First Federal Bill to Prevent Dangerous Anti-LGBT Conversion Therapy Introduced in Congress
On HRC Blog - May 19, 2015 by HRC staff

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/first-federal-bill-to-prevent-dangerous-anti-lgbt-conversion-therapy-introd

Today, Congressman Ted W. Lieu (D-CA) will introduce the "Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act" – the first federal legislation to prohibit the practice of providing "conversion therapy" to any person in exchange for monetary compensation or advertising such services. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, called for Congress to rally behind the important legislation in order to end this dangerous and discredited practice of discrimination against LGBT people.

---------------------------------------------
I love the name Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act, maybe people will finally get it through their thick skulls that, gender ldentity and sexual orientation are innate and that conversion therapies are dangerous, often resulting is greater depression, and sometimes suicide. 

Very good. Chris Christie signed a similar law in NJ too.

Don't want to start a firestorm, but I'm not entirely sure I'm behind this.

Yes no form of CT should ever be practiced on a minor or in any situation where it is not fully voluntary.

And yes, our current understanding of gender and sexual orientation make it very unlikely that any sort of therapy can make a gay person straight or a trans person cis.

And yes, for myself and an awful lot of other LGBT people, our sexual orientation and gender identity is part of who we are, and I would never want to change that.

However, not all of us feel that way. There are LGBT people who would like in the worst way not to be LGBT people. I don't want to discount their experiences or say that what they want is not legitimate.

I'm also not ready to say that there is no form of therapy that could ever make a trans person comfortable viewing themselves as cis. So many times in the history of medicine, technology, and social science, it has been said that "<X> is impossible" only to have someone figure out exactly how to do <X> a few years/decades/centuries later".

Our regulatory landscape allows people pay for all sorts of whacky therapies if they have money and are willing to be practiced on. Some therapies that have proven to be beneficial have started that way.

I'm not sure a blanket ban on anyone trying to improve the lives of those LGBT people who don't want to be LGBT is the way to go. I would be more comfortable perhaps with a ban on CT for minors, and require adults to sign a paper acknowledging they understand that current scientific thinking believes that CT is impossible.

I have to admit to being on both sides of the fence with this issue. On side 1 people should have the freedom to choose whatever therapy they deem potentially useful, and the libertarian in me says people should be able to espouse whatever ideas they choose.

On the other side side, there is the evidence that conversion therapy doesn't work. It holds out hope that people can be "converted" back to heterosexual orientation or a heteronormative gender identity. There are probably a few cases where those who wanted to change may have been helped and for those who wish to change, perhaps this should be an option, rather than legislating it out of existence. I can't speak of all the therapists but the ones my wife made me go to HAD to be Christian Counselors and the only advice they offered was to accept Jesus and Lord and Savior, make him Lord of your life, and pray, pray, pray.My understanding is that other therapists can be more interventional and demeaning. After all, I am/was a Christian and don't tell me that I'm not because I believe I am transgender.

One of the main proponents of the Es-trans movement is Jerry Leach, who had no training in counseling but used his own experience to tout that people can be changed. Wives faced with the fear of losing their husbands often cling to the hope held out by these people, rather than allowing their spouses to get the help they need in coping with their gender dysphoria, again resulting in depression which could lead to suicide. Other former proponents of Ex-gay therapy such as Alan Chambers, former head of Exodus International and if you do a search on Ex-gay movements leaders denouncing reparitive therapy on the internet, you'll find quite a few opposed to the therapy. even Russell Moore, head of the Southern Baptists has renounced reparitive therapy as counter-productive.

So yes, I believe that there are those who WANT to change that MAY be helped, but holding out the promise that conversion therapy WILL work, is a fraudulent claim, and that charging for the services which in all likely hood will not work is wrong. The question is how to balance free speech with the charging for something that probably won't work.

Frankly, I don't know.

NJ's law I believe only protects minors.

As an adult you are free to do as you wish.

Any ban should only be targeted at minors.

All the legislation I've heard of until now seemed aimed only at protecting minors. Oregon's governor just sign such a bill covering minors. Illinois is on the verge of passing a similar bill covering minors. It does seem to fly in the face of free speech and the right to self-determination as it pertains to adults. But, there is no evidence that the therapy works. The FDA surely wouldn't permit a drug that has no efficacy to be sold. The therapy is potentially harmful and we legislate against other actions which are self-harming. Why couldn't it be banned? Aren't licensed professionals regulated in their behavior which could be harmful to their clients? Doesn't the FTC prohibit advertising products which don't do what they are advertised to do? There are no studies that show that conversion therapy works. There may be anecdotal evidence, but studies have shown it to be ineffective.

Perhaps as a compromise, said professionals may offer the therapy, but would not be allowed to charge for the service (I know it sounds rather dumb.) Or since most of the therapies seem to be based on a religious belief, pastors or religious counselors could offer the therapy but not charge. Or like cigarettes, counselors charging for the service would have to give the potential client a warning sheet that the therapy has been shown to be ineffective and may be hazardous to one's health.

Quote from: traci_k on May 20, 2015, 01:29:42 PM
All the legislation I've heard of until now seemed aimed only at protecting minors. Oregon's governor just sign such a bill covering minors. Illinois is on the verge of passing a similar bill covering minors. It does seem to fly in the face of free speech and the right to self-determination as it pertains to adults. But, there is no evidence that the therapy works. The FDA surely wouldn't permit a drug that has no efficacy to be sold. The therapy is potentially harmful and we legislate against other actions which are self-harming. Why couldn't it be banned? Aren't licensed professionals regulated in their behavior which could be harmful to their clients? Doesn't the FTC prohibit advertising products which don't do what they are advertised to do? There are no studies that show that conversion therapy works. There may be anecdotal evidence, but studies have shown it to be ineffective.

Perhaps as a compromise, said professionals may offer the therapy, but would not be allowed to charge for the service (I know it sounds rather dumb.) Or since most of the therapies seem to be based on a religious belief, pastors or religious counselors could offer the therapy but not charge. Or like cigarettes, counselors charging for the service would have to give the potential client a warning sheet that the therapy has been shown to be ineffective and may be hazardous to one's health.

I'm of the belief that if you're an adult you know what you're doing and you have free will so the Government shouldn't put you in a rubber room just because it thinks you may harm yourself.

Also, the FDA approves drugs for certain uses. Doctors can still prescribe them off label, for example female hormones can be prescribed for genetic males as part of cross sex hormone therapy. As an adult you should not be prohibited from putting what you want in your body...

If you are a child, and your parents are sending you to CT, you are being severely abused. If you are adult, you have the option of saying no, so it is consensual. It might be a terrible thing, but it is still consensual. However, people should be legally entitled to get all their money back if CT doesn't work. I'm more libertarian than some people, but acting to punish the use of illegitimate force and fraud is a legitimate state interest, and CT is just one of many forms of fraud out there. I think the act of attempting CT on an adult should be subject to civil sanctions (including damages and the loss of permits/licenses) , while attempting CT on a minor should be criminally punished.

Sorry, it's the equivalent of snake oil or penis enhancement pills to me. 

It's an absolute travesty to subject a minor to this, but if as an adult you want it, knock yourself out.  I just think it should come with the equivalent of an FDA warning that one must read and sign that says it doesn't really work.  If real therapists must be licensed by the state, I would think the fake ones should be monitored as well.

Quote from: iKate on May 20, 2015, 12:38:58 PM
As an adult you are free to do as you wish.

Not always.

In particular, the disabled (or anyone who is dependent upon others) are free to do (or be done to) as whoever is responsible for their care chooses.

There was an article about that in the Advocate recently.

There are also any number of adults who are financially dependent upon others who can be coerced.  Just here at Susans there are a number of posters who are over 18 but don't have the resources to go it alone.  Not to mention the more cult-like flavors of fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity who are good at making sure that their children are in no position to "go astray," even as adults.  (The Duggars come to mind.)

There are lots of things we don't allow to be done to people, even if they're willing.  E.g., surgery by people with no medical training.  Or access to certain medications without a licensed doctor's prescription.  At this point, it's pretty well established that "conversion therapy" doesn't work (even for those who desperately want it to work) and it does immense harm.

Quote from: Asche on May 20, 2015, 06:07:52 PM
Not always.

In particular, the disabled (or anyone who is dependent upon others) are free to do (or be done to) as whoever is responsible for their care chooses.

There was an article about that in the Advocate recently.

There are also any number of adults who are financially dependent upon others who can be coerced.  Just here at Susans there are a number of posters who are over 18 but don't have the resources to go it alone.  Not to mention the more cult-like flavors of fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity who are good at making sure that their children are in no position to "go astray," even as adults.  (The Duggars come to mind.)

There are lots of things we don't allow to be done to people, even if they're willing.  E.g., surgery by people with no medical training.  Or access to certain medications without a licensed doctor's prescription.  At this point, it's pretty well established that "conversion therapy" doesn't work (even for those who desperately want it to work) and it does immense harm.

A disabled person is a different thing as in some cases they depend on caretakers. I am primarily referring to adults who are of sound mind and body.

I am not willing to let the Government decide what is good for me and my own mind and body, more so than it already has. That is my decision as an adult.

But you are informed enough to decide whether or not to get it. Just like you are informed enough to have a doctor prescribe you hormones.

The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, these are all expert groups and all of them have said that conversion therapy is bad for you. They don't want their members to practice it. If an adult said, "oh. No! I'm transgender. I'll take this therapy." Yeah, it's a stupid decision, but theirs to make. But that's not how it works. A parent says, "we'll disown you if you don't agree to this therapy our minister recommends." A wife says, "I'll leave you destitute and you'll never see your kids." As long as being transgender is an abomination to large groups of people, including politicians and judges the decision to accept conversion therapy cannot be assumed to be uncoerced.

Ten years ago I was a practicing hypnotist. I had an 80% success rate with smoking cessation or reduction. My state called that "practicing medicine without a license" and put me out of business so, yeah, I'm sensitive to government interference in treatment, but young or old, the only appropriate task of government is to protect people from abuses of power and that's what's happening to us.

New York state has no protections specific to trans people. I live in a conservative county there. Many people here find us strange if not disgusting or evil. Had she wished to my wife could have petitioned the court to commit me to such a program and I would have been forced to go. This is a very real danger. People who don't belong to a recognized therapeutic association are not allowed to practice therapy. Most of those associations don't list conversion therapy as a "best practice". But ministers and religious leaders are considered such a group and they can do anything they please as therapy.  The government has to regulate this because we have no other option.

Quote from: Dee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 02:47:15 PM
If an adult said, "oh. No! I'm transgender. I'll take this therapy." Yeah, it's a stupid decision, but theirs to make. But that's not how it works. A parent says, "we'll disown you if you don't agree to this therapy our minister recommends." A wife says, "I'll leave you destitute and you'll never see your kids." As long as being transgender is an abomination to large groups of people, including politicians and judges the decision to accept conversion therapy cannot be assumed to be uncoerced.

When I quit seeing my first therapist, my wife told me the ONLY therapists she'd agree with had to be Christians, and the only "help" and advice they offered was to pray, pray, pray.  $100 freakin' dollars an hour for that???
But you hit it exactly, often times an adult in trying to keep a family together is coerced and does not go into this therapy with "free will."

Quote from: Dee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 02:47:15 PM
But ministers and religious leaders are considered such a group and they can do anything they please as therapy.

But ministers and pastors call it counseling and most often don't charge - hence no fraud.

What needs to happen is for "conversion therapy" to be universally recognized as ineffective. But that's like a snowball's chance in well, you know where.

Quote from: Dee Marshall on May 21, 2015, 02:47:15 PM
The American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, these are all expert groups and all of them have said that conversion therapy is bad for you. They don't want their members to practice it. If an adult said, "oh. No! I'm transgender. I'll take this therapy." Yeah, it's a stupid decision, but theirs to make. But that's not how it works. A parent says, "we'll disown you if you don't agree to this therapy our minister recommends." A wife says, "I'll leave you destitute and you'll never see your kids." As long as being transgender is an abomination to large groups of people, including politicians and judges the decision to accept conversion therapy cannot be assumed to be uncoerced.

This is right on spot. The idea that an adult's decision to seek such quackery is an isolated, free, uncoerced choice, is naive at best. Even people who may think they make their choice freely, may often be indirectly coerced through internalized *phobia, again caused by others. We are not islands.

That said, the law doesn't forbid adults to seek such treatment. It forbids people from offering fraudulent "therapies". The two may seem similar, but the difference is that it is the quack who is punished, not the "patient". While I'm aware the American ideal of freedom is quite different (for better and for worse!) than my own culture's ideal of freedom, I believe availability of outright harmful "therapies" is really the opposite of freedom, regardless of culture, especially given that "choice" is often an illusion when it comes to seeking this kind of "therapy".