Science Assaulted with the Reprieve of Reparative “Therapy”
With the soaring price of gas, the Iran War, and the Supreme Court’s latest assault on civil rights, Americans have a lot to worry about. Don’t look now, but there is another, ongoing problem that is getting worse, viz., the growing anti-science mentality of our government’s leadership.
It’s time for America to restore respect for science. Not only does the misinformation regarding things like climate change, transgender issues, or vaccines defy reason, but it also poses serious risks to our nation’s health and well-being.
Even more discouraging is seeing the Supreme Court continue to chip away at settled science. Consider how they recently overturned Colorado’s law, which banned reparative therapy (RT) https://www.npr.org/2026/03/31/nx-s1-5768170/the-supreme-court-struck-down-a-ban-on-conversion-therapy-in-colorado
This ruling is a serious blow to the authority of medical and psychotherapeutic science. In response, California’s legislature moved to bolster its ban it. In turn, the Washington Post (Post) ran an editorial accusing the California legislature of choosing ideology over freedom of speech. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/04/23/californias-conversion-therapy-bill-puts-ideology-over-free-speech/?fbclid=IwY2xjawRYWyBleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeuhPPM6Xvc_ndkNuK6zxQrcCDFrYon5iBmcQgCqiNUsOiqW62c-TAvRG779s_aem_01ftp_xEu-gaKRAP1lmMXg
Further, it condemned California’s legislature’s bill for holding reparative practitioners liable for damages. https://kesq.com/news/2026/04/19/california-responds-to-supreme-court-ruling-on-conversion-therapy-with-new-bill . It argues that a therapist’s freedom of speech trumps the anti-reparative therapy claims, which it calls ideological.
As a licensed mental health counselor, I disagree. (Reparative therapy’ | Pastoral Counseling Syracuse NY) Specifically, the Post editorial is wrong on two counts:
1) Opposition to reparative therapy is based on science and not ideology, and 2) Psychotherapists, like other medical professionals, do not have the same liberty of speech as in private conversations or public debate. Here’s why:
The Settled Science on Homosexuality and Reparative Therapy
Over the years, the science concerning homosexuality has changed. Although Sigmund Freud believed that homosexuality was a neurosis, modern psychiatry does not. Here is a summary of the milestones that altered science’s view of homosexuality and reparative therapy:
— 1973: The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), marking the end of it being considered a disorder.
— 1990s: Growing scientific consensus and research findings began to strongly dispute the effectiveness of “reparative” therapies, labeling them, instead, as social prejudice.
— 1997-1998: The APA declared that there was no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy.
— 2009: A comprehensive report by the APA officially concluded that conversion therapies are ineffective at changing sexual orientation and can actually pose risks of harm. https://www.hrc.org/press-releases/medical-experts-lgbtq-people-agree-conversion-therapy-is-no-replacement-for-health-care#:~:text=Conversion%20therapy%20is%20universally%20opposed,the%20American%20School%20Health%20Association .
Laughably, the Post article referred to reparative therapy as a “traditional” view. Okay, in the 17th and 19th centuries, vapors was the traditional view explaining a variety of medical and emotional conditions. Invoking the term “traditional” proves nothing.
In fact, RT is a bogus therapy based on obsolete science. Counseling can not change a person’s sexual orientation. To be clear, reparative therapy is both ineffective and potentially harmful. Repeated studies link it to increased risks of suicide, depression, and anxiety. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/evidence-against-conversion-therapy
Note Bene; Studies that claimed high success rates for reparative therapy were fundamentally flawed in their methodology and, thus, their results were biased and invalid. (https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy#:~:text=Some%20right%2Dwing%20religious%20groups,LGBTQ+)%20people%2C%20particularly%20youth )
A Word about the First Amendment and our Constitutional Right to Free Speech
As most folks know, the right of free speech is not unlimited. It does not permit the false yelling of “fire” in a crowded theatre. The logic of restriction is obvious. Such a false alarm could create panic and harm to individuals.
The constitution was primarily concerned with promoting public discourse and protecting the rights of minority political views to be expressed. Even though most speech is protected, the willful spread of malicious misinformation is not.
Legal Exceptions for False or Malicious Speech
Defamation (Libel and Slander): Speech that displays “actual malice”—publishing information with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth—is not protected when it harms an individual’s reputation. (Supreme Court cases Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) and New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) established the “actual malice” standard for public officials.)
Fraud: Deliberate lies aimed at obtaining money or inducing others to misspend resources are unprotected. Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Assoc., Inc. (2002) affirmed that consumer protection against misrepresentation is a valid government interest.
Perjury: Lying under oath is not protected because it undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Schenck v. United States (1919) introduced the “clear and present danger” test, famously exemplified by “falsely shouting fire in a theatre”. False Commercial Speech: Misleading or inherently deceptive advertising can be prohibited without violating the First Amendment.
Limitations on Professional/Therapeutic Speech
Although the current Supreme Court has not recognized it, the Professional Speech Doctrine is widely accepted by other courts and legal scholars. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/professional-speech-doctrine/#:~:text=The%20professional%20speech%20doctrine%20is,harassing%20patients%20about%20gun%20ownership Basically, it argues that scientifically informed speech made by a licensed professional is essentially different from private conversations or public debate.
It’s important to understand that psychotherapists, like doctors, can’t practice without a license. Thus, having a license places the holder under limits and restrictions of the practice.
For example, if the standards of care are violated, they are liable for malpractice. Likewise, professional boards have the power to revoke a license for providing misinformation.
—————————————————————————————————
With these facts in mind, views that disparage science and replace it with solely religious or political bias must be rejected. Going forward, our highest court must reconsider its position and restore respect for science. A professional speech exemption must be recognized.
The notion that science is just a liberal political point of view is patently irrational. We, as a society, must support reason and not turn the clock back on scientific progress to pander to the fears of the misinformed.
Rev. Michael Heath, LMHC, Fellow AAPC 5 01 2026 Fayetteville NY
