Conscience clauses and sexual and gender minority mental health care: A case study

Tennessee is one of the first states in the United States to have a law that enables counselors and therapists in independent practice to deny services to any client based on the practitioner's "sincerely held principles." This so-called "conscience clause" represents a critical moment in professional psychology, in which mental health care providers are on the frontlines of cultural and legal debates about religious freedom. Though the law's language is ambiguous, it was widely perceived to target sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals. We interviewed 20 SGM people living in Tennessee to understand their experiences with mental health care in the state and their perceptions of the law. Our participants perceive the law as fundamentally discriminatory, though they overwhelmingly conceptualize the conscience clause as legalizing discrimination toward members of all stigmatized groups-not just SGM individuals. They described individual and societal consequences for the law, including an understanding of the conscience clause as harmful above and beyond any individual discrimination event it may engender. We situate these findings amid the research on structural stigma and suggest that counseling psychologists become actively engaged in combatting conscience clauses, which appear to have profound consequences on mental health care engagement, particularly for populations vulnerable to discrimination. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).