific credibility and clinical utility" and finds evidence they can be harmful. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy hold parallel positions. On the day of the ruling, the American Psychiatric Association issued a fresh statement calling conversion therapy "not a legitimate therapeutic treatment" and urging families and faith leaders to avoid it.
Why This Matters for Christian Parents
Some providers will point to Chiles v. Salazar as though it were a green light. It is not. A ruling about a counselor's right to speak is not a professional finding that a treatment helps a child. Parents deserve the full picture before trusting anyone with their son or daughter's well-being, including the documented risks these associations have spent decades studying. Families who want to protect their children and stay grounded in scripture do not need a court to validate a practice the medical field has already examined and rejected. Anyone selling conversion therapy as a proven fix is still selling something the research does not support.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Supreme Court rule that conversion therapy is safe or effective? No. The Court ruled on a First Amendment question about how Colorado regulated a licensed counselor's speech. It did not evaluate the safety or effectiveness of conversion therapy itself.
Which medical associations oppose conversion therapy? The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Counseling Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy all oppose it.
Does the Chiles v. Salazar ruling mean Colorado's law is gone? No. The Court sent the case back to a lower court to be reviewed under a stricter legal standard. Colorado's law was not struck down, and other states' bans were not affected directly.
What did the American Psychiatric Association say after the ruling? On the day of the decision, it stated that conversion therapy "is not a legitimate therapeutic treatment" and is "not supported by scientific evidence," and it urged families, faith-based institutions, and therapists to avoid these practices.
What should Christian parents look for in a provider now? The same thing they should have looked for before the ruling: whether the provider's approach lines up with the position of established medical and mental health associations, not whether a courtroom outcome makes a practice sound newly acceptable.
Sources and Further Reading
The Ruling
Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 — Supreme Court of the United States
Chiles v. Salazar (Conversion Therapy), No. 24-539 — SCOTUSblog
Medical and Mental Health Association Positions
APA Statement on the Supreme Court Decision in Chiles v. Salazar — American Psychiatric Association
Conversion Therapy Policy Statement — American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Resolution on Sexual Orientation Change Efforts, Feb. 2021 — American Psychological Association
CT4F Resources for Families