Chiles v. Salazar · ¶120

So it is here. Talk therapy is a medical treatment. 116 F. 4th, at 1206, 1208–1210. So, why wouldn't such speech- based medical treatments be subject to reasonable state regulation like any other kind of medical care? The United States and the majority just insist that a law that undertakes to regulate speech-based medical treatments is presumptively unconstitutional because the treatment is being administered solely through speech. But that reasoning is maddeningly circular, and it is based on happenstance, not logic. Even more important, it is not the rationale upon which NIFLA's analysis relies. To the contrary, with its description of Casey, NIFLA recognizes precisely the opposite—a State can regulate professionals' treatment- related conduct even if doing so impacts treatment-related speech.

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