Judge blocks Calif. ban on gay conversion therapy

In this combo image made of May 8, 2012, file photos, State Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, left, and David Pickup, a licensed marriage and family therapist, address lawmakers in favor and opposition, respectively, of a bill to ban a controversial form of psychotherapy aimed at making gay people straight during a hearing at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. / AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File

SAN FRANCISCO A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked California from enforcing a first-of-its-kind law that bars licensed psychotherapists from working to change the sexual orientations of gay minors, but he limited the scope of his order to just the three providers who have appealed to him to overturn the measure.

U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb made a decision just hours after a hearing on the issue, ruling that the First Amendment rights of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals who engage in "reparative" or "conversion" therapy outweigh concern that the practice poses a danger to young people.

"Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech," Shubb wrote.

The judge also disputed the California Legislature's finding that trying to change young people's sexual orientation puts them at risk for suicide or depression, saying it was based on "questionable and scientifically incomplete studies."

The law, which was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in October, states that therapists and counselors who use "sexual orientation change efforts" on clients under 18 would be engaging in unprofessional conduct and subject to discipline by state licensing boards. It is set to take effect on Jan. 1.

Although the ruling is a setback for the law's supporters, the judge softened the impact of his decision by saying that it applies only to three people — psychiatrist Anthony Duk, marriage and family therapist Donald Welch, and Aaron Bitzer, a former patient who is studying to become a counselor who specializes in clients who are unhappy being gay.

The exemption for them will remain in place only until Shubb can hold a trial on the merits of their case, although in granting their request for an injunction, the judge noted he thinks they would prevail in getting the law struck down on constitutional grounds.

Bitzer, Duk and Welch were represented by the Pacific Justice Institute, a Christian legal group. President Brad Dacus said he thought Shubb's ruling would have a chilling effect that would keep the licensing boards that regulate mental health professionals from targeting other practitioners.

"If there are any, we can easily add them to the case as a plaintiff," Dacus said. "We know we will have to have another hearing on the merits, but to be able to get a preliminary injunction at this stage is very telling as to the final outcome, and I'm very encouraged by it."

Complicating the outlook for the law is that another federal judge in Sacramento is considering similar arguments from four more counselors, two families and a professional association of Christian counselors, but has not decided yet whether to keep the ban from taking effect.

"We are disappointed by the ruling, but very pleased that the temporary delay in implementing this important law applies only to the three plaintiffs who brought this lawsuit," National Center for Lesbian Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter said. "We are confident that as the case progresses, it will be clear to the court that this law is fundamentally no different than many other laws that regulate health care professionals to protect patients."

Lawyers for the state argue that outlawing reparative therapy is appropriate because it would protect young people from a practice that has been rejected as unproven and potentially harmful by all the mainstream mental health associations.

[JLauLau]

I am a San Francisco resident who has lived in SF more than ten years, and I am aware of that San Francisco is a very liberal city that embraces diversities. Regarding the news I read that whether if gay conversion therapy should be banned for minors, I recently had a few discussions with professors, classmates, and neighbors. Unexpectedly, I was despised by some of my conversationalists when I questioned if conversion therapy needs more time to reform instead of banning it clear-cut. One of them even looked at me like I am a monster. It is sad that being liberal in San Francisco sometimes is overboard to the extent that the "liberals" cannot tolerance other opinions when discussing such controversial subjects in classroom or on the sidewalk with teachers, students, or neighbors in San Francisco.
The people who propose the law may not truly concern whether if the gay clients, are potentially harmed or not due to the therapy. It seems to me that the ban of conversion therapy is part of Pro-gay right movement. If anyone thinks or says anything discord with their ideology, it is deemed to be "harmful" and monstrous. As we can see now, they take it one step further to restrict therapists legally to practice the therapy. Most of the people, like me, do not fully understand what conversion therapy is and how the practice is ineffective or how it harms people. They opponents do not provide strong evidence to support their blames, but just strongly belittle and scorn the conversion therapy and whoever find or support the therapy. The opponents assert that some clients develop depression after having conversion therapy. However, there is no strong evidence to link depression directly to the therapy. The clients may have depression before they consult the conversion therapists, and they found themselves having depression after the therapy sessions. As I understand, there are many confounding variables contributing to a person's depression. Hence, I realize that it is absolutely unfair to call the conversion therapy potentially harmful and ineffective without careful researches.
I hope that there are more studies and researches to investigate the issue whether if all the practices of conversion therapy are problematic or they need to be regulated or to be reformed instead of making it totally disappeared. As I read an article "The Power of Place" In The Big Shot: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded Americans is Tearing Us Apart written by Bill Bishop, I agree with Bishop's observation that many Americans have been increasingly sorting one another into communities where people share similar values and beliefs. When I tried to understand more about the conversion therapy, I personally feel that my right of free speech regarding this issue is violated in school with professors, classmates, or on the sidewalk with neighbors. One of my neighbors even asked me to consider moving to another city or state where I can find more people who think like I do. I am distressed that San Francisco is full of people who do not tolerant whoever has different perspectives on issues like the gay therapy.