Problem is, the article is addressing something that is emphatically not what the #SCOTUS is looking at in the free speech vs conversion therapy case.
It wants to challenge the premise, but it's the wrong premise!
At argument the challenger emphasized that their case was about one specific practice that had nothing to do with anything like shock or medicated treatment. This was actually core to their case.
And the state admitted they had no scientific information to submit regarding that specific practice.
See how that article completely misses the mark, then?