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

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:46 AM

Judge Blocks California Ban On Gay Conversion Therapy

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by muriel_volestrangler (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: TPM



DAVID TAINTOR 8:43 AM EST, TUESDAY DECEMBER 4, 2012

A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California's ban on therapy that aims to convert minors from gay to straight, the LA Times reports:

U.S. District Judge William Shubb ruled that the new law, SB 1172, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown earlier this year, may inhibit the 1st Amendment rights of therapists who oppose homosexuality. The judge signed a temporary injunction that prohibits the state from enforcing the ban, the first of its kind in the nation, against the three plaintiffs in the suit pending trial.

-30-

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/judge-blocks-california-ban-on-gay-conversion-therapy

22 replies, 2141 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Judge Blocks California Ban On Gay Conversion Therapy (Original post)
DonViejo Dec 2012 OP
longship Dec 2012 #1
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #7
RKP5637 Dec 2012 #2
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #3
Plucketeer Dec 2012 #4
happyslug Dec 2012 #11
obama2terms Dec 2012 #5
earthside Dec 2012 #6
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #8
sdfernando Dec 2012 #9
dbackjon Dec 2012 #10
happyslug Dec 2012 #13
dbackjon Dec 2012 #14
happyslug Dec 2012 #18
dbackjon Dec 2012 #20
slackmaster Dec 2012 #12
Quantess Dec 2012 #15
slackmaster Dec 2012 #16
Sunlei Dec 2012 #17
blackspade Dec 2012 #19
dem4ward Dec 2012 #21
muriel_volestrangler Dec 2012 #22

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 08:57 AM

1. Bullshitza! Homosexuality isn't in the DSM.

At best, curing teh gay is quackery. At the worst, it's cruelty.

The practice of gay cure is not a free speech issue. Period!

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:39 AM

7. Neither is homeopathy and a bunch of other quackery.

Unfortunately, I think the best the state can do here is to ban the use of any state funds for this purpose. Things like that. Regulate such that they clearly state they have no goddamn medical licenses to practice this, and that it ISN'T a medical practice at all.

That way people aren't confused.

Banning it outright would be nice, but is problematic for other things.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:03 AM

2. Why to go judge, let's heap more misery on gay people, you know, free speech

and all. Just because someone becomes a judge, doesn't mean they're not an asshole. Hey, I still want to yell fire in crowded places, that's my right too, why not.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:11 AM

3. California: only State in history to revoke existing rights from their own.

Prop 8. No more needs to be said.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 09:20 AM

4. Another Dumb-Fuck judge

in the Clarence Thomas tradition.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Plucketeer (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:16 AM

11. Seems to be Democrat.

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.

The key is the actual wording of the Act, AND if the Act interferes with the Fundamental Right of Parents to raise they children as they see fit. The argument of the Plaintiff is that the US Supreme Court has long ruled it is a fundamental right of parents to raise they children as they see fit, and this law interferes with that Fundamental Right. In a case involving Grandparents Visitation Rights the US Supreme Court ruled that the State could NOT pass a law granting Grandparent's visitation over the objection of the surviving parent on the ground the parent has a Fundamental Right to raise they children even if that means cutting the children off from their Grandparents.

On the other hand if the law just makes such treatment illegal on the grounds the treatment cause actual harm to the child, then it should pass the issue of Fundamental Right of the parents.

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

Please note Section 1 of the Statute is just justification and explanation WHY the law was needed and thus made into law. Section 2 of the Statute is the Actual Law.

Subsection 865 is a list if Definitions. Subsection 865,1 and 865.2 are the actual heart of the law:

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.


Notice it states that as a MATTER OF LAW it is unprofessional conduct to do ANYTHING in regards to sexual orientation. It is NOT leaving that decision up to the professional themselves, even if such treatment may be considered proper and within the range of professional opinion as to that subject. Notice I use the term "Within range of Professional opinion", which is a broader term then if it is generally accepted. i.e. a minority position can be within the "Range of Professional Opinion" (In the 1700s it was generally accepted the earth was only 6000 years old, but it was within the range of professional opinion that is was much older, today 4.5 billion years is the overwhelming opinion of professionals in that field, thus a minority position can become the generally accepted position over time).

What is the Range of Professional opinion as to such treatment is up to the decision of the Judge to hear this case AND she is giving that opportunity not only to the lawyers for the Professionals who hold that such treatment is effective, but the opposition who say it is NOT. A possibility of a dispute as to the range of professional opinion seems to have been a concern of the State Legislature, thus why Section 1, the rationale for the law, is so long. i.e. the State Legislature wanted to make it clear that they were going by what the vast majority of professional support.

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, it starts out with a sentence that state it was a case involving a healthy and well treated children (i.e. NOTHING to do with neglect or abuse). 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. The law does NOT address THAT HARM (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.

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 which is the only harm NOT addressed by the actual law?

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 ware or if the child gets the chance to jump off a cliff? It is somewhere in between and the Judge gets to decide where.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:20 AM

5. The future

Don't worry this will end in 20 years when society finds out people like this are, well, bats***t crazy.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:21 AM

6. The judge is correct.

Sorry ... but as much as the proponents of 'gay conversion' are crazy, hateful, mean-spirited, etc., it is antithetical to the First Amendment for the government to stop individuals and groups from acting on their beliefs.

As long as no coercion or violence is involved, I support the right of religious nuts to be nutty.

I support the rights of alternative cancer treatment folks to even endanger their own lives and to make the argument for their viewpoint.

Liberals do favor liberty, you know.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:42 AM

8. Important to regulate/control though.

For instance, people practicing this cannot be allowed to 'sell it' as a legitimate medical practice. It's total snake oil/hokum.

Could also prohibit the use of state funds or any referral to such treatment by legit psychologists, etc.


Can't maybe prevent people from selling snake oil, but can prohibit them from misrepresenting what the oil does, if it does anything at all.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 10:49 AM

9. While I do see your point

this is not the same as a cancer patient choosing an alternative treatment. The vast majority if people subjected to this so called "therapy" do not go through this of their own choice. They are coerced into it by family or clergy mostly. I have yet to hear from anyone that has gone through this say they sought it out and did it willingly.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to earthside (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:07 AM

10. So you are ok with Child Abuse?

That is what this is.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:31 AM

13. Even the State Legislature did NOT make that claim.

Here is section 1 of the Law as passed by the California State Legislature, it is a list of why this law had to be passed, it lists problems of people who had gone through such treatment, but NONE of it connected DIRECTLY with the therapy. i.e. people who went through the therapy had problems adjusting to their homosexuality, but no abuse occurred while going through the actual therapy. That is different from child abuse, as child abuse is generally defined in this country.



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

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:39 AM

14. So you are ok with CHILD FUCKING ABUSE?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dbackjon (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:23 PM

18. Have you dealt with Child Abuse, I have represented people in child abuse cases

And NONE of what is claim meets any legal difinition of abuse. In fact in Section one, no such abuse is alleged is the treatment is ineffective AND is tied with with problems the child has later in life. That is NOT the same thing as the theapy being child abuse at least as that term is used in the legal system which is what we are discussing.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to happyslug (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:50 PM

20. Then you don't have a fucking clue about this then

Ex-gay "therapy" is child abuse, plain and simple.

If you can't understand that, then you have NO FUCKING BUSINESS representing anyone.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:19 AM

12. Stevie Wonder could have seen that one coming

 



IMO the law potentially runs afoul of federal HIPAA regulations, at least in terms of enforcement. I've been to therapists a few times in my life - What we discussed and what happened in those sessions is absolutely nobody's business but mine.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:40 AM

15. I think that was the wrong decision.

But I wonder what the ACLU thinks of it?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:45 AM

16. ACLU was silent. It was opposed by several associations representing counselors and therapists.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 11:49 AM

17. therapists like bachmans husband get their claws on easy state and federal taxpayer billions

And they will bring court cases for decades so the gravytrain lasts forever.

This is why states like Ca. are broke today and children with insurance (private or gov. like medicare fosterkids) are abused by the system.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:37 PM

19. How does it inhibit their free speech?

Abusing children is not free speech.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:37 PM

21. What's next?

 

Doctors get to decide whether or not to treat gay people because they don't "approve" of homosexuality or they run a "christian" practice. This freedom and religion bullshit is out of control. It's never freedom or "in the name of God" when any minority is discriminated upon or looses their rights. period. We are ALL created equal and we all bleed red.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 03:10 PM

22. Locking - duplicate thread

of http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014325174 . Please continue discussion there. Thanks.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink