Skip to main content

View Diary: Practicing 'pray the gay away' therapy now punishable in California (42 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not such a simple question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sfbob, ms badger

    The state can certainly ban harmful medical procedures.  Could it ban a psychological treatment that's demonstrably harmful?   I'm not entirely convinced the Constitution would prohibit that.  The state couldn't prohibit all discussion of so-called reparative therapy, but could it establish a rule prohibiting licensed providers from engaging in the practice with any patient?   What provision of the Constitution would that offend?

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 01:02:54 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You'd have a really high threshold to meet (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder

      for psychological counseling, especially when said counseling is linked explicitly to consent and religious belief.  I think it'd have a hard time before the courts.  

      Scott cited the 11th circuit case below, but there's also the Julea Ward/EMU case still going forward, which the state of Michigan is attempting to back by writing a religious exemption into its licensing.

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 01:13:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  so a church can declare that schizophrenia is... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atana

        ... demon possession, and attempt to exorcise it, even if they drive the individual to suicide.  

        The core problem here is not the use of medical labels, it's the use of coercion against an individual who is powerless.

        "Minus two votes for the Republican" equals "plus one vote for the Democrat." Arithmetic doesn't care about their feelings either!

        by G2geek on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 10:44:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What provision of the Constitution again? (0+ / 0-)

        I'm assuming you're relying on the First Amendment, but I don't think one has a constitutional right to be licensed to perform a procedure that the profession has found is harmful to the patient.  

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:24:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You'd have to make the argument that (0+ / 0-)

          banning 'reparative' therapy isn't specifically aimed at religious conduct, and the issue actually can get constitutionally sticky - there's no first amendment right to licensing, but there can bea possible first amendment protection if the accommodations for religious belief are held unreasonable and/or insufficient.  Worth watching how Storman's, Inc. v. Selecky proceeds from here on, because it deals with a similar (though not quite the same) mix of issues.  The district court decision will probably be vacated (again) by the 9th Circuit, but what happens after that is the question.  SCOTUS has gone both ways on this issue in the past.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 12:47:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site