The New York City Council said on Thursday it would repeal its ban on conversion therapy, which previously prevented any and all attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through the contested technique.
The ban comes after a lawsuit filed by a conservative group challenged the ban on the basis that it violates free speech rights of counselors and their patients. The Council is worried they will not win the case, which they also speculate may reach the Supreme Court.
Conversion therapy also has no scientific basis and its entire premise relies on the false assumption that certain sexual orientations or gender identities are mental illness.
However, repealing the ban does not immediately allow all conversion therapy; a broader state law is already in place to prevent the treatment from being used on minors.
The Council speaker, Corey Johnson, admitted the Council regrets having to give in to “right-wing groups,” but pointed to the political leanings of the courts to justify the repeal.
“The Supreme Court has become conservative; the Second Circuit, which oversees New York, has become more conservative,” Johnson, who himself is gay, said in an interview with The New York Times.
But if the Council had instead chosen to pursue a legal crusade against conversion therapy and therefore homophobia and transphobia, they would have had the opportunity to set a historical precedent against the practice.
The City Council is making dangerously wide speculations regarding a Supreme Court decision that they are skipping several steps of the legal process to comment on.
The humanitarian momentum they gained in banning conversion therapy just two years ago has been lost as they admit they cannot defend the decision against its dissent. If the policy had been stronger or more specific, they would not have had to repeal it in the face of a challenge.
Rather than take up arms against the group that has brought a lawsuit against them and find the best way to combat conversion therapy altogether, which is their ultimate goal, the Council has taken a defeatist stance in assuming they have no chance at success.
But this is a ban worth defending. It is part of the positive development our country has seen in working institutionally against bigotry, even while discriminatory prejudice remains in the minds of individuals.
The Council was undoubtedly well-intended in considering the possible consequences of a lawsuit against the bill and their self-awareness in the weaknesses of the ban is commendable. But the best way to address a mistake is not to shy away when it is pointed out.
In light of repealing the ban, the Council should swiftly replace it with stronger and more specific policies that they are confident would win in court — or at least, that they feel confident they could defend in court.
