posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:07 AM
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
First I think we should take a look at the bill itself....
This bill would prohibit a mental health provider, as defined, from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts, as defined, with a patient under 18
years of age. The bill would provide that 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 the provider to discipline by the provider’s licensing entity.
..and further down in the bill
Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age.
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.
You can use the link above for the full text.
We recognize that those under 18, in most cases, do not always have the knowledge or life experience to make potential life changing decisions. This
law was designed to protect those minors from procedures that have been determined to have been harmful. It also appears that it is directed more
towards school counselors. These are people that were not specifically picked by parents and the position they hold was designed to be one of support.
This does not prevent adults from choosing this type of therapy it only makes it illegal to use such therapy on a minor. The bill itself also appears
to present proof of the type of damage this type of sexual orientation therapy.
The judge is now blocking what I feel is a necessary step to protect minors from undo harm and his reasoning seems flawed in the light of the actual
text of the bill. People are certainly free to express opinions but I'm not sure this specific type of therapy is appropriate for minors. If you had
a son or daughter that was under the age of 18, maybe even as young as 10 or 11, would you want someone you didn't hire and didn't know advising
your child? Even subjecting them to humiliating and questionable therapy tactics?
Judges are supposed to be impartial and this ruling doesn't seem impartial to me.