Ohio Counseling Conversations

Conversation 34 - SPECIAL EDITION - When Therapy Isn’t “Just Speech”: Why Chiles v. Salazar Matters for Counselors

• Ohio Counseling Association • Season 2 • Episode 34

Share episode

Send us a text

A Supreme Court showdown is poised to answer a question that could reshape our field: is counseling regulated health care or “just speech”? We sit down with Dr. Chase Morgan-Swaney—assistant professor, clinician, and OCA president-elect—to break down Chiles v. Salazar, the research on SOGICE, and what a ruling could mean for minors, licensure boards, and everyday clinical practice.

We trace the legal core—speech versus professional conduct—and translate it into plain language for counselors, supervisors, educators, and allies. Dr. Morgan-Swaney explains why leading organizations like APA and ACA argue that therapy is evidence-based treatment, not casual conversation, and how decades of research tie identity-change efforts to heightened psychological distress and suicide risk in youth. We also dive into the patchwork of state and city protections, the realities in Ohio, and the practical steps clinicians can take now: audit informed consent and websites, clarify you don’t provide identity-change interventions, strengthen referral pathways, and ensure crisis resources for LGBTQ+ minors are easy to find.

You’ll hear how affirmative care can honor faith and culture without attempting identity change, how counselor education is preparing students for the broader implications of this case, and how OCA plans to coordinate guidance, training, and model language once a decision lands. The throughline is steady: protect clients with evidence-based standards, equip counselors with tools and supervision, and build coalitions that keep practice aligned with science and ethics—even in uncertain times.

If you value clear standards, safer care, and strong advocacy for LGBTQ+ youth, this conversation is for you. Subscribe, share with a colleague, and leave a review with your top takeaway—what’s the first change you’ll make in your informed consent or practice language?

OCA Link Tree: https://linktr.ee/ohiocounseling

Connect with Us

Stay in touch and join the conversation:

****

If you’re a counselor in Ohio and would like to get involved as part of production or as a guest, or know someone who might be interested, please email us at ohiocounselingconversations@gmail.com!

****

Created by the OCA's Media, Public Relations, and Membership (MPRM) Committee & its Podcast Subcommittee

·Hosted by Victoria Frazier

·Pre-Production & Coordination by Marisa Cargill and Victoria Frazier

·Editing by Leah Wood & Marisa Cargill

·Original music selections by Elijah Satoru Wood

SPEAKER_02:

Welcome to another episode of the Child Counselling Conversations, a podcast where we highlight the people, policies, and practices shaping counselling in our state and beyond. Today we're diving into an issue that could have profound implications for our profession and the clients we serve. The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Child versus Celsius, a case that directly challenges state bands on conversion therapy for minors. At stake are not only the rights of LGBTQ plus youth to receive observing care, but also the ability of states to regulate harmful practices within the counselling and mental health professions. Joining us is the president-elect of the Ohio Counseling Association, who will help us unpack what this case means, why counselors should be paying close attention, and how our professional values and ethics guide us in this moment. Dr. Chase Morgan Sweeney is an assistant professor of counseling at Baldwin Wallace University, where he teaches and mentors burgeoning professional counselors. He earned his PhD in counselor education and supervision from the University of Akron in 2023. He also holds a master's in clinical mental health counseling from the University of Akron and a bachelor's in psychology from the Ohio State University.

unknown:

Dr.

SPEAKER_02:

Morgan Sweeney brings extensive clinical experience to his teaching. He serves as Associate Director at Arbor Pasama Counseling and Wellness, where he has practiced since 2018. His clinical focus is on serving LGBTQ and neurodiverse adolescents and adults using acceptance and commitment therapy through a culturally humble and affirming lens. A dedicated leader in the profession, Dr. Morgan Swaaney currently serves as OCA president-elect and has held leadership roles in multiple chapters, divisions, and committees. His servant leadership and advocacy have been recognized with numerous honors at the state and national level. Whether you're a counselor, educator, student, or ally, this is a conversation you won't want to miss. Welcome, Dr. Morgan Sweeney. Thank you so much for being with us today.

SPEAKER_00:

Well, thank you for having me. I wish it were under better circumstances, but I'm very glad to be here.

SPEAKER_02:

Well, we're very happy to have you. For listeners who may not be familiar, can you briefly describe Chiles v. Salazar and why it matters?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, so Chilazar is a case that is before the Supreme Court of the United States. It is here on what is called a writ of Certi Aurora from the 10th Circuit, uh Circuit Court of Appeals, I should say. And it is a case that challenges Colorado's prohibition on licensed mental health providers performing what is commonly referred to as conversion therapy, but now we call sogice or sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts for minors. And it matters because the court will decide, depending on how broadly or narrowly they write their opinion after oral arguments on October the seventh, they'll decide whether states can regulate this as professional conduct to protect youth, or whether such regulation is barred because therapy is quote unquote just speech, like just having a little chat, because that's sort of how it is framed by the petitioners in this case, who is Kaylee Childs. The leading mental health and medical organizations, so the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and others filed an amicus brief, which is called a friend of the court brief in the Supreme Court, explaining that counseling and psychotherapy is regulated evidence-based treatment, not mere conversation, and that sugies are illegitimate and can be harmful, right? We know that through the research, right? It's not just anecdotal. We have sound methodological empirical evidence, right, that shows that it is not just ineffective, it is also harmful, especially to minors.

SPEAKER_02:

If you could sum it up in a couple words, what would you say is at the heart of the legal arguments that are being presented to the court?

SPEAKER_00:

Well, I think first I should say I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an attorney. So I can speak as someone who is a Supreme Court aficionado. That's I don't know why, but big interest area of mine. I listen to a lot of Supreme Court oral arguments. So though I'm not a lawyer, I can speak to it at a very basic level. And so there are two questions at the heart of the legal argument. Are states regulating treatment delivered by licensed professionals where public protection rules apply or restricting public protected speech? And then secondly, does the scientific record justify bans aimed at preventing ineffective or harmful practices on minors? And the amicai, the friends of the court, right, in this case APA, ACA, and others, stress that licensure, standards of care, continuing education regimes distinguish counseling and therapy from speech, from talking, right? And that soji fails basic efficacy and safety standards.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, so things that are very impactful for all of us who are currently working with clients.

SPEAKER_00:

Certainly, yeah, especially vulnerable clients like LGBTQ youth.

SPEAKER_02:

Could you speak a little on the current landscape of state-level bans on conversion therapy and how this has made its way to the Supreme Court?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, so a substantial share of the US population live in states or municipalities with protections for minors, while others do not, producing a patchwork that the court is well positioned to clarify, again, depending on who you know which side ultimately prevails. Would that be Kaylee Childs, the petitioner, or the respondent, which is Patty Salazar and the Colorado government? As of now, late 2025, 23 states plus the District of Columbia prohibit licensed providers from subjecting minors to conversion therapy. The court granted review of Colorado's law in this case. So it was heard by a district court. The respondents in this case prevailed, and the regulation of sojace of conversion therapy was upheld at the just the federal district court level, and it was also upheld at the 10th Circuit in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. And then the Supreme Court, when the petitioner trials submitted, right, to be heard by the Supreme Court, that was approved and uh read of certiori, as I said at the outset, and so that's how it got to SCOTUS.

SPEAKER_02:

And how does the Ohio compare with other states?

SPEAKER_00:

Ohio has no statewide ban. Um, several localities have enacted protections in September 25 this month. Cuyahoga County became Ohio's first county to ban conversion therapy for minors and quote vulnerable adults, unquote. And there have been several others recently: Westerville, Whitehall cities that have enacted bans at the city level.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, so even locally for Ohio counselors, that patchwork we see coming into play.

SPEAKER_01:

Yes.

SPEAKER_02:

So with this being a national case, obviously, obviously it has impact for Ohio counselors, but can you speak a little on why this is important for us locally?

SPEAKER_00:

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Because it directly implicates the authority to set scope of practice and safety standards. Also, our duty to avoid, I think is wrapped up in that, the scope of practice and safety standards, our duty to avoid discredited or harmful practices, right? And we know that from the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics. And it's also something that we can find in our laws and rules that are promulgated by the Ohio Counselor, Social Worker, and Marriage and Family Therapist Board. In addition to that duty to avoid discredit or harmful practices so as to protect the public, in this case, the consumers of our services, right, our clients. And also clarity for refusing sogice while offering ethical affirmative care. So a ruling reframing counseling as mere speech instead of as, you know, regulated professional conduct could have a destabilizing effect on board standards here in Ohio. And so a ruling affirming state authority would reinforce evidence-based practice expectations.

SPEAKER_02:

So if the bans are overturned, it seems like there will be quite a few implications for licensure boards and counseling practice as well. Do you think counselors could see increased pressure from outside groups as a result?

SPEAKER_00:

Licensure boards could face claims that disciplining sogice when enacted in treatment by counselors, police's speech, complicating enforcement of these standards, right? The scope of practice standards, the like enshrined in the rules and regulations, best practice standards. Clinicians may face more complaints or demands to provide or refer to subjects, despite the preponderance of the evidence, which is against it, right? Against that as an effective, beneficent method of treatment. So, yes, without clear prohibitions, organized campaigns may push, quote, exploratory therapy or similar rebrands of sogist. The scientific consensus remains that sogice or conversion therapy is illegitimate, it's ineffective, and it's harmful.

SPEAKER_02:

With that in mind, if the bans are upheld, what protections would that reinforce for counselors and clients?

SPEAKER_00:

It reaffirms that states may regulate professional conduct to prevent harm and require evidence-based standards, especially for vulnerable populations, for minors, right? So this reduces ambiguity, it protects counselors who refuse sojiis, and it strengthens informed consent conversations, because that's one of the things that uh petitioner their one of their leading arguments is that what we do as counselors is just having a chat. We're just talking, right? It really is just speech, because they put forth the argument that we don't engage in robust informed consent process. And so it couldn't be medical treatment, right? Because that aspect isn't there when it very clearly is there. We do go through informed consent. I mean, we know that, you know that, I know that. The folks who are listening know that. And so that argument really falls flat because it's not reflective of the facts on the ground, so to speak.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, I think I get more thorough informed consent information from mental health providers in my life than I do from like going to the ER. And I think that's just a byproduct of how we conduct ourselves as a profession, but I think that's a very strange argument to have stood up to this point.

SPEAKER_00:

Yes. Well, clearly, you know, they haven't prevailed yet. So I and that's just the facts, right? Like they've they've lost, the petitioners lost in the district court in the 10th circuit court of appeals, and now they're at their sort of final stop here at the Supreme Court. So we'll see how their arguments fare coming up very soon. Like I said, October 7th is when the court will hear oral arguments in this case.

SPEAKER_02:

With this being a national court that's hearing it, would this create momentum for broader national protections?

SPEAKER_00:

Likely. A clear ruling can accelerate harmonization across states and embolden localities where gaps persist. Like I said, we're already seeing active municipal action right at the city level in Ohio. And so yeah, I would say that's likely we'll we'll continue to see movement one way or another. And that's largely because of the what I imagine will be the publicity around this case once it's heard, and we'll likely get a ruling sometime between it's very, very unlikely that they'll rule in this case before the end of the year. But because it is a case, depending on how it's written, either broadly or narrowly, either way we'll have it by June of 2026, a ruling, a final ruling from the court.

SPEAKER_02:

How does this connect to our ethical obligations, especially when families or others request the treatment that's antithetical to our ethical obligations and you know the body of research that shows it's not an effective course of care for clients?

SPEAKER_00:

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Our ethics center client welfare, right? Doing no harm, non-maleficence, as well as cultural humility and competency in that regard, and veracity, right? Dealing truthfully with those with whom we come into professional contact. So the consensus from major organizations is that soji, again, I can't say it enough, so I'm just going to continue to say it, is not legitimate therapy. It lacks evidence of benefit and carries substantial risk of harm, as evidenced by the harm that folks have experienced, as clearly laid out in the research that exists. Thus, it shouldn't be provided. So the Ohio Councillor Social Worker Marriage and Family Therapist Board has issued guidance that licensees are prohibited from engaging soJICE as in treatment, as treatment. And so that's that's something that's important that all licensees, right, in the state of Ohio should be aware of is that our board has issued guidance prohibiting it as a practice. Unfortunately, that does not mean that other folks can't, because there's no state ban on conversion therapy. So that means that other practitioners, religious or secular, that are unlicensed, right, by the board, they can engage that. That's not unlawful to do. And so that means that our clients can seek that out. Of course, not from licensees of our board, but they can seek that out from others who aren't under the purview of our board. So we pivot to ethical, affirmative, developmentally appropriate care that supports family communication, coping, and well-being.

SPEAKER_02:

Of course, this isn't an argument I would make, being familiar with our licensure board and just, you know, our ethical obligations and, you know, having an informed opinion. But could the argument be made that refusing that service and that line of treatment intersects with cultural or religious considerations that counselors could encounter?

SPEAKER_00:

Mm-hmm. Certainly. Yeah. And that's what's being put forth in legalese by the petitioners, right? They they don't, and I want to make that clear. This is not a like free exercise of religion or establishment clause case regarding the First Amendment. So there's freedom of speech, but there's also like free exercise of religion and like no establishment of religion. This is not coming to the court under the religion clauses of the Constitution. This is coming under the first the First Amendment free speech clause. So affirmative practice, we have to remember, respects religious and cultural values without attempting identity change. So there are plenty, you know, one that comes to mind is the grace model by Bozard and Sanders from 2011, helps bridge the divide between one's faith identity and their sexual orientation and or gender identity. So affirmative practice doesn't sacrifice one for the other. That you know, queer and trans people many are not people of faith, but many queer and trans people are people of faith. And their experience with their faith identity has been one that can be really rocky because of the discourse around how you know diverse, affectional, and gender identities and and faith they don't go together. But that just isn't isn't the case, right? So standards regulate licensed practice, not private beliefs of a religious sort or a cultural sort. Within practice, we offer evidence-based care and avoid known risks, right? Just to put it put a nice fine point on that. So there are cultural or religious considerations, and we can do that affirmatively and work with both, right? And make space for our sexual orientation, our gender identity, and our faith identity and values.

SPEAKER_02:

Absolutely. Thank you, Dr. Morgan Sweeney. That was a very insightful, robust answer to anyone who might be having questions of that nature. Knowing that this is upcoming and that the case will be heard on the 7th, what can steps can counselors take right now to prepare for possible outcomes of the court's decision?

SPEAKER_00:

Mm-hmm. Yeah, so this is a I think a fantastic question. And I'm glad that you asked it, and I'm glad that you framed it in this way, because I want to take a moment to say, regardless of you know, whether this case came before the court or not, I think that these are steps that you can take now. Yeah, like I said, regardless of whether the case was before the court or not. So what one thing that you can do is to audit your informed consent language, your website language, intake scripts to clearly state that you don't provide sojice, right? You don't provide conversion therapy, and what you do provide, and and provide a rationale as to why you don't provide that. Because you know, not many folks are seeking it out, and there are there are folks who who do. And so it's important to make sure that our materials are tailored for all you know potential audiences, all potential consumers, right? In this case, clients. So we want to audit, we want to document evidence-based rationales and referral pathways to affirming services, strengthen supervision or consultation lines for cases and especially regarding high-risk youth, refresh on our continuing education, on LGBTQ affirming practice and ethics in that area, ensure crisis and suicide prevention resources are you know readily available because we know that, you know, well, I don't want to assume that everyone knows that, but earlier in the summer, in July, the 988 specific resources, the uh suicide and crisis lifeline on a national level, got rid of its protections for LGBTQ youth with specific services for that population. And so, you know, ensuring that we have those crisis and suicide prevention resources ready for minors, because we know that LGBTQ minors in particular tend to experience crisis and suicidality at exponentially higher rates as compared to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts of the same age.

SPEAKER_02:

With all that in mind, are there any specific advocacy efforts or trainings that you would recommend for counselors looking to be prepared?

SPEAKER_00:

Mm-hmm. Yeah, so I would recommend following the Ohio Counseling Association, the American Counseling Association, and their divisions of SAGE at the national level in SAGEO in Ohio. Follow their updates, follow them on social media, take continuing education offerings that are put forth by those divisions, specifically on LGBTQ affirming care and ethical decision making. Use the association's toolkits, physicians for public comments, or for community education. So they're doing great work. Also, the NASA NASW of Ohio has some great advocacy work and trainings that would be relevant for counselors to utilize in this in this area of LGBTQ affirming care as well.

SPEAKER_02:

Yes, thank you. I think it's so important right now that we are preparing and just being proactive with our training and our approach to this sensitive area. One of the things I've been thinking about just as we've been talking today is counselor education programs and how they are addressing this case and how it is going to affect future professionals. And I know that's one of your passions is counselor education. So yeah, how have you noticed this affecting our counselor programs?

SPEAKER_00:

I think it's something that I've, of course, here I am talking about it here. So I'm talking about it in the classroom, to be sure. And I'm making sure that students understand that the question that's presented in this case is much broader than the context of soji, right, of sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts. The question that was accepted by the court was whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed, regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause. So that's why I keep referencing it. It depends on how broadly or narrowly they tailor their opinion because it could have much broader implications for counseling practice than just, you know, cabined to this particular context of conversion therapy. So we want to teach explicitly that counseling is regulated medical health care. It is regulated medical treatment that's grounded in research. We also want to cover, because it is cabin, you know, well, the vehicle, I should say, for the case or for you know, for that question is about sojice, right? So we also want to make sure to explicitly teach that sojice has a lack of efficacy and substantial risk of harm. We want to run, you know, simulations doing case vignettes that are relevant to these questions in the classroom, and have students really wrestle with these considerations, apply culturally humble ethical decision-making models, you know, have an opportunity to apply knowledge of affirmative care practices in the classroom, right? Applying to clinical simulations, because that's going to help them to be better equipped to work with, for example, LGBTQ youth and their families once they're in the practica and internship portion of their program. And also connect content to K-Crep standards on evidence-based practice and culturally humble and multicultural competent standards of practice as well.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, it's almost like this is bringing some things into a greater spotlight, but it's not changing a lot about what we would expect of future counselors.

SPEAKER_01:

Mm-hmm.

SPEAKER_02:

What are, I know that we've kind of alluded to the research and the fact that this is obviously not a practice that we are allowed to perform or encouraged to perform or would be helpful for clients, but are there any specific mental health harms associated with SOGIS that you would like to highlight for our listeners?

SPEAKER_00:

Mm-hmm. Yeah. So studies link and I included for the show notes the amicus brief by the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and others. They reference quite substantially the research in this area in that brief. So I'd highly recommend that folks take a look at that. Studies link exposure to increased psychological distress and suicidality for folks who have been subjected to conversion therapy. As I mentioned, the amicus summarizes evidence that sojoys is ineffective and it can be harmful, right, with minors who are particularly vulnerable. And so peer reviewed research, for example, analyses in Jama psychiatry associates conversion therapy effort to exposure, or I'm sorry. Peer-reviewed research associates conversion therapy exposure with higher odds of suicide attempts and severe distress. The 2009 APA task force found no credible evidence of efficacy and raised significant harm concerns, which were findings that were reinforced by subsequent studies.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, I'm just taking all of that, and I think we know that, right? Like as counselors or you know, future counselors who might be listening, but there's such a an overwhelming consensus in the body of research, which feels like it should be enough, right? But clearly there are people who do not agree or have more questions. So, and that's obviously why we're here. Do you foresee like this ruling impacting client trust with counselors?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, that's again, you know, we have to think how read in our gen pop, right? The general population on what's going on at the courts. So I do think that upholding bans reassures families that licensed care follows science. Striking bans risks chilling help seeking, especially among vulnerable populations like queer and trans youth, and eroding trust if youth fear being steered toward discredited practices, or that there has been, you know, carte blanche granted that you know anything goes because you know we're just having a chat, right? It's just speech. So because it's just speech, you know, you can't enact any well-tailored, well-meaning regulations because it's speech, right? It's not professional conduct. Because if the bands were struck, that's something along the lines of what we would read in the ruling, right? Is that this is speech, right? This isn't this isn't treatment. So we can counter uncertainty by stating our stance up front on sojiis, right? On affirmative care, clarifying evidence-based options, documenting our decision-making processes whenever faced with some ethical decision-making or ethical dilemma, I should say.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, I think that's a really great point. I I would wonder if those who are going to be more heavily affected by this are more likely to be aware of what's going on.

SPEAKER_01:

Oh, surely. Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

I know I've had I've had a client or two come in with a couple of questions, and they were actually both teens who had questions, and so it's it's a conversation that's ongoing in my office as well. Which is you know, a mixed bag. I'm glad that they're informed and I'm empathetic to the fact that they're worried.

SPEAKER_01:

Yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

I know that obviously we've talked about, you know, making sure our informed consent and our website language is consistent, and being outspoken about the fact that we do not participate in this practice. Do you have any recommendation for counselors who might be newer or a bit uncomfortable trying to communicate that safety and support to clients in these uncertain times? Because I think the context of this is very important. Obviously, it's not just the Supreme Court case that is leading to some client uncertainty. Do you have any recommendations for people who maybe these conversations don't come as naturally to?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, so use clear scripts. I don't provide identity change interventions. Here's what I do provide, right? Just have it be clearly enumerated so that you don't have a lot of thinking to do per se. Like you it's just very clear, and then I don't provide identity change interventions. And then here's what I do provide speaking to, I would hope, like affirming care practices. And then, of course, reviewing confidentiality, which is of particular importance, right, for LGBTQ youth crisis resources, as I mentioned earlier, and any affirming referrals that are, you know, for it for adjacent providers for adjunctive, you know, therapeutic support services, or even something as fundamental as like primary care, making sure that there's access to folks that you know with whom you liaise in the community, like affirming primary care general practitioners. Invite questions, right? What questions do you have about that? So I said I don't provide identity change interventions, and I shared with you what I do offer. And I'm curious about what questions you have at this point, right? And then, of course, you know, engaging in collaborative goal formulation with clients. That in itself, making sure that they're a part of these processes early on and that their voice is heard communicates safety and support and affirmation now. We don't need to wait on SCOTUS to roll in order to do these things.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah. I think I've been thinking, you know, just as we've been talking about the pillar of social justice and advocacy in our profession, what do you have to say to counselors who maybe identify as non-political or who think this is outside of their scope of practice?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, so counseling is political, I would just say. If we're attempting to be non-political, we're neglecting the fact that the personal is political, and as is the professional, the professional is political as well. Because we've already seen just in the last several months how decisions made at various levels of government have a very palpable impact, an on-the-ground impact, if you will, on the work that we do and how we do it. So we want to make sure that we understand one of our core roles and functions to be effectuated as counselors is that of advocate, right? We're counselors, many of us are supervisors, some of us are educators, all of us are advocates. We're called upon to do that, right? That's evident in our professional values that are clearly outlined in the preamble of our code of ethics. And you'll find it embedded in the standards as well when we talk about social justice and advocacy. So we want to educate communities more broadly about what counseling is, that it is regulated professional conduct, it is evidence-based treatment, that it's easy to say it's just speech because speech can't be disentangled from it. The way that we put forth the treatment is speech itself, right? Yeah, to effectuate cognitive behavioral therapy or CBT, for example, you have to talk, you have to speak, but that doesn't make it anything less because it's being done by spoken word. It doesn't mean that it's not regulated evidence-based health care, right? And we also need to educate communities about what counseling is not. Counseling is not sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts. So we want to provide resource lists, we want to participate in public fora, whether that be in the state legislature or some other venue, as experts in terms of like providing testimony in favor of or in opposition to legislation in this area. We want to collaborate with schools, with faith leaders on supportive approaches that avoid identity change efforts, which we know are inefficacious and harmful.

SPEAKER_02:

I think that was such a beautiful overview of large actions counselors can take and how that also impacts our small everyday actions, and how, you know, I am a big proponent, I guess I would say, of like personal is political, professional is political. And advocacy is not just protests or calling your representatives, which are important actions to take, of course, but I also think, you know, providing safe spaces and opening up conversations about uncomfortable, sensitive topics is its own important form of advocacy, and that is very accessible and really built into our foundation and our groundwork. And I think one of the things I hear sometimes is like, I don't have time for advocacy work. And I think it's so integral to how we conduct ourselves, and that can get lost a little bit sometimes because it it is a large part, but it it doesn't have to be as time consuming as we think about it sometimes.

unknown:

For sure.

SPEAKER_02:

I think even just like listening to this is a form of advocacy and you know, in educating yourself, and maybe it facilitates future conversations with colleagues or or clients or just your your people in your community. And that's so important.

SPEAKER_01:

Absolutely.

SPEAKER_02:

I'd love to shift us a little bit more internally focused with Ohio counseling and with our counseling association in Ohio.

unknown:

Dr.

SPEAKER_02:

Marshwaney, I know that you are the president-elect of the Ohio Counseling Association. Do you have any insight into how OCA is preparing to respond depending on the court's decision?

SPEAKER_00:

So I will say this isn't something that we have spent much time discussing, only because, again, as I will say, I feel confident saying, our OCA executive boards, resident court, aficionado. I don't think that we need to right now, because it is unlikely that the court will rule on this. Like oral argument is one thing, and that's gonna make it seem, you know, very prominent in the zeitgeist. Like it's very gonna be very forward right now. But then we're not gonna hear much about the case for a long time because then we'll start hearing about it again and reading about it again closer to summer of 26. But I'll tell you, that will be we'll we'll have received a ruling very likely just days before I step into the presidency of OCA because our turnover is on July 1st, right, of 26. And so know that depending on what the res you know what the ruling is, we'll be prepared, right, to provide member-facing guidance, you know, a summary of the ruling that is accessible for our practitioners, right, our counselors, our members. Yeah, so we'll be ready. And ACA's public position opposes conversion therapy, opposes soji, and supports regulations around this. And we join that, right, as a state branch of ACA. That that too is our position, right? And our leading division for LGBTQ issues in counseling, which is SAGEO, leads the way, leads the charge in this, as well as Sage, which is the national companion organization. And so we will be ready to respond to the court's decision whenever it is issued. And that will likely be summer of 26.

SPEAKER_02:

Excellent. I feel that we're in very good hands, both with our current board and our upcoming iteration. As president-elect and eventually president, as that tends to work, do you care to share any about your vision for how counselors can help to shape an inclusive affirming future?

SPEAKER_00:

Yes. So three pillars: protect clients, protect the public by reinforcing evidence-based standards and policy and practice, equip counselors, which is one of the themes of our upcoming All of How Counselors Conference in October, right? Equipping counselors through continuing education, through supervision and consultation and practical tools for doing the work, and building coalitions with counselor educators, with licensure board, with community partners and affiliates to ensure that we're harmonizing standards and we are reducing this patchwork risk, for example, for vulnerable communities, LGBTQ minors in particular. So protect clients, equip counselors, build coalitions, what I that's how I would sum up my vision for an inclusive and affirming future with regard to affirmative practice and sojoist related concerns.

SPEAKER_02:

I love that. Harmonizing standards. I think that's lovely.

SPEAKER_00:

Let's get them all in alignment. Let's let's let's align them, right? There's no please.

SPEAKER_02:

No, I was just gonna say, I feel like there is alignment in that we're all working towards a common goal, but I think the approach and things could use more harmony. We'll say that. I think you know there's power and strength in numbers, and that is something that I think we would do well to remember as we move forward.

SPEAKER_01:

For sure.

SPEAKER_02:

With that in mind, how do you see OCA leading at state and national levels?

SPEAKER_00:

Yeah, by convening Ohio partners, partnerships after the decision, right after the ruling, issuing model language and you know, guidance and trainings, partnering with ACA, with Sage, working closely with our division, SAGEO, and other allied organizations to keep Ohio aligned with the science and with best practice ethics, right, and best practice treatment. And so, regardless of what the ruling ultimately portends, we're already a leading voice at the state and national level. Very proud to say that that is verifiably true. I love OCA and I am biased in that regard, but it is true that we are a leader at the state and national level, our professional counseling organization. And I'm very excited to make that exceedingly evident in April in Columbus when we convene for the American Counseling Association conference and Expo. Very excited to welcome counselors from across the country, from across the world to Columbus and to be able to serve as the sort of welcoming delegation, if you will, for that event. And it's coming at a particularly relevant, timely point in our professional development, right, in our professional trajectory as counselors. The counseling compact is coming into fruition in terms of being able to start applying for privileges. The Child's versus Salazar ruling will be coming very shortly after that. I mean, again, it could come anytime between October 7th and the end of June. But yeah, so I think that we're well positioned as a leader at the, of course, at the state level, but at the national level as well, that our voice with regard to this case in particular will be one that is sought after and one that's heeded in terms of whatever guidance we issue as a result of this ruling. And I hope that it's not much because I hope that this court, the Supreme Court, decides to uphold those regulations, like the two previous courts before it have upheld, right? Colorado's ban on so jaist.

SPEAKER_01:

So yeah.

SPEAKER_02:

Yeah, I think that's such a wonderful point. And the we have so many opportunities upcoming to, you know, engage in that advocacy work we were talking about before, to create a larger conversation and to unify counselors in our response and what information we're discerning to each other and also to the greater population. Are there any key takeaways you'd like Ohio counselors and our listeners specifically to remember about this case and our approach to it going forward after having listened to this episode?

SPEAKER_00:

Mm-hmm. Counseling is regulated, evidence-based health care. SoGIS is not that. It is neither effective nor safe. And states can legitimately regulate to protect clients. That is one key takeaway that I hope folks take from this. One actionable step is this week you could audit your informed consent and website language, right, to state that you do not provide identity change interventions. And you can cite the board's guidance, right? The CSW MFT board's guidance specifically to say as a licensee, I'm I'm prohibited from doing so. So not only do I not provide it, but I couldn't. And explain what affirming evidence-based care you do provide. And also, again, because this case, the vehicle you know itself talks about bans on soji for minors. Um, it's of particular importance that you make sure that you have affirming crisis and referral resources clearly enumerated on your website or in your uh you know practice informed consent documentation as well.

SPEAKER_02:

Yes. Thank you, Dr. Morgan Swainey, for joining us for this important discussion on child versus Alzheimer and its potential impact on counselors and the community we serve. We're very grateful for your guidance and your insight. So thank you.

SPEAKER_00:

Thank you.

SPEAKER_02:

As we heard today, the outcome of this case could shape the future of our profession and the protections available for LGBTQ plus youth nationwide. It's a reminder that counseling is not just about what happens in the therapy room, but also about advocating for policies that reflect our ethical commitment to do no harm and to affirm the dignity and worth of every client. We encourage you to stay informed, follow updates from the Ohio Counseling Association, and use your voice to advocate for safe affirming practices. Together, we can help shape the future where all clients, especially young people, are met with compassion, respect, and care. Until next time, thanks for listening to Ohio Counseling Conversations. Be well, stay connected, and keep bringing more light into the counseling profession.