Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Conflict in the Courts as Federal Judges Issue Divergent Rulings on Gay Conversion Quackery
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Many cheered when California became the first state to ban gay conversion therapy, what is called by its proponents “reparative” therapy (because gay people need to be repaired), that form of quackery that pretends to be able to turn gay people into heterosexuals.
Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill (SB 1172) into law in October.
The ban is set to go into effect on January 1, 2013 and will protect minors from predators like Marcus Bachmann.
That is, if the law is allowed to stand. On Monday and Tuesday, within a 24-hour span of time, we saw two federal judges issue divergent rulings regarding the new law.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge William Shubb, in response to a suit filed by three plaintiffs, issued a 38-page injunction against the ban, claiming that the law might violate the First Amendment rights of anti-gay therapists.
Yes, even quackery is protected by the First Amendment:
“Because the court finds that SB 1172 is subject to strict scrutiny and is unlikely to satisfy this standard, the court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their . . . claims based on violations of their rights to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.”
Minors be damned, argued the plaintiffs, a family therapist/minister, a Catholic medical doctor/board-certified psychiatrist, and a former therapy client, who says he is attracted to other men but thinks conversion therapy can “help.”
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller refused to block the ban, saying that there is no reason the that “The court finds there is no fundamental or privacy right to choose a specific mental health treatment the state has reasonably deemed harmful to minors.”
The LATimes reports that,
Citing the opinions of 10 groups that conversion therapy doesn’t work, Mueller ruled that the Legislature and governor had sufficient grounds to enact the ban. A study by a task force of the American Psychological Assn., she noted, found that conversion therapy can “pose critical health risks” to those who undergo it.
“The findings, recommended practices and opinions of 10 professional associations of mental health experts is no small quantum of information,” she wrote.
Mueller’s conclusion was that “The court need not engage in an exercise of legislative mind-reading to find the California Legislature and the state’s governor could have had a legitimate reason for enacting SB 1172.”
But Judge Shubb ruled there was not sufficient evidence that conversion therapy could make its victims commit suicide, that such claims are “based on questionable and scientifically incomplete studies that may not have included minors.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Shubb, 74, is a George H.W. Bush appointee. Mueller, 55, was appointed by Barack Obama.
It apparently did not matter to the judge the the American Psychological Association says that, “To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective,” and that,
“Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.”
Conservative Christians accuse Democrats of being pro-pedophilia while opponents of conversion therapy stress the psychological abuse of minors. Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Los Angeles), who wrote SB 1172, said of Mueller’s ruling, “On behalf of the untold number of children who can expect to be spared the psychological abuse imposed by reparative therapy, I’m thrilled that today’s ruling by Judge Mueller will continue to protect our children from serious harm.”
Matt Staver of Liberty Counsel somehow manages to claim that,”The California governor and legislature are putting their own preconceived notions and political ideology ahead of children and their rights to get access to counseling that meets their needs.” Patently, Staver needs to take a look in the mirror before he begins to condemn “preconceived notions and political ideology.”
Staver complained, “A number of minors who have struggled with same-sex attraction have been able to reduce or eliminate the stress and conflicts in their lives by receiving counseling of their choice which best meets their needs and religious convictions. This bill will harm children, stress families, and place counselors in a catch-22, because they will be forced to violate their licensing ethical codes.”
But as Judge Mueller pointed out, those seeking help based on their religious convictions were still free, under the law, to seek help from religious institutions as long as licensed therapists were not involved.
The plaintiffs in that case immediately appealed Mueller’s ruling.
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris said that her office “will continue to protect California minors by vigorously defending this law,” and her spokesperson, Lynda Gledhill said with regard to Shubb’s ruling that, “Our office is still evaluating an appeal.”
As a result of the conflicting rulings, the law will now go before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which will ultimately decide its fate.
Related Posts :
The setting: Lake Elmo, Minnesota. The players: An army of gay barbarians. The scene: The Barbarians dan ...
On Friday a significant decision was handed down regarding the personal accountability of a member of the Bu ...
What happens when a judge is having a bad day and they take it out on your constitutional righ ...
Trish Cameron, fifth grade teacher in Moorhead, Minnesota, is out of job. She was fired from t ...
You remember last year your outrage over North Carolina's "Choose Life" license plates (House Bill 289)? Che ...
7 Responses to Conflict in the Courts as Federal Judges Issue Divergent Rulings on Gay Conversion Quackery
Public Service Advertisements
Maranon
Dec. 5th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Since the adult gay community have grown defensive about the brain washing schemes of the controlling churches, now those church members are overreaching to more vulnerable populations, young people whose ignorant parents want them “repaired” because of their own inability to accept them as they are.
For parents of any child, their job is to guide them and protect them until they can be independent human beings, whatever their sexual orientaion may be.
The quakery needs to be dismissed as “non-proven” treatment, that while it is very profitable for the practicioner, may be harmful to the patient.
The practicioners need to remember the DO NO HARM
oat that guides health care.
KatzKids
Dec. 5th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
The 9th District Court will back the ban & I’m thinking that if they take it to the Supreme Court it might refuse to hear it.
When will the hate stop? Yah, I know, as long as there are religious extremists & hate mongers around, it will never stop. We just have to continue to stand up against it and never let the haters win. The time for complacency is long over.
Johnee
Dec. 5th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
No health care professional (mental or otherwise ) should be held to the whims of political ideology or religious belief. A psychiatrists job is to help a struggling patient deal with who they are, not “repair” or fix them.
This has nothing to do with the well being of the patient, but more about the selfish feelings of the parents and the community. They don’t really give a fig about really helping the child; it’s all about them feeling uncomfortable because being gay is so gross, icky,and sinful to them.
All this crap does is make a kid feel ashamed because he/she thinks there is something wrong with them
singhX
Dec. 10th, 2012 at 8:13 am
What you are saying is, these selfish parents are more worried about their persona and creating one for their child than becoming who they really are–it’s too painful, too hard to be in reality. Persona’s allow under-developed people to “play house” or “dress-up” (sort of like “The Romney”)
If their persona is ‘flawed’ it must me fixed to fit the peer pressure of their community (usually by more “layers” of neurotic crap)–in this case, it is their church.
Layering over a personality to cover ‘flaws’ only smoothers human beings. People who create “persona’s” usually wind-up in weird, neurotic desperation to rid themselves of their pain through other means (like addiction to suicidal ideation).
These ‘reparative counseling services” are literally teaching LBGT people to lie down on the “opium couch” and numb themselves as a curative…
A Walkaway
Dec. 5th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
The question that came to mind was “What schools are teaching this quackery?”.
I’d bet that it’s a handful of schools who teach that crap… all religious but trying to pass themselves off as more mainstream – and all Pentecostal or fundamentalist.
I just wish the schools would get shut down… then maybe we’d also not have so many teachers trying to sneak the Bible onto their classes, or “ministry” students being taught how to invade other churches in order to take over.
Plus we’d have an end to “counseling” students being taught the reparative therapy bullsh*t.
Reynardine
Dec. 5th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
“Adjusting” people against their will was a hallmark of the conformist Fifties: men who could not be organization men; women who could not be happy housewives; creative people who could not gray themselves down and fit into their “roles”- all were likely to be “adjusted”, even to the point of lobotomy. Kids were likely to be subjected to such regimes when their parents, socially cowed and narcissistically injured by principals, teachers, or neighbors, didn’t want their children embarrassing them any more. It hasn’t changed all that much.
A kid who approaches a school counselor about a problem, sexual or otherwise, might be mature enough to embark on a course of therapy. A kid dragged in to a therapist’s office so “you won’t make me ashamed of you any more” is another matter. Both children may need treatment. The first kid may have an independent grasp of therapeutic goals. If the second one does, they may not coincide with the parent’s. In both cases, it is the best interest of the minor patient, not the paying client, that must dictate the course of therapy.
A Walkaway
Dec. 7th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Best interest…
The problem is, a lot of therapists think they are the expert and know what is in the best interest of the person they’re ‘helping’. Reparation therapy is part of that horror – in this case the therapist/counselor thinks de-gaying is what the person needs, but as we know, that is unscientific and doesn’t work – and even the attempt is harmful.
They forget the number one rule of therapy/counseling – that their “job” is to help the person find their own solution.