California is now the first state to outlaw “conversion therapy” — treatments intended to “cure” homosexuality — when practiced on minors. (You can read the bill here). The future of the bill is up in the air, since several right-wing groups are saying they will sue to have the law overturned.
Over on Ethics Alarms, Jack is, well, alarmed. I tried to post a response to his post, but my post isn’t showing up – probably it’s just waiting for approval, or there’s been a technical glitch. But I’m impatient, so I’m going to post my response here.
Jack said that the law was wrong because it goes against free speech, because it interferes with parental autonomy, and because it restricts experimentation and free thought. My response follows.
Jack:
None of your three points stands up well to scrutiny.
1. Free speech. That it involves “talk” doesn’t automatically means its protected by the first amendment. If I talk Linus into believing that I’m the owner of the Brooklyn Bridge and sell it to him on a verbal deal, I can be arrested as a con artist, even though I did nothing but talk.
Therapists offering conversion therapy are, first of all, con artists – they’re bilking desperate parents out of money by offering something that they cannot deliver. That’s not protected speech.
More importantly, courts have found time and again that the state’s compelling interest in protecting children from harm can survive a first amendment challenge. As Justice White wrote:
It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a state’s interest in “safeguarding the physical and psychological well being of a minor” is “compelling.” … Accordingly, we have sustained legislation aimed at protecting the physical and emotional well-being of youth even when the laws have operated in the sensitive area of constitutionally protected rights….
Ferber v New York involved sexual performances, but given the overwhelming evidence that conversion therapy severely harms children, the same principle applies here. The First Amendment is not a license for child abuse.
2. Disrespect for autonomy of parents.
But this law doesn’t restrict parental behavior, only therapist behavior.
It does makes a particular commercial service (conversion therapy) unavailable, but no more than a law forbidding prostitution interferes with a father who wants to buy his son a sex act for his 16th birthday, or a law forbidding drug use interferes with parents who’d like to buy their daughter a joint. Do you object to those laws because they abridge parental autonomy?
There are already laws in California holding parents accountable for making clearly harmful medical decisions for their children, as in the case of a Christian Scientist who allows his child to go untreated rather than get medical treatment. This law is much milder, since it only applies to therapists and cannot punish parents in any way.
More generally, there are a lot of laws against parents injuring their children, either actively or through neglect – laws against child abuse, laws requiring children to be educated, etc.. There are times when protecting the health of children is more important than protecting the right of parents to treat children in whatever way they want.
3. Restricts experimentation and free thought.
So do all imaginable rules and regulations on therapeutic, psychiatric and medical treatment. Should we therefore say that no regulation is acceptable?
Suppose a hynotherapist claims that sexually molesting his patients while they are in a trance is an experimental treatment that he believes will benefit his patients — is that a reason for us to repeal California’s law against sexual misconduct by licensed therapists? After all, to use the same logic as your argument, who are the Legislature to say that a good rape while hypnotized isn’t exactly what the patient needs?
The answer is pretty clear, of course. The legislature are the people’s duly elected representatives, and as such they are the authorized people who pass laws regulating the providers of health care. Of course, they should carry out that duty based on the best scientific evidence, and acting only in cases where the scientific literature shows severe harms for a treatment not counterbalanced by proven benefits.
In this case, the law they passed cited the extensive scientific literature showing not only that conversion therapy has no benefits (and does not work), but that it carries a high risk of severely harming the patient. Furthermore, the group they are protecting – children – are a particularly powerless group unable to protect themselves.
Under these circumstances, this law is entirely appropriate, and we should hope that the other 49 states quickly follow suit.
Finally, you falsely claim that this law dictates thought. That’s obviously not true. In no way does this law outlaw anyone thinking anything. Parents are free not only to think that their children shouldn’t be gay, but to share this opinion with their children, with their friends, and anyone else.
I guess you could argue that outlawing a therapeutic practice that has been shown to be ineffective and harmful is dictating thought. But if that’s the case, then surely ANY regulation of ANY therapeutic practice is dictating thought. Is that your view?
P.S. If gay activists were “all-powerful,” same-sex marriage would be legal everywhere, and 99% of Republicans would be unelectable. Alas, this is not the case. Not even in California.
P.P.S. Oh, and a follow-up point on autonomy.
It increases autonomy when decisions about optional medical treatment are put off until adulthood. If my parents choose a treatment for me, that takes away my autonomy; if the decision is put off until I’m an adult able to decide for myself, then that increases my autonomy.
It’s not entirely simple, of course. In making these decisions, parents have to weigh other factors — for instance, are there benefits to beginning treatment earlier than age 18, that won’t be available after age 18? There are cases where there are strong reasons to begin treatment before age 18.
But in the case of conversion therapy – which has no proven benefits, has never been shown to work, and can cause lifelong harm – all factors point in the same direction. There is no benefit to early treatment, and there is every reason to wait for adulthood, to let the patient decide for themself.
Maybe a side note, maybe not:
All of the evidence I’ve seen points to a 50/50-type thing with regard to genetics and environment.
Identical twins that were separated, for instance, show a higher likelihood to both be gay or both be straight, but not completely. 50/50 once again.
I really welcome updated knowledge on this if it is available.
But if it’s 50/50, the dogmatic approaches of the left (“it’s fully genetic, just like being black”) or the right (“it’s just environment and a downhill slide to an immoral way to live”) are both wrong in their approaches.
Penelope, the right isn’t claiming sexual orientation is environmental, they are claiming it is a choice, i.e. that people are gay because they choose to be that way. There is some modest evidence of an environmental influence on sexual orientation-for example, men who have multiple older male siblings are more likely to be gay than those with few or none. However, there is essentially no data suggesting that being gay or lesbian is a choice one can make. Expressing it or hiding in the closet is a choice. The attraction itself…not so much.
Penelope, ‘strong genetic component’ and ’50/50′ are not synonyms.
And Dianne is correct. “The right”, which is a super sloppy way of saying “social reactionaries” (I doubt everybody who wants tax cuts feels the same way about LGBT issues), believes that there is really no such thing as homosexuality; homosexual inclinations and behavior are sinful choices, like cheating on your spouse.
And in fact, are often spoken of in the same breath, as a way of saying, “See, we don’t think homosexuality is special bad. It’s just reg’lr bad! Like stealing, or cheating on your wife!”
Somehow, these people imagine that argument to somehow excuse their position.
—Myca
Full disclosure: I am quite solidly on the side demanding full equality for QUILTBAG folk.
I am wondering if this ruling might have any effect on “conversion ministry” efforts in California? That is, conversion therapy couched in terms of religious teaching (to wit, “If you’re gay, you’re going to hell, now STOP BEING GAY, the power of Christ compels you!”) Would/could this legislation have an effect on things such as Exodus International’s activities?
@Caraig, the bill is limited to “mental health providers” or “mental health professionals” as defined under California law. A licensed family therapist who couched their conversion therapy in Jesus-talk would be violating the law; a minister who wasn’t a mental health professional could ‘pray the gay away’ all they want.
@mythago, thanks for the reply. It’s a little disappointing; conversion ministry can be even more coercive and emotionally damaging than conversion therapy. Wasn’t the “camp” that kids were kidnapped and dragged to religiously-oriented?
Not being at all versed in the area: Is the evidence “overwhelming” only when viewed by anti-conversion-therapy folks? IOW, is the scientific argument against this on the same level as, say, the scientific argument against in-hospital circumcision?
Or is the evidence “overwhelming” in the sense of, say, “evolution exists;” i.e. there aren’t really any reputable scientists who concede that they may be wrong about the issue?
I don’t know whether the opposing side is rationally interpreting things differently, or if they’re saying “well, we agree that this is really harmful but we think we want to do it anyway.” Those are two very different arguments. Do you know which one it is?
gin-and-whiskey, I’m not sure that this exactly answers your question, but I found it while trying to find an answer, and it’s really interesting. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html?_r=1
G&W, as far as I know, there’s only one peer-reviewed study that has ever supported conversion therapy — and not only was that study equivocal, the author of that study now describes his own study as fatally flawed.
Other than that one study, and again afaik, there is complete agreement in the peer-reviewed literature that conversion therapy has never been shown to work. Also, even Exodus International has backed away from claims that ex-gay therapy works.
From the text of the bill:
[Whoops, cross-posted with Ruchama!]
g&w @8, there is no reputable science whatsoever supporting ‘conversion therapy’. That’s why opponents of the recent legislation are crying religious freedom; it’s the therapy equivalent of intelligent design, where they pretend there’s a secular reason for pushing a religious doctrine.
WRT “can they continue to pray the gay away” – yes. Religious freedom continues unsullied.
However, many of the folks doing this “therapy” are actually licensed practitioners of some mental health discipline. (Chillingly enough). So even though state law already required therapists and psychologists to practice “ethically,” and “in the best interest of the client,” there are no cases (that I know of) where a state licensing board has taken action against a “reparative therapy” provider under their professional license. I don’t know if boards have been loathe to act (in spite of the fact that all major mental health professions now condemn the practice) or clients have been loathe to bring complaints or if it’s a bit of both.
In any case, now there is crystal clear precedent for saying to therapists “do not do this; it is not a treatment; you cannot say it is valid mental health practice.” IIRC something similar happened with either “holding therapy” or “rebirthing therapy” or both in Colorado after a little girl died choking on her own vomit while fighting her way out of blankets.
What will be interesting, providing these lawsuits get kicked to the curb where they should be, will be whether the licensed “pray the gay away” people still do what they’re doing and change to calling it just religious activity, or “life coaching,” or something else, and if so, whether the California regulatory boards will call them on it.
Oh, and the survey of the research published in my field’s top journal is Serovich et al from 2008. But there are plenty of others.
Elusis @13, from a quick glance at the law, if a licensed mental-health professional is doing it, it counts, even if they call it something else. The law also, indirectly, gives people suing abusive therapists recourse; we know what you did was wrong because there’s a law saying it’s bad therapy and you can’t do it.
I think the main points to note are:
(1) Good news they’re banning this piece of pseudoscience. But conversion therapists problem isn’t that they’re bilking desperate parents out of money, it’s that they sincerely believe in it and aren’t bilking parents out of enough money. If there was cash in it lobbyists would have stepped in long before it got to a ban. It’s hardly as if most other still legal psychological therapies have been RCTed to death and are based on really well founded developmental theories. If they were consistent they’d ban everything apart from some psycho-pharmacology and CBT.
(2) Out of curiosity, how does the conversion therapy evidence base stack up against the evidence base for accommodation treatments of gender dysphoria in kids?
I’m sure the LGBTQs aren’t just trying to ban experimentation on kids in one context while promoting it in another, purely for political reasons, but it’d be nice to get the references saved down.(3) Also, what’s exactly up with all the gay sex in prisons? Obviously, we all know sexual orientation is fixed – any situation component would be ridiculous. Are there loads of closeted gays who come to term with their sexuality when they find themselves behind bars, or are homosexuals are bunch of deviants and over-represented within the criminal classes? It’d be good if we could clear that one up.
Oh, james. Even for you, #3 was a little ham-handed.
James, you’re banned from “Alas” until 2013.On second thought, you’re just banned, period. Thanks very much for all your contributions, and I hope all your future endeavors go well.
If they were consistent they’d ban everything apart from some psycho-pharmacology and CBT.
Keep dreaming, james.
I read on JoeMyGod that they have now banned conversion therapy for everyone adults, kids, whatever, “conversion therapy” is banned in the UK.
Pingback: Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion « Clarissa's Blog
Pingback: California Outlaws Therapy To “Cure” Homosexuality In Kids | feimineach.com