Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian legal advocacy group labeled as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, is actively pursuing a legal avenue to overturn state bans on so-called conversion therapy for minors. While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet taken on the case, this development offers a glimpse into ADF’s strategy to challenge conversion therapy bans in the future.
Championing the cause, ADF is providing legal counsel to licensed marriage and family counselor Brian Tingley in his legal challenge, Tingley v. Ferguson, against Washington state’s conversion therapy ban. Tingley contends that the ban infringes upon his rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. His argument centers on the belief that his speech as a therapist should be considered “speech” rather than professional “conduct.” He asserts that he lives under the constant threat of government persecution due to the ban, which he views as government censorship. Tingley seeks to offer conversion therapy, despite its condemnation as a form of psychological torture by numerous American mental health organizations, based on the argument that some minors actively desire to change their sexual orientation.
This case potentially draws strength from the 2018 Supreme Court decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which ruled that the government couldn’t compel or regulate anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers in California to provide information about state-funded reproductive health services. However, legal experts note that the cases differ fundamentally. Conversion therapy bans aim not to coerce therapists into expressing opinions against their will but rather to prevent medical practices that result in tangible harm.
The alarming statistics surrounding conversion therapy further underscore the urgency of these bans. A 2013 survey found that 84% of former patients subjected to ex-gay therapy reported lasting shame and emotional harm. A recent peer-reviewed study by The Trevor Project in March 2022 revealed that 13% of LGBTQ+ youth nationwide had undergone conversion therapy, with 83% experiencing it before turning 18. The study also demonstrated that young people who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to attempt suicide afterward. Some former conversion therapy advocates have even publicly acknowledged their sexual orientation and issued apologies for the harm caused by such practices.
Legal experts emphasize that the bans include specific exemptions for “purely religious” speech and are consistent with the government’s existing regulation of therapy and healthcare professions. Therefore, they argue that these bans represent an extension of established regulatory frameworks.
Katherine Franke, a law professor at Columbia University, asserts that ADF’s ultimate goal is to exploit religious freedom as a pretext to challenge any government regulation enacted in the public’s interest. This pattern includes drafting legislation and filing lawsuits to undermine LGBTQ+ civil rights. Recently, ADF succeeded in arguing before the Supreme Court that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law violated a Christian website designer’s free speech rights, despite no one having asked her to create a website conflicting with her Christian beliefs.
The methods employed by so-called conversion therapists encompass a range of practices, from discouraging queer individuals from masturbation to redirecting sexual energy into exercise, employing covert aversion techniques, Bible study, forcing opposite-sex desires onto same-sex individuals, inflicting pain and humiliation as aversion therapy, and compelling conformity to stereotypical gender roles.
Currently, 29 U.S. states have enacted either full or partial bans on conversion therapy for minors. In Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, legal challenges have temporarily halted the implementation of bans while they undergo judicial review.
The ADF’s determined efforts to challenge conversion therapy bans cast a shadow over LGBTQ+ rights, raising important questions about the intersection of religious freedom, free speech, and the protection of vulnerable individuals from harmful practices.