February 16, 2014

The following excerpts are from the article “State Seeks Talking Points for Therapist” by Bob Unruh and published on World Net Daily: “As expected, Maryland is seeking to become the third state to impose talking points on therapists whose clients are horrified by the same-sex attractions they may experience and want help to rid themselves. State lawmakers have proposed, like in California and New Jersey, a ban on what therapists can say in such situations.”

“‘This legislation makes unfounded claims that sexual orientation change effort (SOCE) therapy is harmful and ineffective, while ignoring the reality that some minors who develop homosexual feelings have already been harmed by sexual abuse (more…)

February 14, 2014

The following excerpts are from the article “House Passes Ban on Life Change Therapy 94-4” by by Joseph Backholm on the Family Policy Institute website: “Yesterday the Washington State House of Representatives delivered a blow to religious freedom when it passed HB 2451 which bans therapy for minors to help them reduce or eliminate same-sex attraction. The bill, which passed 94-4, now moves to the Senate for consideration.”

“This bill, modeled after similar bills in New Jersey and California, makes it professional misconduct for a licensed therapist to provide sexual orientation change therapy to minors even when the client requests it. Therefore, it makes it illegal for a licensed counselor to counsel in a way that is consistent with the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or LDS understanding of sexuality…even in a church, mosque, or synagogue.” (more…)

February 14, 2014

The following excerpts are from the PFOX news release “Maryland ban on heterosexual therapy:” … “House Bill 91 relies exclusively on policy statements from so-called “mainstream” mental and medical health organizations such as the American Psychological Association (APA), who formed a Task Force in 2009 made up exclusively of gay-identified and gay-affirming psychologists. ‘What the APA Task Force report actually said was that there is inadequate research to make conclusions on the efficacy and safety of SOCE therapy,’ commented [Christopher] Doyle. ‘Bill 91’s interpretation of the APA report’s conclusions is inaccurate, and we are calling on the APA to correct those inaccuracies, as it states in their own 2002 Code of Conduct: When its research is misinterpreted or misquoted, it (APA) should take reasonable steps to correct the misinterpretation.'”

“‘House Bill 91 threatens clients’ constitutional rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and their first amendment rights to see a counselor who helps them resolve unwanted SSA while remaining faithful to their deeply held spiritual beliefs. All parents, children, and families in Maryland deserve the right to pursue their own self-determination and should not be forced to choose between their counselor and their faith values,’ commented Doyle. ‘We are urging Maryland delegates to put the rights of innocent children, who do not have a voice, over this politically motivated legislation.’” …

February 11, 2014

Joseph Backholm of the Family Policy Institute has articulated 6 reasons to be concerned about the bill in Washington State which seeks to ban sexual orientation change therapy to minors. The reasons apply to all similar bans and are as follows:

“1. Licensed therapists are not currently involved in coercive therapy to change sexual orientation: The Washington State Department of Health has no records of complaints filed against a licensed therapist for coercive therapy intended to change their sexual orientation. If anyone is receiving counseling to change their sexual orientation from a therapist, it is probably because they asked for it. Why would that bother you?” (more…)

February 5, 2014

The following excerpts are taken from the article “Taking The Liberal Shilling …” by Phelim McIntyre on the Voice of the Voiceless website: “At the start of this year the UK’s Association of Christian Counsellors (ACC) sent out a statement declaring that they do not support any form of therapy to help people overcome unwanted homosexual feelings, what they define as reparative or conversion therapies, and that no member of the ACC could offer them. This is a worrying change of position as, until the statement, the ACC was the only UK body that supported both the client’s right to choose such a therapy and the therapist’s right to offer this type of therapy. Already we have seen a therapist kicked out of the ACC due to their change of position.” (more…)

February 4, 2014

Following are excerpts from a statement by Voice of the Voiceless: “Today, Voice of the Voiceless applauded the Virginia General Assembly for rejecting HB 1135, which would take away the rights of parents and their minor children to seek out counseling from a licensed mental health provider to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction (SSA). The bill was rejected with a vote of 4-1 and failed to get out of committee.”

“‘This is a huge victory for the children of Virginia, especially those who have been sexually abused and seek help from a licensed mental health practitioner to resolve unwanted same-sex attractions that may have resulted from molestation,’ commented Christopher Doyle, licensed clinical professional counselor and President of Voice of the Voiceless. (more…)

February 4, 2014

The following Liberty Counsel press release “Ninth Circuit Stays Ruling on California Change Therapy Ban” is reprinted in its entirety: San Francisco, CA—Yesterday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco granted Liberty Counsel’s motion requesting the court to stay its recent ruling in Pickup v. Brown regarding the California law which bans change therapy.

The law was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2013, but Liberty Counsel obtained an injunction blocking the law. Last week the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, but the decision drew a strong dissent from three judges. Liberty Counsel filed a motion to stay the opinion, stating it will be filing a Petition asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Court of Appeals granted the motion and stayed the ruling until the Supreme Court acts on the Petition. (more…)

February 4, 2014

The following excerpts are from the article “‘Gays’ choosing change get reprieve” by Bob Unruh and published on World Net Daily: “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which earlier affirmed a lower court ruling allowing the state of California to censor therapists’ statements to clients, now has agreed to put the decision on hold until the Supreme Court weighs in.”

“The state’s change-therapy ban essentially would allow counselors to encourage young clients to abandon heterosexuality and pursue homosexuality, but they would be forbidden from encouraging those same clients from abandoning homosexuality and pursuing heterosexuality.” (more…)

January 30, 2014

The following excerpts are from the article “Gay-to-straight therapy ban fails in House” by Travis Fain on the Daily Press website: RICHMOND – A House panel killed off legislation Thursday that would have outlawed controversial therapies meant to turn gay children straight. House Bill 1135 only dealt with licensed therapists treating people under 18. Adults seeking the treatment still would have been free to do so.

… John Lindner Jr., of Richmond, said the therapy helped him. Sexuality is not always as simple as straight or gay, he said, and the therapy helped Lindner discover “who I am. I found restoration therapy to be tremendously helpful and life-changing,” he said. “My sexual orientation has been transformed.” In the end, members of a House Health, Welfare and Institutions subcommittee killed the bill on a 4-1 party line vote, much as supporters expected. …

January 30, 2014

The following excerpts are from the article “9th Circuit ignores precedent, change-therapy ban stands” by Bob Unruh on World Net Daily: “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to rehear a challenge to California’s ban on sexual orientation change therapy – but in the course of reaching that conclusion, has backhanded precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, where is headed next, a minority opinion has concluded.”

“‘May California remove from the First Amendment’s ambit the speech of certain professionals when the state disfavors its content or its purpose? – The Supreme Court has definitely and unquestionably said ‘No.’ It is no longer within our discretion to disagree,’ said the minority opinion from Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain.”

“He was joined by two other judges in the dissent, which said, ‘Legislatures cannot nullify the First Amendment’s protections for speech by playing this labeling game.’” (more…)