According to the Washington Post, a CA Senate committee voted to refer CA Senate Bill 1172 to the full Senate for a vote. SB 1172 would require practitioners of sexual orientation change efforts to get written informed consent from adult clients and prohibit such interventions for those under 18.
The bill defines SOCE as:
“Sexual orientation change efforts” means psychotherapy aimed at altering the sexual or romantic desires, attractions, or conduct of a person toward people of the same sex so that the desire, attraction, or conduct is eliminated or reduced or might instead be directed toward people of a different sex. It does not include psychotherapy aimed at altering sexual desires, attractions, or conduct toward minors or relatives or regarding sexual activity with another person without that person’s consent.
The bill is opposed by the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, as well as the CA Psychological Association, the CA associations of psychiatrists, clinical counselors and marriage and family therapists. The CPA testified on April 23, that “the statutory ban on types of therapy is not the right venue.” They also believe the bill micromanages the work of therapists. The CPA would favor a bill without an outright ban that required written informed consent.
I have concerns with the inclusion of the word “conduct” in the definition of SOCE. The 2009 APA report made a distinction between orientation and sexual orientation identity. Also, change of conduct is considered within the choice of the client. Therapists can ethically work with clients to change actions without making any effort to change attractions, if the client desires such change. This bill attempts to regulate the behavioral choices of citizens, something I oppose.
Although I agree with the CA professional associations and oppose the bill as written, I understand the urgency of those who support the bill. Too many teens are brought to therapists with the hope that some kind of therapy will change them. I also think NARTH has brought this on themselves via their irresponsible statements about sexual orientation and therapy over the years. I could definitely support a bill that would require therapists to inform clients and families about the lack of evidence to support the claims of SOCE therapists.
You can’t be serious.
Michael Bussee asked:
May 11, 2012 at 11:08 am
“Why a law?”
Because the various medical/psychological/social work and counseling associations haven’t set any such standards. Also, not everyone who might attempt SOCE requires a license.
Why haven’t they set this standard? They set standards for other things related to patient care. I don’t get it.
In case you didn’t read the URL I gave you… there are still a tiny handful of therapists who will authorise leucotomies to “get rid of the gay” in “pre-homosexual” 8-yr olds.
NARTH is by no means the worst – just one of the worst in the mainstream. On the fringes, it can get pretty bad.
Seems like it didn’t take NARTH very long to oppose legislation what would make it mandatory for providers to give clients informed consent about SOCE.
That got me thinking.
How long did it take NARTH to express official opposition to legisation in Uganda that would actually mandate such “treatment”?
Michael – To my knowledge, NARTH never did oppose the idea.
Warren – how to say this.
You’re an innocent. You have no idea what happens, rarely, only in a few dark corners, but happens nonetheless.
http://inchoaterica.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/its-not-the-way-im-meant-to-be-its-just-the-way-the-operation-made-me/
I rarely have to help cases quite as nightmarish as that.
Every consumer has the right to informed consent. And kids should not be subjected to unproven and potentially harmful “treatment”.
an altered version of this law was passed sunday. Set to take effect Jan. 1 2013.
the major revision is that now the law ONLY applies to minors, not adults. The previous disclaimer that was required for adult therapy has been dropped.
You can read the final version here:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml;jsessionid=3c5558b81c8d5c52a990cde6cf93
(or if that doesn’t work go to: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ and search on bill sb-1172).. An
According to the CNN article NARTH is going to be challenging the law. that should be good. I think whomever takes the stand for NARTH is going to learn the hard way that testifying under oath is a LOT different than giving distortions of research on a web site. 🙂
an altered version of this law was passed sunday. Set to take effect Jan. 1 2013.
the major revision is that now the law ONLY applies to minors, not adults. The previous disclaimer that was required for adult therapy has been dropped.
You can read the final version here:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml;jsessionid=3c5558b81c8d5c52a990cde6cf93
(or if that doesn’t work go to: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/ and search on bill sb-1172).. An
According to the CNN article NARTH is going to be challenging the law. that should be good. I think whomever takes the stand for NARTH is going to learn the hard way that testifying under oath is a LOT different than giving distortions of research on a web site. 🙂
Actually, Ann, you said:
Since there can be only one “truth” your statement then, and now, makes no sense. That DavidL assumed your passive-agressive intent doesn’t make it any more correct, he just skipped calling you out on it. If you want to dispute SGM’s conclusions, try doing so directly without the attitude. That would truly be refreshing.
In fact, it appears she was asking SGM’s opinion of the truth.
David L,
Yes, SGM made a request for anyone to go to the site and speak the truth – I was interested in the truth she was referring to. Thanks for reading my comment with discernment – it certainly is refreshing.
Actually, Ann, you said:
Since there can be only one “truth” your statement then, and now, makes no sense. That DavidL assumed your passive-agressive intent doesn’t make it any more correct, he just skipped calling you out on it. If you want to dispute SGM’s conclusions, try doing so directly without the attitude. That would truly be refreshing.
SG: Re: mercatornet, Sorry, SG, but, I’m done with that site. Given the way the moderator’s select posts, it is impossible to try to hold any kind of rational discussion there.
Back to this topic. I think I’d suggest rewording the definition of SOCE the bill gives as follows:
By simply changing the last “or” to an “and” this eliminates cases where a therapist may only be helping someone to lead a celibate life (or even just reduce desires/activities toward casual sex).
In fact, it appears she was asking SGM’s opinion of the truth.
David L,
Yes, SGM made a request for anyone to go to the site and speak the truth – I was interested in the truth she was referring to. Thanks for reading my comment with discernment – it certainly is refreshing.
Minors can’t give consent. Their parents can coerce them into signing anything. Your position is unethical.
SG: Re: mercatornet, Sorry, SG, but, I’m done with that site. Given the way the moderator’s select posts, it is impossible to try to hold any kind of rational discussion there.
Back to this topic. I think I’d suggest rewording the definition of SOCE the bill gives as follows:
By simply changing the last “or” to an “and” this eliminates cases where a therapist may only be helping someone to lead a celibate life (or even just reduce desires/activities toward casual sex).
Minors can’t give consent. Their parents can coerce them into signing anything. Your position is unethical.
You can’t be serious.
David Roberts said:
“Actually, change of orientation or sexual attractions as a result of a conscious effort of any kind appears to happen rarely if ever. ”
What’s with Travolta? By the remark I quoted above it seems that he “as a result of conscious effort” got used to homosexual conduct and then learned to enjoy it. (Why shouldn’t that work in the opposite direction, too?)
I’m with you as long as you’re only speaking about the kind of effort which is used in present SOCE therapy or ministry. But not in general.
CNN Highlights Experiences Of Ex-Gay Survivors As California Bill Advances.
“On Friday, CNN did some excellent reporting on the bill and the therapy in question. One segment featured the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Ted Lieu (D), as well as American Prospect’s Gabriel Arana, who himself is an ex-gay survivor. Then, Anderson Cooper 360 highlighted another ex-gay survivor, Ryan Kendall, and confronted his therapist, the infamous Joseph Nicolosi.” ~ Zack Ford
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/14/483708/cnn-highlights-experiences-of-ex-gay-survivors-as-california-bill-advances/?mobile=nc
David Roberts said:
“Actually, change of orientation or sexual attractions as a result of a conscious effort of any kind appears to happen rarely if ever. ”
What’s with Travolta? By the remark I quoted above it seems that he “as a result of conscious effort” got used to homosexual conduct and then learned to enjoy it. (Why shouldn’t that work in the opposite direction, too?)
I’m with you as long as you’re only speaking about the kind of effort which is used in present SOCE therapy or ministry. But not in general.
CNN Highlights Experiences Of Ex-Gay Survivors As California Bill Advances.
“On Friday, CNN did some excellent reporting on the bill and the therapy in question. One segment featured the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Ted Lieu (D), as well as American Prospect’s Gabriel Arana, who himself is an ex-gay survivor. Then, Anderson Cooper 360 highlighted another ex-gay survivor, Ryan Kendall, and confronted his therapist, the infamous Joseph Nicolosi.” ~ Zack Ford
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/14/483708/cnn-highlights-experiences-of-ex-gay-survivors-as-california-bill-advances/?mobile=nc
Men and women. I know of no legitimate data which indicates that women can consciously change their orientation as an act of will anymore than men can. There are some sketchy data on women being more fluid in their sexuality, but there is no way to know if we are talking about orientation change there. At any rate, the change, whatever it might be, if it be, in the case of women tends to happen on its own.
The bottom line so far still stands; any individual who is soundly and exclusively rooted in their sexual orientation — heterosexual or homosexual — is not likely to waver from that orientation by act of will or anything else. With each new bit of legitimate information this only becomes more certain.
David Roberts – Your statement makes no sense, since Ann was asking a question. In fact, it appears she was asking SGM’s opinion of the truth. The question was a little too open ended for my taste but I had no trouble making sense of it.
Of beliefs there are plenty but only one truth. As such, your statement makes no sense, Ann.
I reached my limit of 5 comments per person so if anyone else can go over there and speak the truth that would be great.
SGM,
What and whose truth are you referring to?
Men and women. I know of no legitimate data which indicates that women can consciously change their orientation as an act of will anymore than men can. There are some sketchy data on women being more fluid in their sexuality, but there is no way to know if we are talking about orientation change there. At any rate, the change, whatever it might be, if it be, in the case of women tends to happen on its own.
The bottom line so far still stands; any individual who is soundly and exclusively rooted in their sexual orientation — heterosexual or homosexual — is not likely to waver from that orientation by act of will or anything else. With each new bit of legitimate information this only becomes more certain.
David Roberts – Your statement makes no sense, since Ann was asking a question. In fact, it appears she was asking SGM’s opinion of the truth. The question was a little too open ended for my taste but I had no trouble making sense of it.
Of beliefs there are plenty but only one truth. As such, your statement makes no sense, Ann.
I reached my limit of 5 comments per person so if anyone else can go over there and speak the truth that would be great.
SGM,
What and whose truth are you referring to?
Dr Fitzgibbons(NARTH, American Academy of Pediatrics) is back on the internet lying again. I don’t know why he does that, he can see that I am there posting and I will expose him and his lies. I reached my limit of 5 comments per person so if anyone else can go over there and speak the truth that would be great. You comments may not show up for 12 hours as it is moderated, and there is a 300 word limit. Ken, bless him frequently comments there and tells the truth. I am not that good at writing up comments and Ken is, so I so much appreciate him.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/obama_devolves/
Make sure and expand the comments to see them all.
Dr Fitzgibbons(NARTH, American Academy of Pediatrics) is back on the internet lying again. I don’t know why he does that, he can see that I am there posting and I will expose him and his lies. I reached my limit of 5 comments per person so if anyone else can go over there and speak the truth that would be great. You comments may not show up for 12 hours as it is moderated, and there is a 300 word limit. Ken, bless him frequently comments there and tells the truth. I am not that good at writing up comments and Ken is, so I so much appreciate him.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/obama_devolves/
Make sure and expand the comments to see them all.
David is correct. For men, “change of orientation or sexual attractions as a result of a conscious effort of any kind appears to happen rarely if ever.”
So what about women? Alan Chambers says “99.9% don’t change their sexual orientation” — and he seems to be including women in this number.
At GCN he said: “I think there is a gender issue there, there are some women who have challenged me and said that my orientation or my attractions have changed completely. Those have been few and far between.”
If we are talkking about men – then yes.
Actually, change of orientation or sexual attractions as a result of a conscious effort of any kind appears to happen rarely if ever. Even the leaders of the largest “ex-gay” organizations are admitting this now. So your wording, “change does not always happen” is quite the understatement.
David is correct. For men, “change of orientation or sexual attractions as a result of a conscious effort of any kind appears to happen rarely if ever.”
So what about women? Alan Chambers says “99.9% don’t change their sexual orientation” — and he seems to be including women in this number.
At GCN he said: “I think there is a gender issue there, there are some women who have challenged me and said that my orientation or my attractions have changed completely. Those have been few and far between.”
Zoe,
I just read the link you put out there for inchoaterica. Very eye opening and poignant. It makes my heart break but am so glad to read about the strength and ambition of another human being beating the statistics.
Anyhow, at first I thought, parents should have a say so in their child’s medical treatment. After reading that article, I have changed my mind. There needs to be advocates for children against dangerous non-proven medical or psychological treatment. And SOCE is not proven to the same standard as other treatments for say depression, addiction etc….
I have found that for myself, being in therapy over my sexuality issues has helped me. But that is not a decision that a parent can make for a child if they are expecting a certain outcome – change. Change does not always happen and children can be greatly harmed by the oft maladapted goals of others.
Thank you for your persistence to continue writing and sharing your insights.
If we are talkking about men – then yes.
Actually, change of orientation or sexual attractions as a result of a conscious effort of any kind appears to happen rarely if ever. Even the leaders of the largest “ex-gay” organizations are admitting this now. So your wording, “change does not always happen” is quite the understatement.
I’m going to go along with Ken here. Professional bodies have done a poor job of dealing with this issue and people providing SOCE don’t have to be licensed anyway. If indeed the major effect here is simply to prevent such therapy for minors, insure informed consent for adults, and a path for civil suits against those who promise things not supported by professional findings, then I’m all for it.
I suspect they have included “conduct” to preempt the use of this as a loophole to get around the primary practice at issue. Homosexuality is not an illness. Someone wishing to change the behavior associated with their (homo-) sexuality should be treated as would be the person who claims their religion or their god requires them to express no sexuality at all (heterosexual or homosexual).
How would a celibate priest who has issues with behavior be diagnosed and treated by a licensed psychiatrist? It is a legitimate issue yet certainly their (hetero-) sexuality would not be classified as an illness, would it?
Zoe,
I just read the link you put out there for inchoaterica. Very eye opening and poignant. It makes my heart break but am so glad to read about the strength and ambition of another human being beating the statistics.
Anyhow, at first I thought, parents should have a say so in their child’s medical treatment. After reading that article, I have changed my mind. There needs to be advocates for children against dangerous non-proven medical or psychological treatment. And SOCE is not proven to the same standard as other treatments for say depression, addiction etc….
I have found that for myself, being in therapy over my sexuality issues has helped me. But that is not a decision that a parent can make for a child if they are expecting a certain outcome – change. Change does not always happen and children can be greatly harmed by the oft maladapted goals of others.
Thank you for your persistence to continue writing and sharing your insights.
I’m going to go along with Ken here. Professional bodies have done a poor job of dealing with this issue and people providing SOCE don’t have to be licensed anyway. If indeed the major effect here is simply to prevent such therapy for minors, insure informed consent for adults, and a path for civil suits against those who promise things not supported by professional findings, then I’m all for it.
I suspect they have included “conduct” to preempt the use of this as a loophole to get around the primary practice at issue. Homosexuality is not an illness. Someone wishing to change the behavior associated with their (homo-) sexuality should be treated as would be the person who claims their religion or their god requires them to express no sexuality at all (heterosexual or homosexual).
How would a celibate priest who has issues with behavior be diagnosed and treated by a licensed psychiatrist? It is a legitimate issue yet certainly their (hetero-) sexuality would not be classified as an illness, would it?
I am not a licensed therapist. I am retired now. I may be overly hopeful that some sort of standard could be set. I am not sure how it would work or who would enforce it.
Michael Bussee says:
May 11, 2012 at 3:54 pm
“Why haven’t they set this standard? They set standards for other things related to patient care. I don’t get it.”
Who is “they” Michael? What single organization, besides the state, could set a policy regarding SOCE that would apply to ALL possible people who could give some sort of SOCE therapy? And if you are referring to multiple organizations how do you get them all co-ordinated? And what enforcement powers do they have? Professional organizations (like the APA or the AMA etc) do not issue licenses, the states do that. Granted many states do rely on some professional organizations for the guidelines, but that isn’t the same as those organizations being able to revoke licenses or, as in this case, define what can be actionable through the civil courts.
Aren’t you a licensed counselor michael?
I am not a licensed therapist. I am retired now. I may be overly hopeful that some sort of standard could be set. I am not sure how it would work or who would enforce it.
Aren’t gays the one’s who pressured the APA to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness? Aren’t they the ones who control the APA to this day? If so, why can’t they regulate “reparative therapy”?
Michael Bussee says:
May 11, 2012 at 3:54 pm
“Why haven’t they set this standard? They set standards for other things related to patient care. I don’t get it.”
Who is “they” Michael? What single organization, besides the state, could set a policy regarding SOCE that would apply to ALL possible people who could give some sort of SOCE therapy? And if you are referring to multiple organizations how do you get them all co-ordinated? And what enforcement powers do they have? Professional organizations (like the APA or the AMA etc) do not issue licenses, the states do that. Granted many states do rely on some professional organizations for the guidelines, but that isn’t the same as those organizations being able to revoke licenses or, as in this case, define what can be actionable through the civil courts.
Aren’t you a licensed counselor michael?
If these organizations can agree that homosexuality is not an illness needing “treatment”, why can’t they reprimand practitioners who still treat it as though it is?
Or at least require that the folks they issue licenses to must give informed consent about SOCE to their clients and them about the harm it may cause, particularly to minors?
Why haven’t they set this standard? They set standards for other things related to patient care. I don’t get it.
Michael Bussee asked:
May 11, 2012 at 11:08 am
“Why a law?”
Because the various medical/psychological/social work and counseling associations haven’t set any such standards. Also, not everyone who might attempt SOCE requires a license.
Aren’t gays the one’s who pressured the APA to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness? Aren’t they the ones who control the APA to this day? If so, why can’t they regulate “reparative therapy”?
If these organizations can agree that homosexuality is not an illness needing “treatment”, why can’t they reprimand practitioners who still treat it as though it is?
Or at least require that the folks they issue licenses to must give informed consent about SOCE to their clients and them about the harm it may cause, particularly to minors?
In case you didn’t read the URL I gave you… there are still a tiny handful of therapists who will authorise leucotomies to “get rid of the gay” in “pre-homosexual” 8-yr olds.
NARTH is by no means the worst – just one of the worst in the mainstream. On the fringes, it can get pretty bad.
Why a law? I wonder why the various medical/psychological/social work and counseling associations don’t just set the ethical and “best practice” standard that SOCE is unproven and potentially harmful — and expect their members to act accordingly or face losing their license?
Why a law? I wonder why the various medical/psychological/social work and counseling associations don’t just set the ethical and “best practice” standard that SOCE is unproven and potentially harmful — and expect their members to act accordingly or face losing their license?
I am all for this law. You know what, we don’t sell cigarettes to children under the age of 18 and we put a big warning on the packages we sell to adults.
It is our job as the adults to protect our children. If they want to go to Nicolosi when they are of age, as long as they are properly warned I have no problem with that. It is a free country. But while they are children I do think we need to protect them in law because so many parents force their kids into this.
Ken,
I meant (and should have said) that the bill prohibits SOCE for the underaged (not for the adult).
I’m not against congress protecting children from “unproven and potentially harmful treatment” (as Michael Bussee formulated). But then congress ought to say so explicitly; he shouldn’t presuppose that any kind of SOCE must necessarily be unproven and potentially harmful.
As I’ve said before: There are a lot of reports about spontaneous SOC which are not yet explored and which might deepen our understanding about sexual orientation. Take for example the alleged remarks of John Travolta which came up in the present sexual harassment lawsuit (as quoted in http://www.isteve.blogspot.com under May 9,2012):
8. “Defendant [John Travolta] began screaming at Plaintiff, telling Plaintiff how selfish he was; that Defendant got to where he is now due to sexual favors he had performed when he was in his Welcome Back, Kotter days; and that Hollywood is controlled by homosexual Jewish men who expect [to dole out?] favors in return for sexual activity. Defendant then went on to say how he had done things in his past that would make most people throw up.”
9. “Defendant explained when he started that he wasn’t even gay … Defendant also said that he was smart enough to learn to enjoy it, and when he began to make millions of dollars, that it all became well worth it.”
Michael – To my knowledge, NARTH never did oppose the idea.
Seems like it didn’t take NARTH very long to oppose legislation what would make it mandatory for providers to give clients informed consent about SOCE.
That got me thinking.
How long did it take NARTH to express official opposition to legisation in Uganda that would actually mandate such “treatment”?
Every consumer has the right to informed consent. And kids should not be subjected to unproven and potentially harmful “treatment”.
I am all for this law. You know what, we don’t sell cigarettes to children under the age of 18 and we put a big warning on the packages we sell to adults.
It is our job as the adults to protect our children. If they want to go to Nicolosi when they are of age, as long as they are properly warned I have no problem with that. It is a free country. But while they are children I do think we need to protect them in law because so many parents force their kids into this.
Ken,
I meant (and should have said) that the bill prohibits SOCE for the underaged (not for the adult).
I’m not against congress protecting children from “unproven and potentially harmful treatment” (as Michael Bussee formulated). But then congress ought to say so explicitly; he shouldn’t presuppose that any kind of SOCE must necessarily be unproven and potentially harmful.
As I’ve said before: There are a lot of reports about spontaneous SOC which are not yet explored and which might deepen our understanding about sexual orientation. Take for example the alleged remarks of John Travolta which came up in the present sexual harassment lawsuit (as quoted in http://www.isteve.blogspot.com under May 9,2012):
8. “Defendant [John Travolta] began screaming at Plaintiff, telling Plaintiff how selfish he was; that Defendant got to where he is now due to sexual favors he had performed when he was in his Welcome Back, Kotter days; and that Hollywood is controlled by homosexual Jewish men who expect [to dole out?] favors in return for sexual activity. Defendant then went on to say how he had done things in his past that would make most people throw up.”
9. “Defendant explained when he started that he wasn’t even gay … Defendant also said that he was smart enough to learn to enjoy it, and when he began to make millions of dollars, that it all became well worth it.”
I also find the word “conduct” a bit vague and troubling. Is conduct strictly defined as sexual activity or is behavior included in its definition? From what I’ve read, SOCE therapy often confuses orientation with gender and applies cultural gender stereotypes to curing homosexuality.
I am curious, Warren, about your opinion of the proposed disclaimer. Does it say everything it should? Does it overstate anything?
Patrocles says:
May 10, 2012 at 7:16 am
“The bill seems to prohibit SOCE under all conditions, even if some day there would be a kind of SOCE which is effective and not too painful.”
On what do you base this claim that it would prohibit SOCE “under all conditions?” the bill specifically allows SOCE (of any type) for adults provided the disclaimer is provided, and written consent of the patient is received. Further, the bill allows for civil action (i.e. the therapist can be sued for damages), and doesn’t make it a criminal offense to try SOCE. So basically it is saying to the therapist “you had better be pretty sure you know what you are doing or it could cost you.”
Professor: I really wish you would stop being so sensible…lol.
I also find the word “conduct” a bit vague and troubling. Is conduct strictly defined as sexual activity or is behavior included in its definition? From what I’ve read, SOCE therapy often confuses orientation with gender and applies cultural gender stereotypes to curing homosexuality.
I am curious, Warren, about your opinion of the proposed disclaimer. Does it say everything it should? Does it overstate anything?
Patrocles says:
May 10, 2012 at 7:16 am
“The bill seems to prohibit SOCE under all conditions, even if some day there would be a kind of SOCE which is effective and not too painful.”
On what do you base this claim that it would prohibit SOCE “under all conditions?” the bill specifically allows SOCE (of any type) for adults provided the disclaimer is provided, and written consent of the patient is received. Further, the bill allows for civil action (i.e. the therapist can be sued for damages), and doesn’t make it a criminal offense to try SOCE. So basically it is saying to the therapist “you had better be pretty sure you know what you are doing or it could cost you.”
The bill seems to prohibit SOCE under all conditions, even if some day there would be a kind of SOCE which is effective and not too painful. (That implies, that the bill discourages people from looking for such a kind of SOCE.)
Somewhat over the top, and at the time too unprincipled – it seems that state may intrude in the therapy of minors just when state wants and not defined by explicit conditional clauses.
Professor: I really wish you would stop being so sensible…lol.
Warren – how to say this.
You’re an innocent. You have no idea what happens, rarely, only in a few dark corners, but happens nonetheless.
http://inchoaterica.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/its-not-the-way-im-meant-to-be-its-just-the-way-the-operation-made-me/
I rarely have to help cases quite as nightmarish as that.
The bill seems to prohibit SOCE under all conditions, even if some day there would be a kind of SOCE which is effective and not too painful. (That implies, that the bill discourages people from looking for such a kind of SOCE.)
Somewhat over the top, and at the time too unprincipled – it seems that state may intrude in the therapy of minors just when state wants and not defined by explicit conditional clauses.
Lynn David says:
May 9, 2012 at 8:34 pm
” Seems to me the APA is doing a good job of policing itself.”
Perhaps, but they aren’t doing a very good job at policing NARTH. As was seen in the testimony of Ryan Kendall.
The other problem I’ve seen with the wording of SOCE is a potential loophole. Note, it says minors cannot be given SOCE change therapy. HOWEVER, it specifically excludes therapy if the patient is attracted to minors. I suspect that most minors who are attracted to the same sex, are also likely to be attracted to other minors.
As I mentioned on the other thread. In general I like the idea of this bill but it still needs work.
Seems to me the APA is doing a good job of policing itself.
Lynn David says:
May 9, 2012 at 8:34 pm
” Seems to me the APA is doing a good job of policing itself.”
Perhaps, but they aren’t doing a very good job at policing NARTH. As was seen in the testimony of Ryan Kendall.
The other problem I’ve seen with the wording of SOCE is a potential loophole. Note, it says minors cannot be given SOCE change therapy. HOWEVER, it specifically excludes therapy if the patient is attracted to minors. I suspect that most minors who are attracted to the same sex, are also likely to be attracted to other minors.
As I mentioned on the other thread. In general I like the idea of this bill but it still needs work.
Seems to me the APA is doing a good job of policing itself.