The Associated Press reports that 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 (pictured) 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.”
Truth Wins Out’s statement on the initial ruling:
“We are disappointed, but not deterred by the initial ruling by judge William Shubb. This is the beginning of a process that we feel confident will end in our favor. We have a powerful and incontrovertible case that reparative therapy is a dangerous practice that brazenly stands in direct opposition to standard mental health guidelines and procedures. It erroneously portrays homosexuality as a mental illness, gay people as mentally ill, and is consumer fraud by definition because its practitioners offer false hope and empty promises to their clients for a fee.”
“The idea that SB1172 is a violation of First Amendment rights is unfounded and wrongheaded. Medical and mental health professionals are held accountable for their speech and simply can’t say whatever they want if the results bring harm to their clients. For example, a doctor can’t tell a patient who is recovering from a recent heart attack to run a marathon. To do so would be to engage in speech that leads to malpractice. Similarly, a reparative therapist should not be able tell a 14 year old client that he or she is suffering from a mental illness and needs psychiatric care to transform from gay to straight. Therapists in clinical settings have always been expected to uphold professional standards and are held accountable for dangerous advice or deceptive practices that harm clients, or have the clients harm themselves.”
“Reparative therapy is social engineering with no medical basis and operates in an alternative reality. It is solely based on the anti-gay prejudices of primarily deeply religious therapists who cruelly project their unscientific views onto vulnerable clients at a considerable financial price, as well as a significant cost to mental health. Rather than do what is in the best interest of their clients, such unethical ‘therapists’ routinely treat their clients as guinea pigs and have them in engage in bizarre treatment regimens that would be laughable if they weren’t so psychologically harmful.”
For these reasons, we view the temporary ruling as a speed bump in the inevitable process of protecting LGBT youth and their families from quacks. We look forward to the next round. The simple fact is, the more people learn about what reparative therapy truly is and what such therapists actually do in the clinic, the less they support it.”
Wayne Besen
Executive Director
Truth Wins Out
Statement by NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter, Esq.:
“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. The judge stressed that he was willing to issue the ruling in part because it is temporary and applies only to three individuals. 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. That is especially important in this case because the harms to minors are so serious, including suicide and severe depression. Every leading medical and mental health organization in the country has rejected these practices and warned that they are not only completely ineffective, but dangerous. California did the right thing by enacting this law, and we are confident the courts will find that it is not only constitutional, but vitally necessary. It is heartbreaking to think of the terrible damage that has been done to so many LGBT youth and their families, and of the lives that have been lost or destroyed because of these discredited practices.
We applaud Senator Ted Liu, the bill’s author, lead sponsor Equality California, the California Legislature, and Governor Brown for protecting these young people and their families. Governor Brown’s statement when he signed this bill is right on target: ‘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 judge just did us a great big favor. thanks, judge.
Now, as in the prop. 8 trial, these people are going to have to prove their claims in a court of law, under oath. we all know how well that worked out for them last time.
Judge Shubb’s injunction is wrongly-decided and the law will survive. The decision is here:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/welchvbrown.pdf
Just read the judgement. Strict scrutiny should not have been applied. The bill is content and viewpoint neutral. Under SB1172 so-called therapists may talk about why homosexuality is wrong in their eyes but are not free to state that it is mental disorder from which they can be cured. That is legitimate regulation of speech related to conduct which the State legitimately sought to regulate because of known fact that homosexuality is not a disorder of any kind. That is not merely a ‘viewpoint’ or disagreement over ‘content’ of a therapy. It is a fact.
Is it merely a ‘ viewpoint’ that cancer can be cured using drugs? Does the State allow snake oil salesmen?
Having wrongly applied strict scrutiny, the Judge then messes up on the evidence supporting the protection of minors. The very reason that there isn,t voluminous evidence to support the conclusion that so-called SOCE is harmful, is because it would be unethical to use the kind of randomised control science he seemed to be looking for, in a field where mental health professionals, (real ones, not the pretend priests of delusion aka Plaintiffs in this appeal) ALL agree that homosexuals is not a disorder, least of all evidence from minors.
Does the State need an RCT longitudinal study to ban Churches from using unorthodox treatments to change left handers to right handers? That would be a return to the dark ages of neurological ignorance. No one would tolerate the collection of evidence to prove or disprove harm. We no longer live in that age, except apparently for the Eastern Distict Court of CA.
This is a judge who would have given his blessing on SOME slave-owners, and let the other ones just adopt the younger weaker smaller boys and girls, and force them to be household servants. The logic in this judge’s brain is totally disgusting. Evidently, for him, only white male heterosexuals should rule the world……………
“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.”
Slave-owners can whip their slaves, it’s a first amendment right.
How did this judge get through law school? How did his sadistic character get admitted to law school? Oh wait, many lawyers are sadists, reason number one to entirely eliminate the profession, which is really just a well-paid haven for intelligent amoral cowards.