HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Judge temporarily blocks ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:24 AM

Judge temporarily blocks Calif. gay therapy law

Source: Associated Press

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a first-of-its-kind law that bars licensed psychotherapists from working to change the sexual orientations of gay minors, but he limited the scope of his order to just the three providers who have appealed to him to overturn the measure.

U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb made a decision just hours after a hearing on the issue, ruling that the First Amendment rights of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals who engage in "reparative" or "conversion" therapy outweigh concern that the practice poses a danger to young people.

"Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech," Shubb wrote.

The judge also disputed the California Legislature's finding that trying to change young people's sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on "questionable and scientifically incomplete studies."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/Judge-temporarily-blocks-Calif-gay-therapy-law-4088434.php

30 replies, 3276 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge temporarily blocks Calif. gay therapy law (Original post)
Newsjock Dec 2012 OP
Ken Burch Dec 2012 #1
cecilfirefox Dec 2012 #2
Occulus Dec 2012 #4
msanthrope Dec 2012 #9
Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #11
Xithras Dec 2012 #6
nolabels Dec 2012 #8
happyslug Dec 2012 #16
Politicub Dec 2012 #21
happyslug Dec 2012 #24
Politicub Dec 2012 #20
happyslug Dec 2012 #25
Politicub Dec 2012 #29
Swede Atlanta Dec 2012 #28
Xithras Dec 2012 #30
Chef Eric Dec 2012 #10
Politicub Dec 2012 #17
happyslug Dec 2012 #22
azurnoir Dec 2012 #3
happyslug Dec 2012 #18
Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #5
Panasonic Dec 2012 #12
happyslug Dec 2012 #19
NickP Dec 2012 #7
alp227 Dec 2012 #13
happyslug Dec 2012 #23
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #14
FreeState Dec 2012 #15
happyslug Dec 2012 #26
FreeState Dec 2012 #27

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:40 AM

1. "Please, your honor, DON'T make us stop psychogically torturing gay teenagers...

...it's the ONLY way we can make a living!".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:54 AM

2. As a gay DUer, and a law student no less, the Judge made the right call-

Although I think there is substantial government interest in making such 'therapy' illegal on minors, the judge is right to be cautious before anything is effected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:14 AM

4. a law student should by now know the difference between affect and effect n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:19 AM

9. Ahem--laws do 'effect.' You would file a TRO, or similar, as in this case, before the 'effect' or

'effective date.' Laws that effect then affect.

Granted, his usage here is tortured, but it's not necessarily incorrect.


Give the poor law student a break--he's studying for finals!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:41 AM

11. And therefore, we feel no surprise that this one does

The word is used correctly in the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:57 AM

6. Agreed.

The judge didn't overturn the law and didn't block it for everyone. He simply pointed out that the law MAY impinge on free speech rights, and that enforcement should be limited until the courts take a look at it. Nobody here should have a problem with a judge deciding to REVIEW a law that limits speech. Caution is always justified when limiting freedoms. This is what the courts exist to do.

Both sides will have an opportunity to make their arguments. If the law was written properly, it will stand. If not, the legislature will have to try it again. With a super-majority in Sacramento, that SHOULD NOT be a problem.

Legal review is a fundamental and necessary step in a free society. This should have been expected by everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:04 AM

8. He found a get out jail card under his overly used robe.

It sounds like a pretty good stretch here but okay, another time out for a new game plan or just trying to run out the game clock. We have many folks out there who actually need and or maybe want help and care and then we have this bunch freaks trying to use psychology as some political game. Let alone the fact the mental midgets that want keep this kind of treatment going would also want to be destroying the treated subjects life and liberty in the process.

Yea, i would be for more review and freedom of speech too. How about reviewing these so called "credentialed" faculties that want to perform this kind of treatment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:17 PM

16. Actually the issue is the Constitutional Right to raise Children

It is a right the Supreme Court finds in the First Amendment as an additional right to those listed. It was first found in a case involving Grandparents Visitation Rights. The US Supreme Court ruled it was a Violation of the Fundamental Rights of Parents to raise their children as they saw fit when the State required a Parent to permit Visitation between the Parent's Children and the Children's grandparents when the parents disagreed with such visitation.

Thus is this law a violation of the Right of the Parent's to raise they children as they see fit? Or is this law just protection of Children from Child Abuse? The State of California is saying it is the later (i.e. child abuse), the Plaintiff is saying it is NOT child abuse but interference with how parents are to raise their children,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:27 PM

21. How can this be anything but child abuse? We need a new ERA movement that includes

LGBT protections NOW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:35 PM

24. It is clearly not PHYSICAL Child abuse

While the State of California says it is child abuse, that has been claimed for things like teaching German to children is child abuse AND the US Supreme Court rejected that argument in the 1920s on the grounds that such bans interfere with the fundamental right of Parents to raise they children as they see fit.

The Law in question, including Section 1 which states the finding of the State Legislature why this law should be passed:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172

While the State has jurisdiction to end child abuse, it can NOT interfere with the Fundamental Right of parents to raise they children as the parents see fit. In most cases those rights are NOT in conflict, in this case, as brought by the Plaintiff, it looks like the two rights are in conflict. Thus a judge has to decide which is the superior right in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:25 PM

20. This law isn't "speech." It deals with the practice of psychiatry.

Putting your kids through gay repair hell is the furthest thing from speech imaginable.

Why don't we do away with FDA requirements since we're violating the rights of quack medicine makers to say anything they want about their product?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:42 PM

25. Actually it is a Fundamental Right to Raise your Child Case

The Supreme Court, as early as the 1920s found that it was a Fundamental Right of Parents to raise they children as they see fit, with the narrow exception if what the parents are doing is clearly harmful to the children. It is thus one of the un-enumerated rights under the Bill of Rights. An un-enumerated right is a right that existed at the time the Bill of Rights were passed, but were NOT mentioned in the actual Bill of Rights. This includes the Right to Privacy and even the Right to an Abortion among other un-enumerated rights the courts have found since the passage of the post Civil War Amendments (the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments) that ended up extending the Bill of Rights to the States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:16 PM

29. Sometimes judicial precedent is wrong.

Courts sometimes reverse decisions or rid the law of archaic notions of morality. Ironically, the law has often been wrong as it applies to civil rights for women, minorities and gays.

I've seen the damage that psychological abuse has done to people. Can you imagine what it's like for a little boy or girl to be belittled, guilted or bullied by a psychologist because they may dress, speak or choose toys that are targeted at the opposite gender? Have some empathy. It isn't some kind of navel-gazing law school test question. Grievous harm results from such buffoonery.

Educate yourself on what's involved with some of these reparative schemes. Electrical shock therapy is often used.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to debate case law with you.

But I know this: The arc of history is bending toward justice for all lgbt people, including children.

Children deserve the right of not being subject to psychological abuse. And one day, much to the chagrin of people such as yourself, reparative therapies will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:01 PM

28. As a seasoned attorney this is bullcrap......

 

There is a significant difference between "free speech" in which you can express your personal views any subject and persons in a trusted relationship with "patients" in a setting whether commercial or non-commercial.

This is not about "free speech". This is about a person engaging in what the state, exercising its rightful powers, has determined is harmful conduct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 06:41 PM

30. But isn't that exactly what the judge wants to review?

"There is a significant difference between "free speech" in which you can express your personal views any subject and persons in a trusted relationship with "patients" in a setting whether commercial or non-commercial. "

I believe that's the crux of the question. Does the state have a right to regulate speech when it's in the context of a "professional relationship" between two individuals? I have long admitted to dropping out of law school in favor of pursuing a tech career, but it seems like a legitimate question to at least ASK. This is the reason these courts exist.

My lack of concern over this stems primarily from the fact that the judge declined to issue a general injunction against the law, which suggests that he isn't heavily biased against it. The only thing he's done is suspend enforcement of the law against these three specific plaintiffs until it can be reviewed more thorougly in a courtroom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 07:40 AM

10. The Judge is a gay DUer???

That's exactly what you state in your subject line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:21 PM

17. There's no place in modern psychiatry for torturing lgbt kids.

This was an important, groundbreaking law that will literally save lives.

The judge and you are wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cecilfirefox (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:18 PM

22. I should point out, this seems to be a Fundamental Right to Raise Children Case

I suspect the actual fight is NOT going to be over the actual effect of the Treatment, but to what extent is such treatment supported by professionals handing Homosexuality. The Plaintiff's will concede that most Professionals do NOT consider Homosexuality a curable disease (or a disease at all) but then go on that a sizable minority of Professionals do believe it is an effective treatment and good for some teenagers who are homosexuals. The Plaintiff will also present facts as to the extent the ban has professional support, i.e. do some of the professional who say such treatment is ineffective, also believe, based on their professional experience, if it is 100% ineffective.

On top of this, is it constitutional for the State to ban such treatment when the Parents want they children to go through such treatment? This is a variation of the US Supreme Court Case involving Grandparents Visitation. Can a State FORCE parents to send their children to the children's grandparents for visits on the grounds that it is in the best interest of the children, when the parents OBJECT to such visits? The US Supreme Court ruled no, for such visitation interferes with the Parent's right to raise their children as they see fit.

A similar argument can be made here, can the State object to a treatment that the parents want for their child? Now, I always liked the US Supreme Court Case involving Children and Grandparent's visitation rights, one sentence sums up the case:

First, the Troxels did not allege, and no court has found, that Granville was an unfit parent. That aspect of the case is important, for there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=530&page=57


I bring that up for the simple reason it applies here, no one is saying this treatment is "Harmful" to the Children, ineffective but no one is claiming physical or emotional harm EXCEPT that the child's family is NOT supportive of the Child's sexual orientation AND other long term problems for people who had undergone such treatment (See Section 1 of the Law). See the actual Law to see the arguments made to support passing the law:

Actual Law:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172

The law does NOT address Family rejection, except by making any treatment for homosexuality illegal and telling the family to accept what the family is unwilling to accept.

Thus you have a case where the Family wants one type of treatment for their Children, and the State wanting to make that treatment illegal. It would be an easy case if the treatment was clearly harmful, but no one is doing any physical harm to anyone, and no one is making a claim of any emotional harm to the children by just facing some treatment for being a Homosexual. The claim of harm is based on studies that show home LATER ON IN LIFE, not from direct application of the Therapy.

Please note, I use the term no physical harm for no one is being confined in a cell, no one is being beaten, no one is being otherwise physically harmed by the actions of the professionals who brought this action. At the same time the treatment involved some actions working on the mind of the child, but that can be said of any teacher teaching any subject.

Emotional harm is a difficult subject to define when you are dealing with any mental disorder (not that I am calling Homosexuality a Mental disorder, but the treatment involves the mind thus similar), thus can be subjective more then real (For this reason most State's Protection from Abuse Laws do NOT mention Emotional Abuse for they can NOT define it narrow enough to survive constitutional attack).

Thus the issue the Court will face is to what regard can the state over rule a parent's fundamental right send their children to received a Medical Treatment, when NO physical abuse is claimed and no emotional abuse is claimed but the state want to end it due to it being ineffective AND the only harm claimed by the State Legislature is the harm of rejection by the Child's family and other problems later in life where the rejection by the rest of the family is the only harm NOT addressed by the actual law?

In some ways the long term harm can be viewed like an injury a child get while playing football, is it abuse by parents to permit their children to play football? Even if the children suffer long term injury because of playing football? The answer is NO, on the other hand if a Parent decided it is in the best interest of the child to throw the child off a cliff, no one disputes that is clearly abuse and the State should step in a prevent it. In many ways this dispute is somewhere between those two extremes and thus the Judge has to decide where it is between those two extremes AND if it violates the Fundamental Rights of Parents to raise they children as the parents see fit.

This case is closer then it looks at first glance, it involves the fundamental right of a family to raise their children as they see fit subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State (such as going to School, having the Child Vaccinated, basic medical care and that the children are NOT exposed to high degree of physical or emotional harm). Where does this ban on "Curing" Homosexuality fits into balance? Is it closer to what the child's wares as clothing or if the child gets the chance to jump off a cliff? It is somewhere in between and the Judge gets to decide where.

Side note: This is clearly a case where TROXEL et vir. v. GRANVILLE is a factor, the issue is how will the court handle Troxel in this case? O'Connor, the author of Troxel is no longer on the court. Rehnquist is dead, thus leaving Ginsburg and Breyer as agreeing with the actual order.

As to the two concurring opinion, Souter is off the Court, but Thomas is still on the court. Stevens, Scalia and Kennedy dissented from the decision, but only Scalia is still on the bench (and he objected to the finding that the right was protected by the US Constitution, he would have remanded it by saying there is no FEDERAL constitutional right to raise your own children).

Will Scalia, if this case gets to the US Supreme Court, continue his position and state that this is an issue left up to the States? i.e vote to uphold the ban on the grounds the State gets to make that decision? Thomas has a better position, he agrees with the Rights of Parents is a fundamental right and thus I foresee him voting to overturn this law (and thus the only prediction I will make on this case).

On the other hand will Ginsburg and Breyer vote to overturn this law, on the grounds it does interfere with the fundamental right of parent to raise they children as they see fit? That is how they went in Troxel, but that requires them to overturn this anti-gay therapy law.

I foresee a big fight over this case, unless somehow the trial judge makes a ruling on the facts that the children involved are suffering from child abuse independent of this law (then that ends the whole case).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=530&page=57

My Favorite line in Troxel is as follows:

First, the Troxels did not allege, and no court has found, that Granville was an unfit parent. That aspect of the case is important, for there is a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.

In simple terms, unless the parents are unfit or otherwise causing harm to the children in their care, the State has to show good reasons for requiting the parents of the children to do or not to do things the parents thinks are in their children's best interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:02 AM

3. " saying it was based on "questionable and scientifically incomplete studies."

and orientation change therapy is based on what? how many more kids need to die before this judge is satisfied?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azurnoir (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:22 PM

18. No one claim anyone had died under this therapy, but that "abuse" has occurred

Here is the actual Statute in Question, the issue is did the state state enough rationale in Section 1 of the law to justify what it did in Section 2 of the law.


Senate Bill No. 1172
CHAPTER 835

An act to add Article 15 (commencing with Section 865) to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, relating to healing arts.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 1172, Lieu. Sexual orientation change efforts.
Existing law provides for licensing and regulation of various professions in the healing arts, including physicians and surgeons, psychologists, marriage and family therapists, educational psychologists, clinical social workers, and licensed professional clinical counselors.
This bill would prohibit a mental health provider, as defined, from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts, as defined, with a patient under 18 years of age. The bill would provide that any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject the provider to discipline by the provider’s licensing entity.
The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.
DIGEST KEY
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no
BILL TEXT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming. The major professional associations of mental health practitioners and researchers in the United States have recognized this fact for nearly 40 years.

(b) The American Psychological Association convened a Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. The task force conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts, and issued a report in 2009. The task force concluded that sexual orientation change efforts can pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, including confusion, depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources.

(c) The American Psychological Association issued a resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts in 2009, which states: “he advises parents, guardians, young people, and their families to avoid sexual orientation change efforts that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and to seek psychotherapy, social support, and educational services that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth.”

(d) The American Psychiatric Association published a position statement in March of 2000 in which it stated:
“Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or ‘repair’ homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of ‘cures’ are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, ‘reparative’ therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.
The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.
Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.”

(e) The American School Counselor Association’s position statement on professional school counselors and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth states: “It is not the role of the professional school counselor to attempt to change a student’s sexual orientation/gender identity but instead to provide support to LGBTQ students to promote student achievement and personal well-being. Recognizing that sexual orientation is not an illness and does not require treatment, professional school counselors may provide individual student planning or responsive services to LGBTQ students to promote self-acceptance, deal with social acceptance, understand issues related to coming out, including issues that families may face when a student goes through this process and identify appropriate community resources.”

(f) The American Academy of Pediatrics in 1993 published an article in its journal, Pediatrics, stating: “Therapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

(g) The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs prepared a report in 1994 in which it stated: “Aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians. Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the societal response to it.”

(h) The National Association of Social Workers prepared a 1997 policy statement in which it stated: “Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrates that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and, in fact, they may be harmful.”

(i) The American Counseling Association Governing Council issued a position statement in April of 1999, and in it the council states: “We oppose ‘the promotion of “reparative therapy” as a “cure” for individuals who are homosexual.’”

(j) The American Psychoanalytic Association issued a position statement in June 2012 on attempts to change sexual orientation, gender, identity, or gender expression, and in it the association states: “As with any societal prejudice, bias against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism through the internalization of such prejudice.
Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’ ‘repair,’ change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.”

(k) The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in 2012 published an article in its journal, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, stating: “Clinicians should be aware that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be altered through therapy, and that attempts to do so may be harmful. There is no empirical evidence adult homosexuality can be prevented if gender nonconforming children are influenced to be more gender conforming. Indeed, there is no medically valid basis for attempting to prevent homosexuality, which is not an illness. On the contrary, such efforts may encourage family rejection and undermine self-esteem, connectedness and caring, important protective factors against suicidal ideation and attempts. Given that there is no evidence that efforts to alter sexual orientation are effective, beneficial or necessary, and the possibility that they carry the risk of significant harm, such interventions are contraindicated.”

(l) The Pan American Health Organization, a regional office of the World Health Organization, issued a statement in May of 2012 and in it the organization states: “These supposed conversion therapies constitute a violation of the ethical principles of health care and violate human rights that are protected by international and regional agreements.” The organization also noted that reparative therapies “lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.”

(m) Minors who experience family rejection based on their sexual orientation face especially serious health risks. In one study, lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide, 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression, 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs, and 3.4 times more likely to report having engaged in unprotected sexual intercourse compared with peers from families that reported no or low levels of family rejection. This is documented by Caitlin Ryan et al. in their article entitled Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults (2009) 123 Pediatrics 346.

(n) California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, and in protecting its minors against exposure to serious harms caused by sexual orientation change efforts.

(o) Nothing in this act is intended to prevent a minor who is 12 years of age or older from consenting to any mental health treatment or counseling services, consistent with Section 124260 of the Health and Safety Code, other than sexual orientation change efforts as defined in this act.


SEC. 2. Article 15 (commencing with Section 865) is added to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, to read:
Article 15. Sexual Orientation Change Efforts

865. For the purposes of this article, the following terms   shall have the following meanings:

(a) “Mental health provider” means a physician and surgeon specializing in the practice of psychiatry, a psychologist, a psychological assistant, intern, or trainee, a licensed marriage and family therapist, a registered marriage and family therapist, intern, or trainee, a licensed educational psychologist, a credentialed school psychologist, a licensed clinical social worker, an associate clinical social worker, a licensed professional clinical counselor, a registered clinical counselor, intern, or trainee, or any other person designated as a mental health professional under California law or regulation.

(b) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.

865.1. Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age.

865.2. Any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject a mental health provider to discipline by the licensing entity for that mental health provider.


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:27 AM

5. Daddy Bush appointee.

Shubb is a federal judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Shubb was nominated by President George H. W. Bush on August 3, 1990,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Shubb

Arrrrghhhh!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:35 AM

12. In other words, a useless judge that should not have been considered.

 

Time to impeach him and remove him from the Eastern District of California.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:24 PM

19. Seems to be a Democrat, and anyway the case will be heard by another Democrartic Judge


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Shubb

He was Federal Prosecutor from 1980 to 1981 (i.e. Carter's last year) and, while appointed to the Judgeship by Bush Sr., in 1990. Federal Judges, while technically appointed by the President, are in reality selected by a State's Senators (If the President picks someone else, the nomination never gets to the floor of the Senate by Senate rules). In 1990 that would have been Barbara Boxer AND Republican Pete Wilson.

In this CBS Article another Judge is to hearing the actual legal Arguments, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57556372/californias-gay-reparative-therapy-ban-faces-legal-test/

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller is an Obama Appointee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_J._Mueller

Actual Text of Statute in Question:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:57 AM

7. "Questionable and scientifically incomplete" my ass!

It's a fact that conversion therapy is harmful and detrimental to the welfare and well-being of those involved. Multiple scientific, medical, and highly respected organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy, and the British Medical Association all state, based on facts, that conversion therapy is psychologically, emotionally, and mentally harmful and dangerous for those involved. They state that it's based on pseudo-science and is not based on factual scientific evidence.

It's also a fact that no "ex-gay" or "conversion" institution like NARTH or Exodus International has ever been able to present scientific facts or data that shows they are successful. Just the opposite, the studies show they are not at least 1% successful.

It's not surprise a Judge appointed by Dubya (GW Bush) would lack the intelligence necessary to understand this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickP (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:29 PM

13. Shrub (GHW Bush), not Dubya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:19 PM

23. To be heard by a Obama appointee:


In this CBS Article another Judge is to hearing the actual legal Arguments, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57556372/californias-gay-reparative-therapy-ban-faces-legal-test/

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller is an Obama Appointee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_J._Mueller

Actual Text of Statute in Question:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:10 PM

14. Kick (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 04:05 PM

15. UPDATE: A second federal judge in a second case on Tuesday issued a contrary ruling

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/gay-change-therapy-ban-likely-violates-first-ame

It should also be noted the ruling in the OP only halts the law for those involved in the case:

The National Center for Lesbian Rights has supported the law and opposed the lawsuit.
"We are disappointed by the ruling but very pleased that the temporary delay in implementing this important law applies only to the three plaintiffs who brought this lawsuit. We are confident that as the case progresses, it will be clear to the court that this law is fundamentally no different than many other laws that regulate health care professionals to protect patients," its legal director, Shannon Minter, said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FreeState (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:46 PM

26. That is the same Judge involved in this case.

The Senior Judge issued the restriction but as I pointed out above, this case will be heard by an Obama appointee.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Shubb

He was Federal Prosecutor from 1980 to 1981 (i.e. Carter's last year) and, while appointed to the Judgeship by Bush Sr., in 1990. Federal Judges, while technically appointed by the President, are in reality selected by a State's Senators (If the President picks someone else, the nomination never gets to the floor of the Senate by Senate rules). In 1990 that would have been Barbara Boxer AND Republican Pete Wilson.

In this CBS Article another Judge is to hearing the actual legal Arguments, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57556372/californias-gay-reparative-therapy-ban-faces-legal-test/

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller is an Obama Appointee:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberly_J._Mueller

Actual Text of Statute in Question:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201120120SB1172

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 05:59 PM

27. Its a separate case - not the same judge

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2019825547_apusgaytherapy.html

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller on Tuesday refused to block the law after concluding that opponents who have sued in her Sacramento court to overturn it were unlikely to prove the ban on "conversion" therapy violates their civil rights.

The opponents argued the law would make them liable for discipline if they merely recommended the therapy to patients or discuss it with them. Mueller said they didn't demonstrate that they were likely to win, so she wouldn't block the law.

Mueller issued her decision in a lawsuit filed by four counselors, two families, a professional organization for practitioners and a Christian therapists group. It came half a day after her colleague, U.S. District Judge William Shubb, handed down a somewhat competing ruling in a similar, but separate lawsuit.

Saying he found the First Amendment issues presented by the ban to be compelling, he ordered the state to temporarily exempt three people named in the case before him - two mental health providers and a former patient who is studying to practice sexual orientation change therapy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread