Chiles v. Salazar · ¶112

In my view, it is obvious that the MCTL is regulating professional conduct insofar as it prohibits providing a particular therapy; the aim of the statute is not suppressing speech. Indeed, Chiles's claim that her (otherwise protected) speech is being swept up by Colorado's (otherwise valid) treatment prohibition proves that very point. This set of circumstances seems to ft NIFLA's idea of permissible state “regulation of professional conduct” that “incidentally burdens speech” to a “T.”

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.