I think she was a mediocre choice and her dissent in this case meanders into territory that she shouldn’t have ventured into. Had she simply said that talk therapy is treatment and the state has always had the power to regulate treatment, at least she would have been on somewhat stable ground.
Setting her opinion aside, she was voting to affirm the 10th Circuit. It’s not as if she was the only judge who had looked at the regulations and concluded it was within Colorado’s lawful powers to enact this, in other words.
The wisdom of the Colorado statute is a different issue. She comes off as a cheerleader for the policy reflected in the statute. I simply couldn’t disagree with her more on that score, though it is irrelevant to the Constitutional arguments.