Rarely do I expect the Los Angeles Times to echo concerns which I have shared about legislation, especially bills which touch on very sensitive cultural issues.
Yet in May 2018, the Los Angeles Times editorial board declared their fervent opposition to AB 2943, pointing out that the language of the bill is too broad, attacks the First Amendment rights of American citizens.
![]("https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-A-I74MWj-74/W3-CGTh0YeI/AAAAAAABJxk/peohcU_rbD8_ZFevvWAc8k_d4rjuluCrgCLcBGAs/s1600/Stop%2BAB%2B2943.jpg")
Opponents of AB 2943 should submit this editorial to every elected official whom they can connect with and tell them to oppose this ban on reparative therapy, the First Amendment, and the rights of individuals to seek the best care for their life and well-being.
In 2012 California enacted a law that bars licensed mental
health providers from engaging in therapy designed to change the sexual
orientation of patients under the age of 18. Now the state Senate is
considering a sequel of sorts. But this new legislation is broader in its
application — so broad that some critics are claiming that it could be used to
interfere with the sale of religious books, even the Bible.
health providers from engaging in therapy designed to change the sexual
orientation of patients under the age of 18. Now the state Senate is
considering a sequel of sorts. But this new legislation is broader in its
application — so broad that some critics are claiming that it could be used to
interfere with the sale of religious books, even the Bible.
Yes, and those concerns are true.
Such fears may be farfetched. But AB 2943, which was passed
by the Assembly last month, contains ambiguities that need to be cleared up if
the legislation is to become law.
by the Assembly last month, contains ambiguities that need to be cleared up if
the legislation is to become law.
Like the 2012 statute, AB 2943 is inspired by research
showing that so-called conversion therapy is not only ineffective but harmful.
There is also a consensus among mental health experts that such therapy
perpetuates the discredited idea that being gay is a mental disorder. Unlike
the earlier law, however, this legislation targets "sexual orientation
change efforts" aimed at adults as well as minors.
The notion of attacking adults' liberties is very bad. Why does the state legislature insist on treating adults like children?
showing that so-called conversion therapy is not only ineffective but harmful.
There is also a consensus among mental health experts that such therapy
perpetuates the discredited idea that being gay is a mental disorder. Unlike
the earlier law, however, this legislation targets "sexual orientation
change efforts" aimed at adults as well as minors.
The notion of attacking adults' liberties is very bad. Why does the state legislature insist on treating adults like children?
Some would argue that adults should be allowed to avail
themselves of therapies, however discredited, if they are offered by licensed
psychologists and other professionals. But if the Legislature has the legal
authority to forbid therapists from engaging in conversion therapy with minors,
it probably can prohibit them from treating adults as well.
That is a bad argument. The ban on reparative therapy for minors should be repealed, too.
themselves of therapies, however discredited, if they are offered by licensed
psychologists and other professionals. But if the Legislature has the legal
authority to forbid therapists from engaging in conversion therapy with minors,
it probably can prohibit them from treating adults as well.
That is a bad argument. The ban on reparative therapy for minors should be repealed, too.
Many religious groups teach that sex is permissible only
within heterosexual marriage. The 1st Amendment protects their right to counsel
adherents accordingly.
within heterosexual marriage. The 1st Amendment protects their right to counsel
adherents accordingly.
The problem is that AB 2943 isn't a regulation of licensed
healthcare professionals. Rather, and oddly, it's an amendment to a state law,
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, dealing with fraudulent trade in goods and
services. It would expand the definition of "unfair or deceptive acts or
practices" for which consumers could sue to include "advertising,
offering to engage in or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an
individual." And it would cover anyone who engaged in that practice.
healthcare professionals. Rather, and oddly, it's an amendment to a state law,
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, dealing with fraudulent trade in goods and
services. It would expand the definition of "unfair or deceptive acts or
practices" for which consumers could sue to include "advertising,
offering to engage in or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an
individual." And it would cover anyone who engaged in that practice.
Would that include churches or other religious groups that
sold, advertised or even recommended books that propagated the idea that
believers can use prayer to overcome "same-sex attraction"? That's
what several conservative organizations and commentators are arguing. They have
the Constitution on their side. The 1st Amendment clearly protects their right
to preach, and encourage adherents to follow, religious doctrine on sexual
morality.
![]("https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BLFGxQHF0qI/W3-CGaYbXxI/AAAAAAABJxc/gXhnIbNNDNs90NyHFQlDf-K9jLybwpEBgCEwYBhgL/s320/AB%2B2943%2Bwill%2Bsilence%2Bthe%2Bchurch.jpg")
sold, advertised or even recommended books that propagated the idea that
believers can use prayer to overcome "same-sex attraction"? That's
what several conservative organizations and commentators are arguing. They have
the Constitution on their side. The 1st Amendment clearly protects their right
to preach, and encourage adherents to follow, religious doctrine on sexual
morality.
![]("https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-BLFGxQHF0qI/W3-CGaYbXxI/AAAAAAABJxc/gXhnIbNNDNs90NyHFQlDf-K9jLybwpEBgCEwYBhgL/s1600/AB%2B2943%2Bwill%2Bsilence%2Bthe%2Bchurch.jpg")
Those arguments are justified and disturbing.
Supporters of the bill scoff at this critique. A fact sheet
provided by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Silicon Valley), the sponsor of AB 2943,
asserts that the bill "does not apply to the sale of books or any other
kind of goods" and that the Bible "would absolutely not be
banned." Yet the bill itself makes no such declaration. And the existing
Consumer Legal Remedies Act clearly applies to the sale of goods such as books,
videos and other educational materials — including those sold by churches and
other religious groups.
The latest amendment has removed the ban on "goods", but services including reading materials, do they not?
provided by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Silicon Valley), the sponsor of AB 2943,
asserts that the bill "does not apply to the sale of books or any other
kind of goods" and that the Bible "would absolutely not be
banned." Yet the bill itself makes no such declaration. And the existing
Consumer Legal Remedies Act clearly applies to the sale of goods such as books,
videos and other educational materials — including those sold by churches and
other religious groups.
The latest amendment has removed the ban on "goods", but services including reading materials, do they not?
Another complaint by critics is that, while the bill permits
therapies that "do not seek to change sexual orientation," it defines
"sexual orientation change efforts" to include attempts to alter not
only romantic attractions but also "behaviors or gender expressions."
Under this broad definition, wrote David French in the National Review,
"if … a sexually active gay man or woman sought counseling not to change
their orientation but rather to become celibate, then the services and goods
provided in that effort would violate this statute."
The law is a blunt instrument to implement minute, discreet changes.
therapies that "do not seek to change sexual orientation," it defines
"sexual orientation change efforts" to include attempts to alter not
only romantic attractions but also "behaviors or gender expressions."
Under this broad definition, wrote David French in the National Review,
"if … a sexually active gay man or woman sought counseling not to change
their orientation but rather to become celibate, then the services and goods
provided in that effort would violate this statute."
The law is a blunt instrument to implement minute, discreet changes.
Many Californians obviously reject the idea that gays and
lesbians shouldn't engage in sexual activity. But many religious groups
(including the Roman Catholic Church) teach that sex is permissible only within
heterosexual marriage. The 1st Amendment protects their right to counsel
adherents to live by those teachings.
lesbians shouldn't engage in sexual activity. But many religious groups
(including the Roman Catholic Church) teach that sex is permissible only within
heterosexual marriage. The 1st Amendment protects their right to counsel
adherents to live by those teachings.
Yes, and the laws of nature and nature's God affirm these timeless truths, whether people in God or do not believe in God.
Granted, the 2012 law banning conversion therapy for minors
by licensed professionals also defined "sexual orientation change
efforts" to include efforts to change "behaviors or gender
expressions." But that law regulated only the conduct of state-licensed
professionals. Now, the state would be going further, including trying to
regulate nonprofessionals, possibly including those engaged in religious
speech. In upholding the 2012 law against a 1st Amendment challenge, the U.S.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that the statute didn't prevent mental
health providers from referring minors to unlicensed counselors "such as
religious leaders."
![]("https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yhc7y2U-z1Q/W3-CGW-eKUI/AAAAAAABJxg/x8C3Q5L-61YzRDF9Evyvf3hGSDsENea7wCEwYBhgL/s1600/AB%2B2943%2Bbans%2Bbooks.jpg")
by licensed professionals also defined "sexual orientation change
efforts" to include efforts to change "behaviors or gender
expressions." But that law regulated only the conduct of state-licensed
professionals. Now, the state would be going further, including trying to
regulate nonprofessionals, possibly including those engaged in religious
speech. In upholding the 2012 law against a 1st Amendment challenge, the U.S.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals emphasized that the statute didn't prevent mental
health providers from referring minors to unlicensed counselors "such as
religious leaders."
Finally, it's true that AB 2943 covers only sexual
orientation change efforts that result in the "sale or lease of goods or
services" and thus wouldn't affect a lot of religious communications in
which no money changes hands. But what if a minister urged someone he or she
was counseling to buy a book or enroll in a religious seminar that charged a
registration fee? Treating that activity as consumer fraud would raise serious
constitutional questions.
YUP! Bingo!
orientation change efforts that result in the "sale or lease of goods or
services" and thus wouldn't affect a lot of religious communications in
which no money changes hands. But what if a minister urged someone he or she
was counseling to buy a book or enroll in a religious seminar that charged a
registration fee? Treating that activity as consumer fraud would raise serious
constitutional questions.
YUP! Bingo!
It's possible that the critics of this bill are being
alarmist, but the language of the legislation is ambiguous enough to justify at
least some of their concerns. The Senate can allay them by amending the bill to
make it clear that it can't be used against books or religious preaching or
counseling about sexuality.
alarmist, but the language of the legislation is ambiguous enough to justify at
least some of their concerns. The Senate can allay them by amending the bill to
make it clear that it can't be used against books or religious preaching or
counseling about sexuality.
When the Los Angeles Times disagrees with your legislation, it's time to go home.
Please contact Assemblyman Evan Low's office and urge him to reject this bill, withdraw it from consideration.
Low, Evan
District 28 Democrat Contact Assembly Member Evan Low
Capitol Office, Room 4126
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0028; (916) 319-2028
District Office
20111 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 220, Cupertino, CA 95014; (408)
446-2810
446-2810
Use these links to contact other state assemblymembers and urge them to reject this legislation, too.
1. Here's your Call to Action posted:
2. Here's the list of Assembly members posted: