Friday, November 30

California SB 1172: Sexual Orientation Change Efforts

The whole world is debating the merits and vices of "reparative therapy," with one camp claiming that it can cure all ills and the other that it will inevitably lead to suicide and self-loathing.

I hope they both someday realize that their hyperbole is laughable.

But on a subject where for years people called names and told stories, the debate just hit a new level. Last month California passed a law stating that mental health professionals could no longer engage in any effort to help a client under age 18 with his or her sexual attractions, under threat of being subject to professional regulatory bodies (losing their license to practice).

The specific words of the law (California SB 1172) are:

“Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

865.1. Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age.

865.2. Any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject a mental health provider to discipline by the licensing entity for that mental health provider.


This is bad.

I don't advocate reparative therapy as a method of curing homosexuality. I agree with the tenets listed elsewhere in the law that men and women need to find peace, love, and acceptance within and without, and that same-gender attraction is not, in itself, a sin... and hence does not make anyone less worthwhile. I also agree that love within the home, and reconciliation with self-worth, are crucial for the aversion of practices leading to the syndemic of homosexuality - drug abuse, sexual abuse, depression, suicide, and HIV.

At the same time, not every homosexual child is a victim of massive self-loathing or so vulnerable and impressionable that he needs to be protected from external ideas. Young men and women who have developed their own sense of self-worth, who love themselves completely, and who have the complete support of family and community, mental health professionals can help them address issues outside of their own ability. To those young men and women - I was 17 when I went to college, for example - living according to their most deeply held personal feelings can be better achieved with the help of others in the community - including mental health professionals. Especially those who are already dealing with clinical depression or other disorders. This law effectively bars professionals from that network of support if a source of distress is sexual in any nature. And while internal attractions, the existence of a sliding scale vs binary assignment, nature vs nurture, and sexual mutability is definitely part of the debate, the specific mentioning of the word "behaviors" - as I highlighted in the law - is the truly distressing part of this law.

Any efforts... to change homosexual behaviors.

I know that laws are often stretched to their extreme in courts of law, depending heavily on the methods used by lawyers and judges in assigning meaning to each word. I'm also not a lawyer... but since words and meanings seem to be so fluid in this debate, an imagination is probably all I need. I take things literally (since I'm autistic), so my interpretation will be extremely literal. Either way, in a firefight like homosexuality, I can see this one being put to the test.

Some major issues and potential problems follow.

This law doesn't have religious exemptions or restrict its application to the workday. Which means that if a bishop is a licensed mental health professional, he can no longer counsel young members of his congregation who come to him and want to repent (and hence change) of behaviors involved in homosexual activity.

By extending to any effort to change behaviors, and not including exemptions, this could also be construed to limit mental health professionals from preaching over the pulpit on the topic of homosexuality when there are minors present.

Conversely, if the law restrains professionals from any effort to change behaviors, and applies to discouraging behaviors, it must also restrain them from encouraging behaviors related to homosexuality. As feelings are indicated only in one direction (eliminating or reducing feelings), this would only apply to behaviors.

This could have direct impact on the ability of parents who are mental health professionals to counsel, support, act, and teach their children about homosexuality.

But the most obvious is that parents, and their children, would no longer have the ability to turn to licensed medical professionals for support - effectively encouraging them to go to unlicensed professionals, as the law does not contraindicate the work of unlicensed individuals. These include friends and other associates who, while perhaps well-meaning, may not have the grounding or training in mental health to be able to distinguish positive and negative methodologies. And they rarely have training to support concomitant depression or other negative tendencies that coincide. This law will not change the desire of individuals or parents to find external support in their desires to change unwanted behaviors - it will only force them to search for help outside of the licensed world of mental health.

Those are my concerns at first glance. Some might seem extreme, but knowing the subject, I'm not sure that extreme really exists anymore. Laws have been interpreted as far as language allows - sometimes beyond what seems reasonable.

I'm sort of glad now that I didn't go into psychology or mental health. I'm planning to go to grad school in California. And since I spend much of my free supporting people who want to change their behaviors, and many are young, this would be a major issue.

Edit:

Since writing this post, I've learned that the Pacific Justice Institute has sued for an injunction against CA SB 1127. A brief news article on their case is here: http://www.pacificjustice.org/1/post/2012/10/-new-court-filings-seek-to-halt-gay-therapy-ban.html

And a YouTube video, created by the same organization, is here: http://youtu.be/IB5Km5dCtZk?hd=1 that details how supportive therapy helped one individual.

It's apparent from the case and the issues highlighted in the press release (specifically the right of religious organizations to offer counseling that matches their beliefs) that this is a potentially a big issue. What was interesting to me was that my non-legal-background-pure-conjecture may actually have something in common with legal opinions.

7 comments:

  1. You and I are very much on the same page. It was a very badly written law, and it begs to be overturned. On the issue of reparative therapy, I agree that it should not be used to change a person's orientation. There's been a shift in focus lately to helping the person to align his actions more with deeply held beliefs, and a shift away from trying to get gay people to be straight in terms of attraction.

    Someone in my neighborhood recently committed suicide, and that has brought to the fore my feelings on this issue--we do need to be very careful to ensure that people with SSA have hope for a bright life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, that was fun to envision all the ways that this law could be interpreted. I can understand that it is well intentioned (especially if family members are trying to force the minor into said therapy), but the behavior part... so if a minor is also a sex addict practicing unsafe sex... can the counselor change that behavior? Some would say that that isn't the case, but I can imagine people in California suing over it, either because the behavior resulted in disease or death, or in cases of trying to correct it... sounds like fun. So where in California do you intend to study?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you're reading it wrong... Don't get me wrong, you analyze it well in that you note where the law affects religious matters in ways it shouldn't due to separation of church and state, but I think you're taking it to far by saying that it takes any licensed mental health professional out of the support system. You talk frequently about how your support system is those that love you, those that accepted you as you were, that let you talk. This law allows minors to go to licensed professionals and talk, to have someone listen to them and help them work their way through what is going on with them. They are still very much a part of the support system, they just aren't allowed to try and change them. Listening to and talking to a minor is different than trying to change them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "This law doesn't have religious exemptions or restrict its application to the workday. Which means that if a bishop is a licensed mental health professional, he can no longer counsel young members of his congregation who come to him and want to repent (and hence change) of behaviors involved in homosexual activity."

    This is a laughable stretch of the law. Can you provide any case law in California that sets this kind of precedent -- specifically that a bishop who also happens to be a mental health provider must abide by his field's code of ethics while acting as bishop? I have a hard time believing this will be the case.

    "By extending to any effort to change behaviors, and not including exemptions, this could also be construed to limit mental health professionals from preaching over the pulpit on the topic of homosexuality when there are minors present."

    "This could have direct impact on the ability of parents who are mental health professionals to counsel, support, act, and teach their children about homosexuality."

    Again, a laughable stretch. You've made a claim without providing any evidence… Can you provide evidence that this will be the case?

    "But the most obvious is that parents, and their children, would no longer have the ability to turn to licensed medical professionals for support …. [unlicensed professionals] may not have the grounding or training in mental health to be able to distinguish positive and negative methodologies. And they rarely have training to support concomitant depression or other negative tendencies that coincide…"

    These types of services already exist. Journey Into Manhood (JiM)/People Can Change -- few of their "professionals" are licensed mental health providers. The paragraph above seems to be an argument against stuff like JiM. If you disagree with people getting help from unlicensed professionals, do you also disagree with JiM? If not, what makes the difference?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ryan -

      I don't think that it's laughable. Maybe this is just my view, but I feel like your comment assumes far too much research on my part and subjects my completely literal interpretation of the text to a wholly different school of thought.

      Historical, precedented, and contextual interpretation is essential for the courtroom, but it's also why law firms hire interns to work 90-hour weeks. Combing case law is essential because of the current American system which assigns weight to rulings based on a system that I really don't understand. At the same time, it's apparent by the continual nature of courts (which continue to make rulings which set new precedents instead of just following old ones) that other interpretations of law - specifically in this case those that look at the exact wording of the law given definitions, linguistic artifacts, and verbal nuances, which effectively allows laws to be understood individually, are just as cogent.

      As far as your question, I don't have examples of case law. But generalizing your first question makes the answer seem far less doubtful. Have there been cases which rule that mental health professionals must follow their professional code of conduct whether they are paid for their services or not?

      I don't have thoughts on unlicensed programs - I've met many people who have felt that they've made a positive impact on their lives, and others who did not. But I see a difference/similarity with this and the tension between doctors and midwives. Parents often go to midwives because they offer something that doesn't seem as available in the western medical fields. Some midwives do home births; others go to the hospital. Just like licensed and unlicensed people who counsel others. But a decision to ban a given practice (common or not) in hospital environments effectively limits the choices of parents, and presents potentially greater risk to the unborn child, especially if it's a practice that is currently in use. I see the professional organization as a system that provides support in times of crisis, just like a hospital, and pushing minors who want support in reconciling their faith and feelings in favor of faith outside of that network would be like requiring banning hospital births if certain methods were going to be used. My concern is simply that - that potential issues that would have been seen and supported by the professional system will be moved to places where they may not have that support... and professionals who may have in the past provided support to organizations like JiM may not have that option.

      Delete
  5. I haven't gone through all of your posts so you may of referenced this, but did you go to your bishop for help at first?? I went to my YSA bishop 10 years ago but he didn't take me seriously. I fasted and prayed recently to find joy and happiness in my life. Because of this a lot of issues have been brought to the surface and I feel I need to get therapy, but I can't pay of it, so i am thinking of going to my new bishop to talk to him and hope he will be willing for the Church to chip in. Do you happen to know what they note in the member records??? My friends and husbands go to my ward and I don't want them to know about this if one of their husbands gets into a leadership position in the ward. Do you know if they reference this difficulty??? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure I understand, but let's see if we can clarify.

    I asked "Can you provide any case law in California..."

    You answered "I don't have examples of case law."

    The only evidence you've presented for your argument about bishops/parents who are also licensed mental health providers not being able to counsel ward members/children to avoid "sin" is your fear that the law *might* be interpreted that way. I'm not arguing one way or the other necessarily, I'm urging caution and requesting more evidence. Do you have any other evidence? If you do, I'm willing to believe you on this, and I might even agree this would be highly problematic.

    As far as the analogy with the midwives/doctors… I got a little lost. I've read it several times over and don't understand...

    ReplyDelete

Comment Rules:

(G)MG is how I write to you. Commenting is one way to write to me.

If you want your comment published: No swearing, graphic content, name-calling of any kind, or outbound links to anything but official Church sites.

In addition, comments must be 100% relevant, funny, uplifting, helpful, friendly... well-written, concise, and true. Disparaging comments often don't meet those standards. Comments on (G)MG are personal notes to me, not part of a comment war. You are not entitled to have your ideas hosted on my personal blog. There are a zillion places for that, and only one (G)MG.

And I'd suggest writing your comment in Word and pasting it. That way Blogger won't eat it if it's over the word limit.