More than 20 states restrict therapists from trying to change the gender identity or sexual orientation of clients under age 18, often called "conversion therapy." The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case asking whether such a law, as it applies to talk therapy, is about properly regulating medical treatment or impermissibly censoring speech. How do you think the Supreme Court should rule?
Wording notes: frames the choice as medical regulation vs. censorship, which are not obviously commensurable | the word 'censoring' is pejorative and appears only on the anti-ban side | does not tell respondents which side of the case each ruling favors
loaded_terms — 'Impermissibly censoring speech' carries a negative valence that 'properly regulating medical treatment' does not counterbalance, and because the item never says that striking the law down would permit conversion therapy, respondents cannot easily map either option onto a substantive position. The unusual result that Republicans were the most likely group to pick 'properly regulating medical treatment' suggests the case-outcome framing was not read as a proxy for support of conversion-therapy bans.
Subgroup figures (6)
party
| Group | Rule that the law is properly regulating medical treatment | Rule against the law as impermissibly censoring speech |
|---|---|---|
| Republican | 75% | 25% |
| Independent | 66% | 34% |
| Democrat | 59% | 41% |