« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Against California SB 1172

By: westcoastpatriette (Diary)  |  December 4th, 2012 at 01:05 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Rather than recap what took place in court last night, I will just paste the entire article from the Pacific Justice Institute here:

Sacramento, CA–In a pivotal 38-page ruling released this evening, United States District Court Judge William Shubb sided with Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) by granting their plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against California SB 1172—a new California law which prohibits licensed counseling of minors who seek to minimize or eliminate their same-sex-attraction.”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,” wrote Judge Shubb.

PJI plaintiffs include a licensed therapist, Donald Welch, a medical doctor and board certified psychiatrist, Anthony Duk, and a current student studying to be a therapist who has experienced beneficial sexual orientation change efforts, Aaron Bitzer.

“This victory sends a clear signal to all those who feel they can stifle religious freedom, free speech, and the rights of parents without being contested,” said PJI President, Brad Dacus. “We at PJI are ready to fight this battle all the way to the supreme court, if necessary. This will be a long enduring battle with tremendous consequences for generations to come. We are grateful to those who are willing to support us in this critical time to preserve our freedoms and protect our children,” he continued.

 

Here’s the diary I wrote last Friday for more background:  http://www.redstate.com/westcoastpatriette/2012/11/30/homo-fascists-in-california-are-really-pushing-the-envelope/

Needless to say, I am thrilled with the judge’s decision.

Sorry I am not more wordpress savvy.  I tried to block quote the article and it would not work.  Not sure what I am doing wrong.  I have the codes but they don’t seem to work.  I’ll keep working on it.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • westcoastpatriette

    Oh, that explains it. I was in visual mode and that’s why the angle-bracket codes did not work.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Thanks again, civil truth. I wrote a diary today on html and the code worked to highlight a direct link. I was just learning how to do this stuff right before the switch to disqus and the switch completely threw my game off for a while. Now I can write better diaries. :) )

  • mtmnd

    Looks like this issue is going to get plenty play in the courts, from many different directions. In New Jersey, former patients are suing a gay conversion therapist for fraud. http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/us/conversion-therapy-lawsuit/index.html
    From the article:

    The conversion therapy techniques included having them strip naked in group sessions, cuddling and intimate holding of others of the same-sex, violently beating an effigy of their mothers with a tennis racket, visiting bath houses “in order to be nude with father figures,” and being “subjected to ridicule as ‘faggots’ and ‘homos’ in mock locker room scenarios,” the suit said.

    . . . and . . .

    “[The therapist] initiated a discussion about Levin’s body and instructed Levin to stand in front of a full-length mirror and hold a staff,” the suit said. “Downing directed Levin to say one negative thing about himself, remove an article of clothing, then repeat the process. Although Levin protested and expressed discomfort, at Downing’s insistence, Levin submitted and continued until he was fully naked. Downing then instructed Levin to touch his penis and then his buttocks. Levin, unsure what to do but trusting in and relying on Downing, followed the instructions, upon which Downing said ‘good’ and the session ended.”

    Sick stuff.

    • westcoastpatriette

      streiff…yoohoo…where are you?

      • mtmnd

        Don’t worry I am not looking to discuss it with you. I just thought you might be interested.

    • civil truth

      Sounds like there’s a rather large tent covering “conversion therapy” including stuff that has no business being called therapy. Is there a professional society that defines acceptable practices?

      • mtmnd

        “Is there a professional society that defines acceptable practices?”

        I do not think that any major mental health professional organization or society condones any form of gay conversion therapy. Most such organizations (including the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, and the Royal College of Psychiatrists) have policies cautioning against and/or prohiting the practice altogether.

        The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality defends and promotes gay conversion therapy. Their mission statement from http://narth.com/menus/mission.html:

        We respect the right of all individuals to choose their own destiny. NARTH is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. As an organization, we disseminate educational information, conduct and collect scientific research, promote effective therapeutic treatment, and provide referrals to those who seek our assistance.

        NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care. We welcome the participation of all individuals who will join us in the pursuit of these goals.

        White it seems to be more of an advocacy group and not a sanctioning society, NARTH does offer what it calls “Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Same-Sex Attractions and Behavior” (http://www.scribd.com/doc/115508811/NARTH-Practice-Guidelines) but is careful to point out that the Guidelines “are not intended to serve as a standard of clinical care.” While the Guidelines are rather vague on specifics, “Guideline 6″ does “encourage” clinicians “to utilize accepted psychological approaches to psychotherapeutic interventions that minimize the risk of harm . . . ” and adds:

        Finally, in light of current research and professional ethics, some interventions for unwanted same-sex attractions and behavior are not recommended. These include shock therapy and other aversive techniques, so-called reparenting therapies, and coercive forms of religious prayer.

        • civil truth

          Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I found the links to NARTH to be helpful in terms of better defining the state of the SCOE advocates/defenders.

          It does seem clear to me that since some people feel they have benefited from treatment, that dogma and ideology play a significant role in the movement to outright ban the practice. On the other hand, the SCOE practicing community clearly needs to develop standards or care, accreditation, and exclude those who are unqualified or promoting unprofessional and harmful approaches. Some the techniques being reported are quite horrifying, not just the New Jersey lawsuit, but other reports I’ve seen.

          Unfortunately, the politicization of the issue makes it unlikely that such efforts to clean up SCOE and provide it a suitable place in the field of therapy will find much cooperation from the larger professional community. This just seems another example of a disturbing trend toward zealotry removing opposing views from the public arena – an approach that when the shoe was on the other foot was condemned as narrow-mindedness and intolerance.

          As an aside, I do find it curious that those who on the one hand argue for sexual privacy and the autonomy of adolescents to make decisions about sexual activity and abortion, discounting negative consequences – then turn around and reject sexual autonomy and privacy when it comes to adolescents trying to navigate their feelings about sexual attraction, etc. It seems that politics is trumping intellectual consistency.

          • westcoastpatriette

            A couple more points, civil truth. Keep in mind that the case in New Jersey is an extreme one (according to the article, the counselors were not licensed at all) and typical of examples used by the zealots who are determined to make professional counselors who may hold different views look like flakes.

            Also, I worked in mental health for twelve years and some of the larger psychological associations have become increasingly biased and politicized in their views and are using the mental health profession to legitimize and promote their beliefs regarding the etiology of homosexuality and the notion that “once gay, always gay.” Along the same lines, they are trying to gain a monopoly on acceptable treatment modalities and — for the most part — do not allow opposing views to be heard much less respected. This, in itself, is very unprofessional and unethical in my view as it “imposes” only one view as legitimate and refuses to acknowledge that there may be ways that homosexuals can change. The counselors job is to help the client achieve their goals — which might include a desire to change same-sex attraction — not the goals of the sociopolitical homosexual movement.

            In reality, there is and always has been a wide range of opinion and accepted practices and theories within the mental health profession — regardless of what kind of problems the client may present. That the homosexual movement is trying to control all professionals in their treatment of homosexuality and its accompanying problems is virtually unheard of and one more example of how intolerant they are in their attempts to dominate and control the narrative.

          • civil truth

            Indeed, SCOE advocates are being put into a classic double bind by a politicized mental health/behavioral science establishment that is unleashing its totalitarian instincts. Indeed, this orthodoxy is being imposed on students in counseling programs who are being kicked out or forced to submit to “sensitivity training” to change their convictions if they don’t conform to the dominant paradigm.

            As to often is the case, it’s “meet the new boss, same as the old boss”.

          • westcoastpatriette

            A minor correction…it’s SOCE not SCOE. Stands for “sexual orientation change efforts”. (Pardon me for being a stickler, but I suspect we will be hearing more about this as I am sure bills like SB 1172 are the next strategic step in their goals to legitimize homosexuality and I want you able to discuss the matter effectively in the future.) :) )

          • mtmnd

            While I appreciate the sincerity of your comments, I really cannot get myself to rally around those responsible for the horrors like in the NJ case and (as you mention) elsewhere. And even in cases where the so-called therapy is not as overtly cruel and predatory, my heart breaks for all those families who have been torn apart by the false promise of conversion, and especially for children who have suffered psychologically as a result of their failures in “therapy.”

            And when I think of the severity of the damage done, I have to question your apparent willingness to accept that “Sexual Orientation Change” therapy actually works. Especially given that there is no credible scientific evidence that it actually works, and when more and more of its advocates are finally admitting that it doesn’t. Two major examples from this year:
            – Exodus International has long been the largest ex-gay Christian group. Earlier this year the President of Exodus International, Alan Chambers, was asked about the possibility of gay conversion, the President of Exodus International candidly admitted that “99.9%” of those who had attempted to rid themselves of same-sex attractions had failed. As townhall.com put it, Chambers stated that “that reparative therapy does not work and that people can persist in homosexual behavior and still receive the salvation that Jesus offers.” http://townhall.com/news/religion/2012/07/25/alan_chambers_views_lost_in_translation
            – Those defending the gay conversion therapy had long relied on a 2001 study by the well respected Dr. Robert Spitzer in which he reported that some who had gone through the therapy had reported that a change in sexual orientation. The study seemed to provide the shred of scientific support otherwise lacking. NARTH’s “Guidelines” rely on it repeatedly. This year Dr. Robert Spitzer acknowledged that his study had severe and insurmountable methodological flaws and that it did not (and could not) verify that conversion therapy had actually resulted in changes in sexual orientation. He went so far as to apologize for “making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy” and to those who had wasted their time with the treatment.

            I know that my views on this issue conflict with many here, especially the more ardent social conservatives. But but for me, when I read what some of these kids have been put through in this type of therapy it makes me physically sick, and partisan posturing seems rather irrelevant. For me it isn’t an issue of pro-gay or anti-gay. It is that I don’t think conservatives (or anyone) should stand with these con-men and thieves who prey on families and children and holding out to them the false hope of conversion.

            Even when I try to look at less emotionally and more pragmatically, I have to wonder why social conservatives want to make this type of therapy a public political battle. Some these supposed therapies are coercive, evil, and downright sick, and even if the number is small and most therapists aren’t so bad, the public perception will be that the conservatives are supporting those who make a living by preying on some of our most vulnerable and most lost children.

  • mtmnd

    I hope I don’t upset westcoastpatriette for providing this update, but I thought she and others would like to know of a further development.

    As I explained on the other thread two separate cases were filed challenging the Constitutionality of the law. In the second case (Pickup v. Brown,) U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller refused to issue a temporary injunction, ruling that the constitutional challenge is unlikely to prevail. http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/05/5031383/us-judges-in-sacramento-clash.html
    Judge Mueller reportedly focused on the therapy as conduct, and not as pure speech. She thus avoided having to follow more stringent pure speech standards.