After SCOTUS Ruling, Michigan Agrees To End ‘Talk Therapy’ Ban For Gender-Confused Kids 43%

By Shawn Fleetwood77%

7/31/2026, 8:21:39 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 18.7% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 634 faulty-reasoning hits from 572 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.1% and a BS Rank of 43% (15,676 of 27,227 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.60% of the article peer group.

The Democrat-run state of Michigan agreed on Thursday to end its prohibition on licensed therapists providing counseling to children struggling with issues related to sexual orientation and gender dysphoria. 
“This is a major victory for children, counselors, and common sense,” Luke Goodrich, senior counsel at Becket and lead attorney for the counselors, said in a statement. 
“Kids who are hurting deserve compassion, not a one-way ticket to harmful drugs, hormones, and surgery. 
Now counselors can offer compassionate counseling without fearing that state bureaucrats will come knocking.” 
Known as *Catholic Charities v. 
Whitmer*, the case dealt with several Michigan-based counselors' challenge to state laws barring them from engaging in talk therapy with minor clients facing discomfort with their sex. 
The challengers argued that such a prohibition violated their First Amendment rights. 
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals handed plaintiffs a favorable ruling in the case late last year, which was subsequently followed by the U.S. 
Supreme Court's *Chiles v. 
Salazar* decision. 
In *Chiles*, the high court ruled that a similar Colorado law "regulates speech based on viewpoint, and the lower courts erred by failing to apply sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny." 
“[T]he First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country. 
It reflects instead a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth. 
However well-intentioned, any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for an 8-1 majority. 
In Thursday's stipulated order, Biden-appointed Judge Jane Beckering noted that, in light of the 6th Circuit and Supreme Court's rulings, the *Catholic Charities* plaintiffs have "demonstrated success on the merits" of their claim that Michigan's laws represent an unlawful viewpoint-based restriction on speech. 
She further observed that the plaintiffs have "established irreparable injury and that an injunction is in the public interest." 
As such, both parties agreed to the stipulated order and final judgement, which prohibits Michigan from enforcing the talk therapy ban against counselors in the state. 
“The Court hereby DECLARES that HB 4616, as applied to licensed mental health professionals engaged in therapy that consists exclusively of talking, violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Beckering wrote. 
“The Court hereby PROHIBITS Defendants, their successors, agents, and all those acting in concert with them from enforcing HB 4616 against licensed professionals who engage in therapy that consists exclusively of talking.” 
The court's permanent injunction will take effect immediately, according to the order. 
“Michigan is now admitting its law is unconstitutional,” Goodrich said. 
“Its surrender confirms that the Constitution and the best available science are on the side of counselors who help children find peace with their bodies. 
States still trying to censor that care should take note.” 
The Great Lakes State's agreement to end enforcement of the contested laws is a noticeably different path taken than that of neighboring Wisconsin. 
Months after the Supreme Court handed down its *Chiles* ruling, Democrat Gov. 
Tony Evers doubled down on seemingly defying the decision. 
“I have no intention of repealing the ban on  conversion therapy on kids. 
Period. 
End of story. 
And no question,” Evers said during a June "Pride Flag Raising" event. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.5%Shawn Fleetwood: 5.7%The Federalist: 8.3%Confirmation Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 2.5%The Federalist: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.9%The Federalist: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.1%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.7%The Federalist: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Shawn Fleetwood: 11.1%The Federalist: 9.8%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.4%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.9%Optimism Bias4.4%This article: 4.4%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.3%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias4.4%This article: 6.5%Shawn Fleetwood: 8.7%The Federalist: 11.6%Negativity Bias6.5%This article: 1.7%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.5%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 2.2%The Federalist: 3.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.7%The Federalist: 2.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 4.4%The Federalist: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.3%The Federalist: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 2.8%The Federalist: 5.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 2.0%The Federalist: 2.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.7%Shawn Fleetwood: 4.5%The Federalist: 4.6%Appeal to Authority18.7%This article: 2.8%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.3%The Federalist: 2.6%False Dilemma2.8%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.3%The Federalist: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 6.9%The Federalist: 10.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.5%Shawn Fleetwood: 7.8%The Federalist: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion7.5%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 2.5%The Federalist: 2.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.2%The Federalist: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.2%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.7%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.5%The Federalist: 1.0%Burden of Proof1.7%This article: 4.4%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.2%Appeal to Nature4.4%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.0%The Federalist: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.3%The Federalist: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.2%Shawn Fleetwood: 3.0%The Federalist: 2.9%Unattributed Quote12.2%This article: 5.2%Shawn Fleetwood: 2.2%The Federalist: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 9.8%Shawn Fleetwood: 16.2%The Federalist: 18.6%Biased Writer Voice9.8%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 1.8%The Federalist: 4.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 15.7%The Federalist: 15.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Fleetwood: 0.4%The Federalist: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

572 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers21%attributed speech452writer words
Selected voice

Luke Goodrich

86%flagged-word coverage
102 attributed words85% of attributed speech56% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-15.5 ptsWriter: 15.5%Luke Goodrich: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.4 ptsWriter: 12.4%Luke Goodrich: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Luke Goodrich: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.