Michigan counselors could have lost their licenses and been fined up to $250,000 for not affirming gender ideology under an anti-conversion therapy law in the state. For many religious counselors or counselors who don’t subscribe to gender ideology, the choice was one between following the law and following their convictions.
Representing several of these counselors, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty launched legal efforts against Michigan and sought to protect the constitutional rights of therapists across the state. Becket brought the case all the way to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and this summer, the court barred Michigan from enforcing the law. The ruling is another victory in a slew of free speech wins across the country as gender ideology dictates are overturned.
“Michigan passed a law that was really a copycat law of laws passed in over 20 other states and the District of Columbia that were called ‘conversion therapy ban laws,’” Adèle Keim, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told IW Features.
Many of these laws treated “conversion therapy” as though it necessitated aversive techniques (punishment or negative reinforcement methods), Keim told IW Features. But in practice, the laws went far beyond banning just those techniques and also banned any non-affirming talk therapy.
“The hearings on [conversion therapy laws] were usually filled with stories of therapeutic techniques that were more common in the 1970s, called aversive techniques where you would try to change an unwanted behavior by introducing a negative feedback loop for that unwanted behavior,” Keim explained. “Those therapeutic modalities have largely been repudiated and are not widely practiced anymore.”
“The laws were so broadly worded that they actually had to include a carveout to say, ‘Hey, safe sex counseling is okay,’” she continued. “If they hadn’t done that, you would’ve been in a position where the legislatures would’ve been banning their own safe sex programs that they have in schools and other settings.”
With such sweeping legislation, states like Michigan forced counselors to affirm a patient’s “gender identity” or sexual desires, even if it went against the counselor’s religious beliefs or the patient’s own therapeutic goals.
“If you had a 17-year-old Catholic biological girl who was feeling a lot of anxiety about her ‘gender identity,’ but really believed that she needed to work to embrace her God-given biological sex, then she could not legally receive therapy to help her with her anxiety over her biological sex,” Keim said.
In litigation, Emily Jones, a counselor represented by Becket, recalled a 19-year-old Catholic patient who experienced extreme anxiety over her “gender identity.” The patient sought out Jones specifically because of their shared Catholic faith and hoped to accept her God-given biology and resolve her struggle with intrusive thoughts. Over months of therapy, the patient was able to reduce her anxiety, start accepting her body, and attend Mass again. But if this patient had been only a few years younger, the conversation therapy law in Michigan would have required Jones to affirm the patient’s gender confusion.
“One of the things that was important in this case was bringing forth expert testimony that there is more than one way to help young people who are struggling to accept their biological sex,” Keim said.
Keim pointed to research indicating that sex-rejecting procedures don’t reduce a patient’s distress or suicidality in the long run. Instead, she said, talk therapy practiced by counselors like Jones is more effective.
“What is a better way… is to work on their underlying causes of that distress. Why are they distressed over their ‘gender identity’? What is causing it? Oftentimes there’s underlying depression, underlying anxiety. Sometimes there’s undisclosed past history of trauma or abuse.”
She explained that this evidence meant that “the state doesn’t have an argument that it’s necessary to stop Catholic teenagers from seeing Catholic counselors who help them follow their common Catholic beliefs.”
Rather, all the law accomplished was violating counselors’ free-speech rights.
In April, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on Chiles v. Salazar to protect the free speech rights of a Colorado counselor facing a conversation therapy ban similar to Michigan’s. This case settled an ongoing divide among the lower courts on these cases and set the foundation for the win in Michigan.
“When it comes to pure talk therapy, [this law is] regulating speech, and it is viewpoint discrimination,” Keim said, explaining the Supreme Court ruling’s application to the Michigan law. “All of these laws have been passed under a shadow nationwide.”
After the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, Michigan dropped its case, letting licensed counselors practice talk therapy without fear of reprisal for not affirming gender ideology.
For now, Keim said, “the legal victory is complete.” But just as preserving religious freedoms in America is an ever-enduring battle, the fight to ensure Michiganders can seek out counselors who are faith- or values-aligned still continues.
“That will always be an ongoing battle,” Keim said. “It’s always important to remain vigilant about that.”
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to correct a typo.
