Speaking to the Minnesota Star-Tribune, Marcus Bachmann defended his clinic, protested that a recording of him was doctored, and defended the option to seek change of orientation.
Bachmann said a 2010 Point of View radio show was edited to make it appear he considered gays to be barbarians. He said he was speaking about teens in general and not gays specifically.
Bachmann also told the Star-Tribune that his clinic does not specialize in change therapy but would pursue it, at “the client’s discretion.”
Bachmann’s clinic has received $137,000 in Medicaid payments but defended this sum as helping low income clients.
I did not think Bachmann was a big player in gay change circles. While I was more involved in that world, I never heard of him or anyone in his clinic. To my knowledge, he has had no involvement at NARTH.
Sounds like his clinic needs an inservice in the SIT Framework.
If the radio program has been edited to create a false impression, then some red faces need to speak up. Someone surely has the original program and should make it available to the public today.
Update: The fellow who posted the audio of Bachmann referring to gay teens as barbarians says he did not doctor the audio and challenged the radio program to release the full podcast.
16 thoughts on “Marcus Bachmann defends his clinic”
Comments are closed.
The doctoring was that most outlets cut out the preceding 30-60 seconds which made it clearer that they were talking about adolescent experimentation in general.
It also should be pointed out that “barbarian” has several less pejorative definitions such as “primitive” or “unrefined” which make more sense in the context: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbarian
The gay lobby pulled a fast one on the public here and the media ate it up.
Waxxy,
Is this Preston again? LOL
I’ve listened to the entire recording and I promise you, he used the word Barbarian in response to a direct question about gay teens. You’re gay lobby accusations are nothing but a distraction from the Bachmann problem.
Great idea Warren…
It is going to take a while for everyone to move to SIT.
I doubt that TWO will go into clinics which are in urban centers and populated by agnostic or new age therapists and pose the same clinical challenge.
My hunch is you will get a different kind of “conversion therapy”…and I doubt they are aware or implement SIT…
it is a new framework and only embarrassment and client welfare will drive people to this useful tool.
Jayhuck,
I think I have responded elsewhere to this question…to Ken and Warren.
There are several very stark differences:
PP investigation was criminal vs. Bachmann ethical
PP recieves nearly all funding from the federal government vs. Bachman recieving some funding from federal government.
The counseling provided by PP in the interview is Federally Funded vs. Bachmann’s interview and treatment is privately paid (by insurer or client).
PP investigation had to do with a “core function” of the work there–abortions (they do much more, agree) vs. Bachmann had to do with a quite peripheral work they do there (if this were a NARTH clinic—spouse is running for President; bigger deal).
PP investigation involved coercing minors into treatment vs Bachman (TW0) was a voluntary self-referral.
I think Besen and TWO are making the wrong appeal to the wrong audience: They should be publicly calling on pastors and religious figures to condemn the mistreatment of Christian seeking clients will false information.
But that is not what he is doing, he is trying to make this about “conversion” therapy, as if the non-religious are being coerced by zealots into false treatment.
Christians are asking important questions of therapists; they deserve accurate, up to date information.
It troubles me how deeply and quickly people at the site here equate truly different scenarios in the name of justice. There is nothing so unfair as treating two different situations equally.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jul 16, 2011 at 1:09 pm
“PP investigation was criminal vs. Bachmann ethical”
There was no criminal investigation of Planned parenthood. Nor were any criminal charges filed against the employee. and while what that planned parenthood counselor did was questionably legal, that was one incident out of several that Live Action investigated.
“PP recieves nearly all funding from the federal government vs. Bachman recieving some funding from federal government.”
who told you that? According to Planned Parenthood Annual Report for 2007 only 33% of their funding came from government sources.
“PP investigation involved coercing minors into treatment vs Bachman (TW0) was a voluntary self-referral.”
1st, what minors where coerced into treatment at Planned Parenthood?
With regards to Bachmann, Ramirez case shows they do treat minors, fortunately for him, his mother didn’t force him to continue treatment. However, David, are you certain Bachmann & Associates, never treated a child who was forced into therapy by his/her parents (like Ryan Kendal was)?
“There is nothing so unfair as treating two different situations equally.”
and you want to ignore the similarities of the cases to justify one and condemn the other. the reality is, in both cases groups with a strong bias towards the target organizations, sent in undercover operatives to dig up dirt on the targets.
Waxxy,
Is this Preston again? LOL
I’ve listened to the entire recording and I promise you, he used the word Barbarian in response to a direct question about gay teens. You’re gay lobby accusations are nothing but a distraction from the Bachmann problem.
The doctoring was that most outlets cut out the preceding 30-60 seconds which made it clearer that they were talking about adolescent experimentation in general.
It also should be pointed out that “barbarian” has several less pejorative definitions such as “primitive” or “unrefined” which make more sense in the context: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/barbarian
The gay lobby pulled a fast one on the public here and the media ate it up.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jul 16, 2011 at 1:09 pm
“PP investigation was criminal vs. Bachmann ethical”
There was no criminal investigation of Planned parenthood. Nor were any criminal charges filed against the employee. and while what that planned parenthood counselor did was questionably legal, that was one incident out of several that Live Action investigated.
“PP recieves nearly all funding from the federal government vs. Bachman recieving some funding from federal government.”
who told you that? According to Planned Parenthood Annual Report for 2007 only 33% of their funding came from government sources.
“PP investigation involved coercing minors into treatment vs Bachman (TW0) was a voluntary self-referral.”
1st, what minors where coerced into treatment at Planned Parenthood?
With regards to Bachmann, Ramirez case shows they do treat minors, fortunately for him, his mother didn’t force him to continue treatment. However, David, are you certain Bachmann & Associates, never treated a child who was forced into therapy by his/her parents (like Ryan Kendal was)?
“There is nothing so unfair as treating two different situations equally.”
and you want to ignore the similarities of the cases to justify one and condemn the other. the reality is, in both cases groups with a strong bias towards the target organizations, sent in undercover operatives to dig up dirt on the targets.
Warren, et al, Here’s the link for the radio interview;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HAJoeiy4NHA
MSNBC, had aired it.
Warren, et al, Here’s the link for the radio interview;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HAJoeiy4NHA
MSNBC, had aired it.
Jayhuck,
I think I have responded elsewhere to this question…to Ken and Warren.
There are several very stark differences:
PP investigation was criminal vs. Bachmann ethical
PP recieves nearly all funding from the federal government vs. Bachman recieving some funding from federal government.
The counseling provided by PP in the interview is Federally Funded vs. Bachmann’s interview and treatment is privately paid (by insurer or client).
PP investigation had to do with a “core function” of the work there–abortions (they do much more, agree) vs. Bachmann had to do with a quite peripheral work they do there (if this were a NARTH clinic—spouse is running for President; bigger deal).
PP investigation involved coercing minors into treatment vs Bachman (TW0) was a voluntary self-referral.
I think Besen and TWO are making the wrong appeal to the wrong audience: They should be publicly calling on pastors and religious figures to condemn the mistreatment of Christian seeking clients will false information.
But that is not what he is doing, he is trying to make this about “conversion” therapy, as if the non-religious are being coerced by zealots into false treatment.
Christians are asking important questions of therapists; they deserve accurate, up to date information.
It troubles me how deeply and quickly people at the site here equate truly different scenarios in the name of justice. There is nothing so unfair as treating two different situations equally.
Clinic is the wrong word above – I should have said anti-abortion institutions
Clinic is the wrong word above – I should have said anti-abortion institutions
David,
Would you challenge those “investigative journalists” who tried to upset planned parenthood to do something similar with, lets say, anti-abortion clinics? I understand your political leanings but you seem so focused on your beliefs you fail to see the “truth” apparent in some of these situations.
David,
Would you challenge those “investigative journalists” who tried to upset planned parenthood to do something similar with, lets say, anti-abortion clinics? I understand your political leanings but you seem so focused on your beliefs you fail to see the “truth” apparent in some of these situations.
Great idea Warren…
It is going to take a while for everyone to move to SIT.
I doubt that TWO will go into clinics which are in urban centers and populated by agnostic or new age therapists and pose the same clinical challenge.
My hunch is you will get a different kind of “conversion therapy”…and I doubt they are aware or implement SIT…
it is a new framework and only embarrassment and client welfare will drive people to this useful tool.