Part 2: "Go to Hell," US Ninth Circuit Court Tells Homosexually Abused Children

On the court's incorrect reasoning, findings, and decision (Part 1 here):

...anecdotal reports of harm raise serious concerns about the safety of SOCE. [anecdotal reports based largely upon therapy not provided by the plaintiffs]

Tom Usher

Tom Usher


Finally, the court ruled that SB 1172 does not implicate parents' right to control the upbringing of their children because that right does not encompass the right to choose a specific mental health treatment that the state has reasonably deemed harmful to minors.

It was not reasonable. It was based upon a pack of misinformation built up over decades by homosexual activists within the various organizations, which activists were about getting their agenda pushed threw and science and evidence be damned.

Senate Bill 1172 merely prohibits licensed mental-health providers from engaging in SOCE with minors.

"merely" denies abused children with resultant unwanted same-sex attraction from being treated for that by those licensed mental health providers unless those providers "affirm" the same-sex attraction as healthy where there is much evidence that it is not.

According to the statute, SB 1172 advances California's interest in "protecting the physical and psychological wellbeing of minors, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth, and in protecting its minors against exposure to serious harms caused by sexual orientation change efforts." 2012 Cal. Legis. Serv. ch. 835, § 1(n). Without a doubt, protecting the well-being of minors is a legitimate state interest. And we need not decide whether SOCE actually causes "serious harms"; it is enough that it could "reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisionmaker."

It is all coming down to "reasonableness." That's where this issue must be fought. It is not reasonable to leave those children hanging with confusion and pain and suffering with unwanted same-sex attraction. The legislature and governor completely ignored that and even though it was raised before the bill made it out of committee. It is for that reason that the court should have struck down the law rather than uphold it. It's as clear and plain as can be.

The record demonstrates that the legislature acted rationally when it decided to protect the well-being of minors by prohibiting mental health providers from using SOCE on persons under 18. [Reasonable and rational are used by the court interchangeably.] The legislature relied on the report of the Task Force of the American Psychological Association, which concluded that SOCE has not been demonstrated to be effective and that there have been anecdotal reports of harm, including depression, suicidal thoughts or actions, and substance abuse. [Since when has having problems over one's mistakes something to be banned? That's what this ruling purports based upon a heavily politicized group of "mental-health" associations.] The legislature also relied on the opinions of many other professional organizations. Each of those organizations opposed the use of SOCE, concluding, among other things, that homosexuality is not an illness [men sodomizing each other is not symptomatic on its face concludes this confused court] and does not require treatment (American School Counselor Association), SOCE therapy can provoke guilt and anxiety (American Academy of Pediatrics), it may be harmful (National Association of Social Workers), and it may contribute to an enduring sense of stigma and self-criticism (American Psychoanalytic Association). Although the legislature also had before it some evidence that SOCE is safe and effective, the overwhelming consensus was that SOCE was harmful and ineffective.


Plaintiffs argue that the legislature acted irrationally when it banned SOCE for minors because there is a lack of scientifically credible proof of harm. But, under rational basis review, "[w]e ask only whether there are plausible reasons for [the legislature's] action, and if there are, our inquiry is at an end."

Obviously, this court has deliberately overlooked exactly why the reasons given for the legislation were incorrect. This court has leaned upon highly politicized positions of various organizations, unscientific positions, to rule on questions of science. It's absurd. It has not done justice to those children who will be harmed by the decision. It has allowed a blanket prohibition against all treatment, including that which has been working and working well.

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.