<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.59704/85c94fabe9aeac89</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/the-harms-of-speech/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>The Harms of Speech - Conversion Therapy Bans before the US Supreme Court</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Thoreson, Ryan</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2025-10-28</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Barrett Amy Coney | 1972– | Juristin; Rechtsanwältin</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Conversion Therapy</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>First Amendment</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Free Speech</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Gorsuch Neil M. | 1967– | Richter; Jurist</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>LGBT Rights</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>LGBTQ+ rights</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>SCOTUS</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Sotomayor Sonia | 1954– | Juristin</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>children's rights</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Barrett Amy Coney | 1972– | Juristin; Rechtsanwältin</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Gorsuch Neil M. | 1967– | Richter; Jurist</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Sotomayor Sonia | 1954– | Juristin</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>The United States Supreme Court seems poised to strike down state restrictions that prohibit medical professionals from engaging in so-called “conversion therapy,” or efforts to make a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) person heterosexual or cisgender. Although the Supreme Court has declined to hear similar challenges in the past, the arc of its First Amendment jurisprudence and its skepticism of constitutional claims involving sexual and reproductive rights suggest that the restriction at issue is likely to be invalidated.</dc:description>
</dc>
