Today, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, in which a counselor is challenging a Colorado law that censors voluntary conversations between herself and her clients.

Kaley Chiles sees her profession as an outpouring of her Christian faith. And although she accepts all clients, she is often sought out by clients who share her values. The law the Supreme Court will review forbids Kaley from having certain conversations on issues of gender and sexuality. For example, it bans conversations to help a client recover an identity consistent with his or her sex, but it allows conversations that push clients down the path of gender transition.

If a counselor has a forbidden conversation — even if the client voluntarily wants to have the conversation — the counselor can be fined thousands of dollars and lose her license.

If Colorado is successful in dictating what professional counselors can and cannot say in their private conversations with clients, the implications will be profound.

Imagine the following scenario, based on all-too-real stories that have happened around the country: A young Jane Doe has grown up in a single-parent household, abandoned by her father at a young age. Although her mother tries her best, it’s all she can do to hold down multiple jobs to support her family and keep track of her daughter’s mental stability. On top of that, a new boyfriend of the mother sexually abuses Jane,

© The Hill