Skip to main content

This ends Bachmann Associates' hope of westward expansion:
There will be no more "discipling of the barbarians" in California state going forward.
Overnight, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1172, sponsored by Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance (Los Angeles County). In a statement to the San Francisco Chronicle, the governor said:
"This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide. These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery."
The Chronicle explains:
Under the new law, which will take effect Jan. 1, no mental health provider will be able to provide therapy that seeks "to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."

Mental health professionals who violate the law, which applies to therapy for patients younger than 18, will be subject to discipline by whatever group licenses them.

The therapy often starts from the premise that a person's childhood and parental upbringing has somehow left that person deficient and thus has led him or her to same-sex attractions. Practitioners often are religious, and gay rights groups have derisively characterized the therapy as an attempt to "pray away the gay."

In May, the grandfather of "gay reparative therapy," Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University, apologized for his role in creating the movement saying in a open letter: “I believe I owe the gay community an apology.”

Spitzer came to realize the studies he based his conclusions on were founded on flawed methodology and repudiated his own work.

A World Health Organization report also released in May called reparative therapies,  “a serious threat to the health and well-being — even the lives — of affected people.”

Such "gay reparative therapies" frequently mix theology and science, encouraging prayer and other Christian biblical activities, hence the term, "pray the gay away." But purveyors frequently present them as founded in scientific principles, often citing work that has since become scientifically discredited, such as Spitzer's. That is, if indeed they tie them to any actual research at all. Many simply create their own "scientific" theories and pass them off to unsuspecting patients and parents as having a scientific foundation, when they in fact have no grounding in research or science, or support from the therapeutic community as a whole.

The American Psychological Association overwhelming passed a resolution in 2009 condemning the practice of such therapies and saying:

Therefore be it resolved that the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;

Therefore be it resolved that the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;

Be it further resolved that the American Psychological Association reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation;

Be it further resolved that the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation;

Be it further resolved that the American Psychological Association encourages mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation when providing assistance to individuals distressed by their own or others’ sexual orientation;

Be it further resolved that the American Psychological Association concludes that the benefits reported by participants in sexual orientation change efforts can be gained through approaches that do not attempt to change sexual orientation [...]

The resolution was adopted by the APA in a 125-to-4 vote.

Judith Glassgold, a psychologist in Highland Park, New Jersey, who led the APA panel in 2009, acknowledged some faith concerns are real, and said, "Secular therapists have to recognize that some people will choose their faith over their sexuality.”

It is however important that those who make such a choice do so from a place of informed consent, not be misled victims of religion dressed up as quack science.

The bill cleared the legislature back in August, and concern among activists was growing as it continued to await the governor's signature. Brown had been silent on his intentions toward the bill. National Center for Lesbian Rights' Executive Director Kate Kendell said:
“Governor Brown has sent a powerful message of affirmation and support to LGBT youth and their families. This law will ensure that state-licensed therapists can no longer abuse their power to harm LGBT youth and propagate the dangerous and deadly lie that sexual orientation is an illness or disorder that can be ‘cured.’”
Other groups engaged in the lobbying efforts include Human Rights Campaign, Equality California, Gaylesta, Courage Campaign, Lambda Legal and Mental Health America of Northern California.

The bill received the endorsement of The California Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (California Division), the National Association of Social Workers (CA Chapter), the California Latino Psychological Association and the California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies.

Well done, California! As such therapies have been shown to contribute to high rates of depression and even suicide, doubtlessly lives have been saved by this move.

Scientists: 1.
Snake oil salesmen: 0.

Originally posted to Milk Men And Women on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 09:57 AM PDT.

Also republished by Angry Gays.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Michele Bachmann's version of a Lady Gaga song: (18+ / 0-)

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 10:09:45 AM PDT

  •  As goes California.... (26+ / 0-)

    crossing my fingers.

    "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

    by blueoregon on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 10:10:09 AM PDT

  •  I am so thankful (17+ / 0-)

    that nobody will ever be able to scar LGBT kids and teens with this crap in California again.

    "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

    by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 10:14:00 AM PDT

  •  Therapists who offered that therapy (16+ / 0-)

    need therapy .

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 10:21:06 AM PDT

  •  I was trying to think of an analogy for the damage (16+ / 0-)

    done to people subjected to this "reparative" therapy and realized that it's like a weight loss doctor helping an anorexic lose more weight. One of the main differences between these two scenarios is that a parent who tried to get an anorexic child into a weight loss program would probably be jailed for abuse, while a parent who sticks their kid in a "cure-the-gays" program is considered by many people just to be exercising their religious convictions.

    We're not perfect, but they're nuts! -- Barney Frank

    by Tamar on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 10:33:20 AM PDT

  •  I don't think it's accurate to call... (7+ / 0-)

    Dr. Spitzer the "grandfather" of reparative therapy or say that he "created" the movement.   Spitzer spearheaded the APA's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.  Reparative therapy is the invention of Joseph Nicolosi circa 1991.  The controversy surrounding Spitzer concerns his sham study of Nicolosi's therapy which he publisheed in 2001, for which he rightly apologized.  While this sham study did do great harm to the LGBT community, it's just not accurate to claim that he created reparative therapy or the movement to "cure" the gays.

    Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you ~ C.G. Jung

    by JClarkPDX on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 10:38:25 AM PDT

  •  This is good mental health professionals (7+ / 0-)

    won't practice this type of therapy...

    I believe everyone needs to be accepted and loved for who they are; not for who someone else thinks they should be.

    I faced a lot of rejection in my life for other reasons. So I understand how important it is to be accepted for who you are. And that's why I'm voting NO on the MN amendment this November.

    I get tired of people with double standards who think they should be accepted for who they are, but someone else should not. Or they are entitled to health care, but the other guy isn't. And socialism for them and capitalism for others...

    I guess I'm in rant mode.

    As a member of Courtesy Kos, I am dedicated to civility and respect for all kossacks, regardless of their opinions, affiliations, or cliques.

    by joedemocrat on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:01:04 AM PDT

  •  It'll probably be ruled unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

    on free speech grounds.

    "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know, that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom. " - Death (Terry Pratchett character)

    by Thorby Baslim on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:18:56 AM PDT

    •  Very doubtful. (13+ / 0-)

      The Constitution doesn't require states to give everyone who wants to be a therapist a license to be a therapist.

      Just as states don't have to give everyone who wants to be a surgeon a license to practice surgery.

      Just as states don't have to give everyone who wants to drive a car a license to drive a car.

      The state isn't stopping anyone form saying and believing anything they want.

      They are just declining to grant them a professional license.

      Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

      by Scott Wooledge on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:43:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe not by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, sfbob, flitedocnm, G2geek

      which the RW hate machine has always despised.

      If someone does try to bring that argument let them take that all away. Caveat emptor will now be an absolute ironclad law. If I try to sell you dog shit as a good source of protein, it's all on you not to buy it. You might as well legalize fraud and protect it as "free speech".

      liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

      by RockyMtnLib on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 11:50:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If it were a full ban, I'd agree. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, sfbob, ms badger, terrypinder

      It's not, though.  This is the entirety of the active part of the legislation:

      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.

      The first paragraph by the Chronicle blurs this a bit by saying the therapy is banned outright, then provides a caveat later about it applying only to minors.  That's needlessly confusing: 'reparative' therapy is still legal, just not for anyone under 18.  

      I think that's more than defensible on free speech grounds.  If the therapy were 100% banned, it wouldn't pass muster, because consenting adults should be able to seek out whatever crackpot solutions they want.

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

      by pico on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:16:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not really banned. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Anak, jayden, ms badger, G2geek

        In that it's not really possible to ban unlicensed counseling in America.

        It exists.

        One can hang a shingle on your door and call yourself say, a "life coach" and providing a listening ear and a free advice.

        And there isn't, and probably shouldn't be a way to stop it.

        But professional licensing is one way for consumers to sort quacks from professionals.

        Which is by no means to say all unlicensed counselors are quacks or no licensed counselors are quacks.

        Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

        by Scott Wooledge on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:40:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  this hinges on "diagnosing and treating illnesses" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Scott Wooledge, Thorby Baslim, atana

          Life coaching and such are the secular equivalent of pastoral counseling, none of which run into trouble with the law unless they claim to "diagnose or treat illness."

          If we permit pastoral counseling, we have to allow the other stuff, else we're privileging religion.

          But this unfortunately is the loophole for parents who still want to "pray the gay away."   Extremist rightwing churches will sanitize their language of anything remotely psychological, and stick to language emphasizing that the kid is possessed by evil and that they are trying to drive out the sins.  

          At some point we have got to confront this at its core, and legislate to the effect that parents may not use coercive means to impose their philosophical outlooks (religious or other) upon their children.  Children are not property.

          "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 10:42:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would hope, actually... (0+ / 0-)

            this is what they do.

            Extremist rightwing churches will sanitize their language of anything remotely psychological, and stick to language emphasizing that the kid is possessed by evil and that they are trying to drive out the sins.  
            I would imagine they would probably do the same and just try not to get caught peddling psycho-babble pseudo-science. They're not good at following the rules.

            And if they do switch to demon possession, etc, that's OK. It's more traumatic for kids sure, but it would drive more parents away from enlisting their kids. That kid of talk isn't very accepted anymore, fortunately.

            Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

            by Scott Wooledge on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:23:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  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 ]

      •  but not under the guise of medicine. (0+ / 0-)

        I can sell you a tinfoil hat "to protect against ghosts," but I can't sell you a tinfoil hat "to cure a brain tumor."

        Claims to diagnose or treat illnesses are medical claims, not subject to a 1st Amendment claim of protected speech.  

        "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 10:36:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's certainly a tricky area of the law (0+ / 0-)

          not just for this issue. But also balancing people's right to buy quackery in the name of freedom, against their right not be victimized by

          I have a vegan person in my Facebook friends list (not sure who this person is, really). Sometimes he posts homeo-garbage. He posted an article about how guava juice is, and I'm not making this up, "10,000 times more effective than chemo-therapy."

          He posts this kind of stuff all the time. I used to comment, occasionally but decided I can't save people from stupid.

          So, sure.

          Drink guava juice instead of seeing an oncologist.

          I'll help you arrange your funeral, you dumb ass.

          Of course, this issue if further complicated by minors inability to make their own medical choices.

          Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

          by Scott Wooledge on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 08:29:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  And for what it's worth, a very similiar (8+ / 0-)

      issue has already been litigated in Federal Court.

      A psychology student who refused to counsel gay people was denied psychological certification by Augusta State University. She and her counsel sued arguing the school had violated her First Amendment rights.

      The relatively conservative 11th Federal Circuit found the school was within its rights to define its own edcuational criteria, and the student was obliged to follow that criteria if she wished to be certified by the school, regardless if the school's teachings offended her religious sensibilities.

      The First Amendment challenge lost in both trial court and appeal.

      Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

      by Scott Wooledge on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:34:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  there's a religious exemption (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      big enough to drive all the reparative therapy you want right through.

      What the law does is rip off the veneer of science.

  •  Think we have Pus Rimjob's radio topic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    for Monday. Maybe this will be the hate rant that will cause his head to finally explode. Of course, it will be all Obama's fault.

    What are their names and on what street do they live-David Crosby-"If I Could Only Remember My Name"

    by IB JOHN on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 12:08:14 PM PDT

  •  we're doing our part to make up (6+ / 0-)

    for falling short on prop 8. victory comes through lots of little victories, accumulating over time.

  •  I was getting nervous... (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, LuvSet, sfbob, Scott Wooledge, G2geek

    ...since today is the deadline for Brown to sign bills. I knew he would do the right thing on this but still....

    Excellent news!!

  •  Joseph Nicolosi (of NARTH fame) (5+ / 0-)

    claimed that he had worked his "cure" on "homosexuals" as young as 3 years old.  I thought, what a great scam (if you don't care about silly little things like ethics).  Convince gullible parents that their preschooler is destined to be GLBT, and take a pile of money from them to work a phony cure.  Since any given child has a 90-plus percent chance of turning out to be straight, he can claim it worked.  And if the kid actually is GLBT, he'll be long gone with the money before anyone knows.

    I shall die, but that is all that I shall do for Death; I am not on his payroll. - Edna St. Vincent Millay

    by Tara the Antisocial Social Worker on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 02:08:26 PM PDT

    •  Even if the child turns out gay, remember (3+ / 0-)

      gay cure therapy cannot fail. It can only be failed.

      (Which is where hopelessness and suicide comes in.)

      Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

      by Scott Wooledge on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 03:03:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I remember one "reparative therapist" (2+ / 0-)

      who said his best outcomes were with homosexual men who had never been sexually or romantically attracted to other men. Honestly.

      Of course, what he really meant was boys who weren't as macho or athletic as their fathers wanted them to be.

      Remember the Paulks, the reparative-therapy poster couple? While John Paulk can probably be accurately described as "not-so-ex gay", Joanne Paulk really can't, and I believe her claims that she's now heterosexual. What I'm dubious about is her claims that she ever wasn't. There's little evidence that her "lesbianism" was anything more than a few fleeting crushes on college classmates.

      In a dog-eat-dog world, rabies is an advantage in the short term.

      by ebohlman on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 04:20:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  anyone who claims that a three-year-old... (0+ / 0-)

      .... has any kind of sexuality, should be investigated by law enforcement.  

      And how do you tweak a 3-year-old about anything to do with sex, without touching the kid in a manner that's clearly molestation?  

      That Nicolosi guy needs to be investigated & prosecuted.

      "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 11:01:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obviously a great step in the right direction, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge

    but this needs to be outlawed for everyone, everywhere. It's not more humane to do this to an adult than it is a child.

    In the meantime though - Go Gov Brown!

  •  I have two gay tomcats who are disappointed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge, G2geek

    by this news.  I've been distressed by their unnatural canoodling to the point where I had to speak up about it.  I told them enough was enough; I'm sending you to a Christian Gay Cure camp.  They wanted to know what that entailed, and I was at a loss for a moment, and had to speculate.  I suggested they probably would tie them down, attach electrodes to their balls and then make them watch gay tomcat porn videos, shocking them every time they got an erection.  After that, they were like, "Sounds fine to me!  Put us in the cat carrier now!"  

    And now I must break the news to them that this has been outlawed in California?  I just know this disappointment will lead to spraying on the furnace or some other distasteful gay tomcat behavior.

  •  In Pennsylvania, the ethics code for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek

    psychologists forbids this type of therapy and has for at least 25 years.  The other related licenses (social work, certified counselors, etc.) adopted this.  So any professional therapist can lose their license if they practice these therapies.  Then the legislature adopted the entire ethics code into the law so there are legal ramifications as well.  Churches, "Christian counselors" can do whatever they want.

    Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

    by Smoh on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 06:04:30 PM PDT

  •  How will this affect out-of-state "boot camps"c (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Scott Wooledge, G2geek, spacecadet1

    that are run strictly be religious groups who aren't and don't claim to be state-licensed? What will happen to CA parents who send minors to them?

    The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

    by irishwitch on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 08:34:06 PM PDT

    •  Nothing really. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek

      If a counselor in CA or anywhere doesn't claim to be licensed then this does not really affect them.

      This would be why it's a good idea to ask people whose professional services your are seeking what their credentials are, and maybe even verify they are not lying.

      If parents choose to entrust their kids' care to unlicensed counselors, there's not much that can be done.

      Just as Churches can still run "pray the gay away" programs, they just can't claim they are mental health programs. They are spiritual/religious programs.

      So, in a way, it's limited.

      Just in the same way, the state can't stop people from raising their children in abusive and neglectful and hurtful ways. The state can really only intervene when it becomes apparent a child is in crisis.

      What this accomplishes is seriously undermines the veneer of creditability of these programs, making it more apparent the buyer should beware.

      Supporter: "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!" Adlai Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

      by Scott Wooledge on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 10:00:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  labeling it quackery is a good start... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Scott Wooledge, spacecadet1, atana

        ..... because it will warn some parents away from trying to "fix" their kids.

        But the hardcore religious right is where this abuse is centered, and they will merely shift tactics to claim it's "spiritual" therapy, and keep on torturing children into suicide.

        The hardcore RR doesn't give a damn about quackery, any more than woo-woo new agers give a damn about quackery when it comes to "energy medicine" and homeopathy and similar nonsense.  

        All of these are people for whom "the other world" is more real to them than "this world."  Which IMHO should be diagnosable as a form of psychosis characterized by impaired reality-testing, paranoia, and ideas of reference.

        Bottom line: the law should be quite clear on this that parents do not have a right to use coercive means to impose their beliefs upon their children.  Children are persons, not property.

        "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 11:06:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site