Chiles v. Salazar · ¶80

No one directly disputes that Colorado has the power to regulate the medical treatments that state-licensed professionals provide to patients. Nor is it asserted that, when doing so, a State always runs afoul of the Constitution. So, in my view, it cannot also be the case that Colorado's decision to restrict a dangerous therapy modality that, incidentally, involves provider speech is presumptively unconstitutional. In concluding otherwise, the Court's opinion misreads our precedents, is unprincipled and unworkable, and will eventually prove untenable for those who rely upon the long- recognized responsibility of States to regulate the medical profession for the protection of public health.

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