What About Chiles V. Salazar? (Interview with Dr. Julia Sadusky)

On Laws Banning Conversion Therapy for Minors

Photo by Fons Heijnsbroek on Unsplash

The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to review Chiles v. Salazar on October 7th, 2025 to decide whether a 2019 Colorado ban on conversion therapy (therapy directed toward changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity) for minors is constitutional and should be upheld. This ban has been challenged by Kaley Chiles, a licensed therapist, on the grounds that it violates her First Amendment free speech and exercise rights). All the (copious) proceedings and orders for the case can be read here.

Is conversion therapy for minors really only a matter of free speech? What exactly is included in this ban on conversion therapy for minors, and what is not included? What are the stakes in Chiles v. Salazar? I asked several friends (who have each been involved in submitting amicus briefs for this case) to share about the significance of the case, the complexity of conversion therapy legislation, and the hopes they have in offering their voices.

This week, I interview the first: author, speaker, and licensed psychologist Dr. Julia Sadusky, who has made immense contributions at the intersection of faith, sexuality, gender and psychology. The amicus brief for Chiles V. Salazar to which she contributed may provide helpful context, as well as an article in the United States’ oldest LGBTQ+ publication, The Advocate, which suggested that her contribution “could prove especially influential.”

Tell me about yourself, and how you became involved in the case.

I am a licensed psychologist in Colorado, and I’ve been working here since 2019—which is actually the year that the Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors came into effect. I became involved in the case through a connection with the Colorado Attorney General’s office. The office had connected with someone who knew my work and when this person was discussing the case with him, he shared that it might be beneficial to speak with licensed psychologists who are Christians and doing work related to sexuality and gender with minors in Colorado. Through this, I was able to speak with the AG’s office and contribute to a brief. In the brief, I articulated my understanding of the law—that it ensures helpful interventions are being used with minors in Colorado and does not infringe on my speech as a theologically orthodox Christian.

What exactly are the stakes with Chiles v. Salazar as you see them?

If the Colorado law is overturned, the stakes take three forms in my mind.

The first consequence will certainly be that minors who would otherwise come to therapy about sexuality and gender would be less likely to do so, and would certainly be less likely to go to a Christian therapist. Many of them have shared with me that they are very skeptical of therapists in general and therapists who are conservative Christians in particular, because they are afraid of the therapist trying to coerce an outcome in the realm of sexuality or force them toward gender-conforming behaviors. Minors will be left to their own devices in exploring sexuality and gender, or will only go to secular therapists who do not represent theologically conservative beliefs and values, or be left to explore identity through social media and peers, rather than with to Christian therapists who align with their values. Many of these teens want a therapist in alignment with their values, but they are afraid that that therapist will coerce an outcome, rather than really helping them explore these identity pieces in thoughtful, calm, nuanced, and research-based ways.

The second consequence will be the impact on the personal faith of Christian minors in Colorado who are exploring sexuality and gender questions. What I have witnessed is that when therapists do conversion therapy with minors in the realm of sexual orientation or gender dysphoria, if these young people do not experience the change that they hoped for, they become disillusioned with God over time—really angry, and really feeling powerless. This can lead to a total rejection of their Christian faith; they interpret that coming to heterosexuality or a lack of dysphoria is synonymous with being made right with God, and so they feel as if they will never be made right with God if they continue to experience attraction to the same sex or gender distress. They reject their faith at a time when they would really benefit from continuing to cultivate personal faith and are robbed of the opportunity to invite God into the challenges they face in life.

A third consequence—which is also deeply concerning for me—is the impact of conversion therapy approaches on the parent-child relationship. Conversion therapy theories of causation for homosexuality and gender dysphoria often focus on how the parent-child relationship has been fraught with pain in ways that have caused the sexual orientation or gender exploration of the teen. This leads a teenager to blame their parents for their sexual orientation or their gender distress, and this leads to a lot of anger, rage, frustration, and pushing their parents away. Further, many teens do not want to go to conversion therapy, so if their parent brings them without their consent, that leads to more conflict in the home, only further alienating parents and their child. That teen is less likely to receive the support, wisdom, and guidance of their parents in the way they desperately need at that developmental stage.

We know from research on teens exploring questions of sexuality and gender that the quality of their relationship with their parents is a key indicator of their well-being over time. So therapy has to prioritize improving communication and the quality of the parent-child relationship. Conversion therapy approaches that blame or villainize parents, or have parents leading children to a therapy they do not want, will not be beneficial for them. As a Catholic, I really believe that parents ought to be the primary educator of their child, and conversion therapy makes that less likely as it alienates teens and their parents in profound ways. This only further harms the overall mental health of these children at a critical time of life.

What makes laws regarding conversion therapy especially complex?

Laws regarding conversion therapy are especially complex because people can become confused when they read aspects of the law without understand the language of the field of psychology and counseling—this is especially likely for lay people who are not licensed mental health providers.

For instance, there is a clause in the law I think has confused a lot of conservative Christians. The law states, “conversion therapy means any practice by a licensee, registrant, or certificate holder, that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” Many Christians were initially concerned about the clause, “including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions.” Some have feared that this means that helping a teenager who wants to stop watching gay pornography or hooking up with people of the same sex, or wants to practice chastity, or wants to live a life of singleness, is prohibited from doing so under the law. But it is important to understand that clause is in reference to the earlier statement made about conversion therapy.

Think in terms of classic grammar here. The law bans practices that attempt to or purport to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors in the service of attempting to change their sexual orientation or gender identity. Attempting to help somebody change behaviors that they want to change, but not trying to change sexual orientation or gender identity in the process is different from trying to change behaviors or expressions with the promise that it will lead to a change in sexual orientation or gender identity. It is the difference between saying to a teenager who wants to stop watching gay pornography that “I can help you live in accordance with your values,” or “we can use psychological interventions to help you reduce your pornography usage” on the one hand, or saying “if you stop watching gay pornography, you will no longer be attracted to people of the same sex identify as gay” on the other. The latter would be banned under the law, because we do not have research evidence to support the idea that those types of interventions (that help reduce pornography use) will change a person’s sexual orientation.

Another piece that is confusing to people is when the law talks about allowing for practices that provide acceptance, support, and understanding. When we hear words like “acceptance” or “support,” we usually think in terms of political acceptance and support—which is defined in different ways by different people. But “acceptance” and “support” are defined in therapy differently and ought not be interpreted politically. Acceptance means “receiving all parts of a person, receiving all aspects of their identity.” Support means “walking alongside a person, being in their corner as they navigate life.” These are cornerstones of any therapeutic relationship, and teens exploring sexuality and gender also deserve that from their clinicians.

A key aspect of the law that sometimes gets missed is that it allows for identity exploration and development; it explicitly concedes that anything done to help a person explore their identity, develop their identity over time, or treat concurrent concerns that complicate identity exploration are all allowed under the law. This law is not simply pushing people along a path of transition or banning effective therapy. This law indicates something that the science supports, namely, we do not know how to change sexual orientation or gender identity through therapeutic intervention. The law bans therapeutic interventions to try to change sexual orientation or gender identity, but it does not ban well-established practices—acceptance and commitment therapy, dialectical behavioral therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and other evidence-based forms of therapy—that help people live in accordance with their values and treat their mental health concerns.

What did you hope to bring to the case by adding your voice?

I hoped to offer perspective from a theologically orthodox Catholic Christian who works as a licensed psychologist in Colorado, and each week, does the work that the law is referencing—meaning, I work with clients who come in, who are theologically conservative, and who do not want to go to a secular therapist because they are afraid of that therapist pushing them down a path of transition, and don’t want a conversion therapist who will make promises they can’t deliver on. So, these individuals and their parents come to see me and they want to know what I offer that is distinct from the other approaches.

Dr. Mark Yarhouse has developed a really thoughtful approach that integrates the best we have from research on what helps a theologically conservative Christian explore identity in value-congruent ways (that approach is called Sexual Identity Therapy). Mark Yarhouse and I also developed an approach for gender called “Gender and Religious Identity Therapy.” By offering my voice to the case, I hoped to speak about what conservative Christian therapists can offer that is not conversion therapy and educate the public about the interventions that are licit under the law. It’s important to help inform the public about what conversion therapy is and is not, and how the ban on conversion therapy for minors actually leaves enormous latitude for Christian therapists to help people with their mental health more broadly and live in accordance with their Christian values—as long as we are not inappropriately promising an outcome that we lack the research evidence to support. If there were established therapies that were effective in changing orientation or gender identity, promising this outcome would make sense to me. But we don’t have established protocols to get rid of gender dysphoria or change sexual orientation that have been found to be helpful and not harmful.

A lot of Christians who initially hear about this law are steeped in the fear that every law that applies to sexuality or gender in our country is attacking Christians. I want to be a voice that acknowledges that there certainly have been, and will likely continue to be, laws that present threats to our deeply-held convictions. But this ban on conversion therapy in minors in Colorado and similar laws elsewhere are simply not attacking our freedom of speech; they are protecting young people from interventions that lack research evidence of effectiveness, and have documented research evidence of harm. I also think it’s important that there are people weighing in on this law who are licensed mental health providers and theologically conservative Christians, who are actively practicing therapy in this realm, and who have been sufficiently trained to do so in ethical ways. Without the voices of licensed Christian professionals, we are left to interpret this law based on culture-war rhetoric and headlines.

I hope that through my voice and that of others speaking into this conversation, conservative Christians will see past the inaccurate framing surrounding this law. Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy in minors isn’t about freedom of speech, it’s about protecting Christian youth from interventions that don’t work and have too often alienated them from their parents and their faith in Christ.

…

You can learn more about the work of Dr. Julia Sadusky on her website.