Chiles v. Salazar · ¶171

That stops today. Indeed, it is not at all clear how, or to what extent, state regulation of medical care involving practitioner speech can survive this holding. We are on a slippery slope now: For the first time, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to bless a risk of therapeutic harm to children by limiting the State's ability to regulate medical providers who treat patients with speech. What's next? In the worst-case scenario, our medical system unravels as various licensed healthcare professionals— talk therapists, psychiatrists, and presumably anyone else who claims to utilize speech when administering treatments to patients—start broadly wielding their newfound constitutional right to provide substandard medical care.

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