Back

ABA Journal

Home

First Amendment

9th Circuit upholds California ban on ‘conversion therapy’ for gay youths

Aug 30, 2013, 12:26 pm CDT

Comments

Wildfires, violent felons being released, major cities in bankruptcy. . .

Yeah, the legislature needed to spend time making sure “gay youths” could not be harmfully converted.  Why does anybody still live in that asylum?  It will be the next Detroit.

By B. McLeod on 2013 08 30, 2:42 pm CDT

California is surely not a place where you would want to live if you had children to raise to or if you wanted to go into business for yourself.

By Yankee on 2013 08 30, 3:03 pm CDT

McLeod and Yankee - maybe the two of you can buy an island somewhere.  If money is an issue a quickstarter fundraiser would work.  You’d have a lot of support.  You could even take your therapists.

By Pushkin on 2013 08 30, 3:31 pm CDT

But Pushki, I’m already on an island, known as “North America.”

By B. McLeod on 2013 08 31, 6:11 pm CDT

California is beautiful, and I’ve been to places where people say they want to raise children. And that’s a big negative…

States that have communities controlled by organized crime or worse states that coddle hate groups and underground militias, I would never consider those wonderful places to live and I don’t care how many children they are raising there I wouldn’t want to be part of any community that embraces that sort of ignorance. Not to say that California is 100% pure, but in comparison to many it is far better and offers a great deal more opportunity.

I don’t believe it will ever be another Detroit, far from it. It’s too big with plenty of choices on where to live.

By concernedcitizen on 2013 09 01, 1:32 pm CDT

If you wish to abuse your children, then don’t move to California. Move to a Red State where they barely disguise their embrace of theocratic government.

By Doodle Dandy on 2013 09 01, 2:31 pm CDT

As Minh Dang made clear in her stories about trafficking, during the ABA opening assembly for the most recent annual meeting, sunny, noble California is where you want to live if you want to sell your children as prostitues on the street.  That is how California protects children from abuse.

By B. McLeod on 2013 09 01, 3:51 pm CDT

In Red States like Utah and Texas, they refer to those children not as prostitutes but as brides.

By faddking on 2013 09 02, 2:07 pm CDT

Which fits in with the common law age of capacity, and is at least monogamous, as compared to being whored to every pedophile in San Francisco.

By B. McLeod on 2013 09 02, 3:24 pm CDT

McLeod et al —I live near Detroit. Believe me, California is much worse in a number of ways.

By kennyg on 2013 09 03, 10:45 am CDT

I just love how all these lawyers who most likely haven’t been anywhere in CA other than “The Tragic Kingdom” are experts on life in CA.

By BMF on 2013 09 03, 10:58 am CDT

Here’s a useful analogy.  If it’s constitutional for a state to regulate the medical practice in such a way as to require practioners of abortions to say and do certain things, then it’s constitutional for a state to regulate the medical practice in such a way as to prevent practioners of mental health services from saying and doing certain things.

By OKBankLaw on 2013 09 03, 12:24 pm CDT

@11 - At least their simplistic pronouncements provide a low-cost information identifier of who is a rube. There is value in that. After one comment like “California is (insert vitriol),” you can bet that it is unlikely that that person has anything thoughtful to contribute on any matter, and skip over that person’s posts.

By NoleLaw on 2013 09 03, 12:41 pm CDT

OKBankLaw @12 - I think you make too much sense for anyone to have a comeback comment.

Before the DOMA’s case was decided, I heard a law professor from a religious school on NPR.  His comment was to the effect that DOMA was passed by the congress, and same sex couples should go to their representatives to have DOMA overturned by the congress and not litigate this in court.  My immediate thought was that he could have said the same thing to all those AG suing to block Obamacare, but I will bet you a dollar that he did not.

By Bean Counter on 2013 09 03, 5:12 pm CDT

McLeod and Yankee—Thank you for not living here in sunny southern California.  That’s two less cars on the freeways and two less lawyers cluttering up the courts.

By AndytheLawyer on 2013 09 03, 6:46 pm CDT

#7—Please explain why so many of America’s young women have decided that life as a prostitute in California is preferable to life in any capacity in the flyover states where they originated.

By AndytheLawyer on 2013 09 03, 6:48 pm CDT

If you’re talking about the ones whored on the streets by their parents, I’m not sure that is something they have “decided.”  If you are limiting your remarks to young women who want to be prostitutes and have gone to California for that purpose, I would guess it is because paying clients are less abundant in the “flyover states.”

By B. McLeod on 2013 09 03, 7:48 pm CDT

Placing children in therapy and medical care at an early age to transition into transgendered is all the rage these days.  Chaz Bono, that expert on human sexuality, advocates that children start hormone therapy before puberty so they can avoid becoming the man or woman they don’t want to be and can have genital reassignment surgery as early as possible.  And talk therapy as early as 5 to help the transition.  A whole new breed of therapists are springing up to fill this need.

In other words, therapy that encourages the belief you were born in the wrong body and must change the way you were born through surgical mutilation of your sex organs is okay if it aligns with the ideology of the day.  But if a 17 year old feels they were born with something wrong in their orientation and want to change something they were born with through talk therapy that does nothing permanent to their bodies must be protected from harm. 

So to recap:  Children not accepting their biological sex must have early therapy and hormone intervention so they can avoid natural puberty and eventually change the way they were born.  Adolescents not accepting a sexual orientation they do not want must be prevented from talk therapy aimed at assisting them in rejecting sexual feelings at odds with their reproductive functions. 

None of this is about protecting children from harm.  It offends Chaz Bono.  Its another example of state sponsored ideology and prohibition of dissent.  Social Marxism.  Neither child should be allowed to come under the influence of either kind of “therapy.”  None of it can be done safely because the desires and ideologies of the adults always govern what they suggest to the child patient.

By Santana on 2013 09 04, 2:46 am CDT

@18

You hold up Chaz Bono’s ideas about hormone therapy and extrapolate that all people who think Gay Conversion therapy is a bad idea also agree with his ideas on hormone therapy.  This is what is called a false comparison.

You can be against both of those things.

By OKBankLaw on 2013 09 04, 12:28 pm CDT

@ 18:  YOU SAID: “Placing children in therapy and medical care at an early age to transition into transgendered is all the rage these days. Chaz Bono, that expert on human sexuality, advocates that children start hormone therapy before puberty so they can avoid becoming the man or woman they don’t want to be . . . “

Hormone therapy for gender reassignment has nothing to do with “therapy” solely intended to make teens who self-identify as homosexual “go straight.” Your conflation of the two is a perfect example of why most lawyers probably shouldn’t be permitted to explain technical or medical issues to a trier of fact. IMO

By BMF on 2013 09 04, 12:55 pm CDT

@19 I extrapolated no such thing.  My point was that there’s no similar rush to outlaw another kind of therapy intended to alter a child’s sexual identity because the other one aligns with the ideological dogmas of the day.

@20 When you can’t argue your points well, by all means resort to personal attacks.  I conflated nothing.  I never said they were the same therapy.  But you seem unaware that gender reassignment requires talk therapy.  Hormone therapy and reassignment surgery is not begun until talk therapy has ensured the psychological sexual identity is rehearsed, practiced, accepted, etc.  Both therapies assist in deconstructing one sexuality and reconstructing another.

Pretend you think this conflates unrelated things.  You’re proving the point that ideology blinds.

By Santana on 2013 09 04, 1:31 pm CDT

@ 20: Oooooh!

1. You seem to be unaware that teens who identify as homosexuals are rarely seeking “talk therapy” to “rehearse, practice and accept” their allegedly “chosen” sexual identity—and therein lies the difference.

2. Some of us don’t assume that every Hollywood personality who appears on a talk show is an “expert” just because they’ve been through the process. It’s like claiming Donald Trump is an expert on BK law because he’s had experience!

By BMF on 2013 09 04, 2:24 pm CDT

I agree that Chaz Bono is hardly an “expert” based on its limited personal experience.  But in any event, whether it would be offended by a particular course of action in the context of gender reassignment is not necessarily probative of what it would or would not think about the type of conversion therapy at issue in this case.

By B. McLeod on 2013 09 04, 6:30 pm CDT

@21

My apologies, I assumed based on this statement:

“So to recap:  Children not accepting their biological sex must have early therapy and hormone intervention so they can avoid natural puberty and eventually change the way they were born.  Adolescents not accepting a sexual orientation they do not want must be prevented from talk therapy aimed at assisting them in rejecting sexual feelings at odds with their reproductive functions.”

That you were in fact extrapolating.

By OKBankLaw on 2013 09 05, 2:17 pm CDT

“... proving the point that ideology blinds.”  Yup, bingo.  What we SHOULD be talking about here is not whether “gay conversion therapy” is a good idea or not, but rather the First Amendment taking yet another kick in the teeth.  I’m no proponent of “gay conversion therapy,” and whether it is banned or not will not affect me.  But that’s kinda the point: if you don’t like it, don’t do it.  Don’t have your children do it.  But just b/c you don’t like a certain type of speech doesn’t make it OK for you to ban others from engaging in it.  It’s none of your freakin’ business whether other parents or children want to do it.  To OK @ 12, I agree w/ you too: it’s outrageous that the state can tell doctors what they have to say when treating patients.  That violates the First Amendment too.  We’ve got to stop this stupid left/right “analysis” that says that as long as the gov’t is violating the Constitution to do something that *my side* likes, then it’s OK, and get back to principles.  Just remember, the pendulum will swing.  (Kinda like how, now that it’s Obama instead of Bush who wants to drag us into another stupid, pointless war, Democrats are falling all over themselves to support him.  Sorry, I know that’s “off-topic,” but the hypocrisy is just too great to bear.)

By Just Some Bloke on 2013 09 06, 10:19 am CDT

@25, Brilliant.  “The pendulum will swing.” 

@22 Projecting ignorance onto me. 

1)  I never implied not being aware that it is rare for gay teens to seek out that kind of therapy.  Rarity was not the point.  If even one teen seeks it, who are you to say they have no right to do so?  That their reasons, whether religious or because they want the same kind of family as their heterosexual siblings, is not good enough for you?  Or for California?  Who are you to say this is more damaging than teen age girls getting breast implants, piercings through their genitals, permanent filler injected into their lips, or any of the strange sexual experimentation that is actively encouraged in society? 

2)  You don’t have to assume Chaz Bono is an expert for appearing on talk shows.  She’s promoted herself as an expert on news shows dedicated to the issue of pre-pubscent children undergoing hormones, and talking of her work with children, counseling and mentoring them.  No shit!  And Cher and Chaz have actively opposed reparative therapy. 

@24, I was extrapolating that is the position of the state of California.  Not that is the position of all who disagree with reparative therapy which is what you tried to distort in order to invalidate the obvious hypocrisy and that ideology (not protecting children) is behind this law.

By Santana on 2013 09 06, 12:59 pm CDT

@ 26:Despite this ruling, it is NOT illegal in California for a parent to sentence their gay minor child to visits to a legitimate psychiatrist/psychologist/psychotherapist, even though the kid hates the idea, and will either just attempt to screw with the therapist’s head, or feed the therapist the answers s/he thinks the therapist and the patient’s parents want—because every teen just KNOWS that the therapist will rat them out to their parents.

So-called “conversion therapy”  is not a legitimately recognized medical or psychological treatment. Another problem is that in California, any person can hang out a shingle as a “therapist” provided they don’t falsely advertise their credentials.

By BMF on 2013 09 07, 11:10 pm CDT

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.