The following is a direct refutation of Ted Lieu's article: "JURIST - Hotline: California Becomes First State to Crack Down on Gay Cures for Minors":
Ted Lieu is so illogical. He refers to doctors using speech to phone in a prescription and says that it's malpractice when the doctor phones in the wrong prescription. No kidding? What does that have to do with banning all SOCE? Nothing. What would be comparable would be for Ted Lieu to promote a law that no doctor may phone in or otherwise issue a prescription by his or her voice or in fact in any other manner simply because some drugs (no matter how much a doctor tries to prescribe the right one) may injure some people. Some SOCE is wrong. All SOCE is not.
Lieu cites SOCE that is not what is being used by members of NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality). I defy Ted Lieu to bring forth any evidence that at the time he introduced his legislation, any member of NARTH was promoting castration, electrical shocks, nausea-inducing drugs, or suggesting to same-sex attracted children that those children, as children, engage in heterosexual sexual intercourse. If he can find one, that one would be the exception that makes the rule. NARTH's practice guidelines (that were there on NARTH's site for Ted Lieu to read before he introduced his bill) clearly prohibit those practices.
Furthermore, Ted Lieu ignores that most psychological treatments can cause anxiety in anxious people, depression in depressed people, etc. Is he willing to ban all such therapies? Why the double-standard? What therapies are homosexuals undergoing that promote anxiety and/or depression in some people? Many treatments heighten symptoms before a breakthrough. That's common knowledge.
In addition, the APA did not say that it has evidence that the SOCE advocated by NARTH has caused any of the problems alleged by Ted Lieu. Lieu's is a blanket ban based upon his twisted way of couching the whole issue. Let him show hard facts that indicate that NARTH's brand of SOCE is more harmful than the general psychological treatments being offered for a whole host of things clients want to change about themselves.
Where were all of the formal complaints that were lodged against NARTH members before Lieu's bill? There were none that NARTH is aware of, and they checked exhaustively and published that fact. No doubt, that fact influenced the judges.
The APA changed to a mentality that uses two criteria: 1) can the person function and 2) is he/she comfortable. Can a homosexual function in society and is he/she comfortable with his/her homosexuality? Those exact criteria can be equally applied to sociopaths. Can a sociopath function in society and can he/she be comfortable with his/her sociopathy? The answer is yes and yes. So, does that make sociopathy no longer a mental disorder? It does not!
Has Ted Lieu talked directly with any of the thousands of people who have undergone Reparative Therapy and who are satisfied with the outcome? Why does he pretend that they don't exist?
Of course the state can regulate speech. No one is saying otherwise. What the Plaintiffs in the cases against SB 1172 have put forth is that the state does not have a compelling enough reason to forbid all SOCE for minors in California. The liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals believes that the Plaintiffs are likely to win that argument in a full court case. That's why the Appellate Court upheld the injunction by the lower court against SB 1172. The Plaintiffs aren't asking for special 1st Amendment protection but the standard protection afforded everyone. It is Ted Lieu who wants to carve out special limitations on free speech pertaining solely to non-heterosexuals. Why should homosexuals get special "protections" that trample on everyone else's rights?
The fact that homosexuality was removed from the DSM is not proof that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The scientific fact is that there is a clear causal relationship between homosexual molestation and rape in childhood and then growing up with same-sex attraction. That is what the "community" to which Ted Lieu refers as the experts have been obviously and intentionally ignoring. The children in California who are homosexually and otherwise abused and/or neglected and then sexually confused where they were not before are children Ted Lieu wants swept under the rug. He doesn't want to discuss them. Where have you once seen him address the issue?
I have been following this issue rather closely since it first arose, and I have never seen Ted Lieu once show the least bit of concern for homosexually raped heterosexually oriented children being imprinted with, conditioned into, same-sex attraction that they then still do not want, which is their right not to want. He rather has sought to make it illegal for such children and the parents of such children to get help for that unwanted same-sex attraction from California-licensed SOCE providers in California. To Hell with those children and parents is the practical result of Ted Lieu's position. According to Ted Lieu, the only acceptable thing for any therapist to say in such cases to such children and their parents is tough luck and just embrace the same-sex attraction that was conditioned into the child. That is not acceptable, and no intelligent person should put up with it.
Ted Lieu asked concerning Judge Shubb's ruling, "Could therapists now say whatever they want to a patient regardless of how unethical or dangerous it is?" That's exactly the point. SB 1172's basis has not shown that all SOCE is dangerous above and beyond the average for all other therapies. SB 1172's basis has not shown that all SOCE is unethical. What has been shown is that banning all SOCE would be dangerous and unethical on its face because there are confused children who don't want to be same-sex attracted for whatever reason but certainly for many, due to homosexual abuse. To leave those children without professional help when their parents may not be knowledgeable enough in the specialty of Reparative Therapy and other proven-successful treatments would be unconscionable. Why should those children be left with no legal right to get the help they want just to appease homosexual activists who choose to believe or promote the falsehood that sexual-orientation change is not possible and is always or even ever harmful? Why should formerly heterosexual children be left suffering when help is right there (if Ted Lieu doesn't get his one-sided, selfish way)? Why should children not be told that sexual orientation is fluid and that they most certainly can change orientation? It's the truth. Why are they being lied to?
Where is Ted Lieu's alarm concerning the huge risks over and above the risks of heterosexuality that are inherent in homosexuality? All other things being equal, homosexuality brings with it a whole slew of problems beyond the rates experienced by heterosexuals. That is always ignored. It is always censored. Those who state the facts are often banned. Why? Why are the facts censored. Why are those who bring the facts to light banned? Why is it when NARTH calls for more and better research, both APA's (Psychological and Psychiatric) refuse to engage in that work? It is because science is not at the heart of the issue at both APA's but rather homosexual activism at the direct expense of science, truth, and transparency.
Lieu writes, "Consider the following example: suppose a group of therapists believed in the assisted suicide movement and recommended that for some patients experiencing immense mental suffering suicide would be the best alternative. These therapists then embark on a course of treatment seeking to cause their patients to commit suicide. Under Shubb's ruling, California would not be able to pass a law stopping this suicidal medical treatment because it would be a content and viewpoint based regulation on the therapists' speech." Ted Lieu went to law school?
As I wrote in a blog post:
The whole issue is whether or not the state has a strong enough compelling reason to infringe upon the civil liberties and freedom of speech rights of the Plaintiffs. If the studies and reports are flawed, then upon what compelling ground does the state stand?
After one gets through with freedom of speech, commercial or otherwise, there's still the huge issue of freedom of religion, the freedom of the children to receive religiously consistent Reparative Therapy for unwanted same-sex attraction, which attraction is a sin to many religious persons, especially when behavior follows attraction. The children have a right to receive professional help consistent with their religious beliefs for their unwanted same-sex attraction. Homosexual affirmation is still not condone or allowed in many religions. California SB 1172 is a direct assault on freedom of religion.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)