Authors share conversion therapy experiences after supreme court ruling

Norsk Bokmål

Two writers have released books exploring the lasting effects of conversion therapy amid ongoing debates following a March supreme court decision. Davin Malasarn and Timothy Schraeder Rodriguez discuss their personal stories in a recent conversation. Their works highlight the intersection of faith, family, and queer identity.

In March the supreme court ruled that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy violated first amendment rights by discriminating against therapist Kaley Chiles. The decision has renewed attention to these practices, which a 2026 Trevor Project report found affected one in twenty LGBTQIA+ young people despite various state bans.

Relaterte artikler

Symbolic illustration of the U.S. Supreme Court 8-1 ruling limiting Colorado's conversion therapy ban, featuring scales of justice and First Amendment elements.
Bilde generert av AI

Supreme Court limits Colorado conversion therapy ban in 8-1 ruling

Rapportert av AI Bilde generert av AI

The US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 on Tuesday that Colorado's ban on licensed counselors attempting to change a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity through talk therapy requires strict First Amendment scrutiny. The decision in Chiles v. Salazar, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, remands the case to lower courts after finding viewpoint discrimination. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented alone, warning of broad risks to medical regulations.

Queer books industry faces strain from censorship efforts

Authors, agents and publishers report increasing difficulties in producing and selling queer books for young readers. Five years of rising challenges have led to reduced acquisitions and sales drops. A national bill targeting transgender topics recently advanced in Congress.

Rajasthan high court expunges remarks on transgender amendment act

Rapportert av AI

The Rajasthan High Court has removed portions of its March 30 judgment criticizing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, stating they were included by mistake. In an April 2 clarificatory order, the bench said the observations were neither intended nor necessary. The case stemmed from a petition by a transgender woman in the Rajasthan Police.

fredag, 19. juni 2026, 03:35

Trump administration raises religious-discrimination concerns with MLB after Pride Night cap warnings

lørdag, 30. mai 2026, 05:35

Supreme Court term nears end with key cases pending

torsdag, 14. mai 2026, 06:18

Wisconsin writer says she saw classmates adopt new names and begin medical gender transitions during high school

torsdag, 7. mai 2026, 07:52

Supreme court questions judicial review of religious practices

onsdag, 22. april 2026, 13:35

Supreme Court signals case-by-case approach in faith disputes

Dette nettstedet bruker informasjonskapsler

Vi bruker informasjonskapsler for analyse for å forbedre nettstedet vårt. Les vår personvernerklæring for mer informasjon.
Avvis