National
New Calif. law bans ‘gay’ to ‘straight’ therapy for minors
Measure only applies to mental health professionals licensed by state
Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill barring so-called ‘conversion’ therapy for gay teens under 18. (Photo by Phil Konstantin via Wikipedia)
California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a first-of-its-kind bill on Sept. 29 prohibiting “reparative” therapy that seeks to change a minor’s sexual orientation from gay to straight.
Bill SB 1172, introduced by State Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Los Angeles County), applies only to mental health professionals licensed or credentialed by the state who seek to perform the therapy on someone below the age of 18.
It exempts unlicensed therapists or counselors, including those associated with religious organizations.
Despite the exemptions, Brown and Lieu called the legislation an important step in protecting juveniles from a practice they describe as unscientific and harmful. The law takes effect Jan. 1, 2013.
“This bill bans non-scientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to depression and suicide,” Brown told the San Francisco Chronicle. “These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”
In a statement released Sept. 30, Lieu said, “No one should stand idly by while children are being psychologically abused, and anyone who forces a child to try to change their sexual orientation must understand this is unacceptable,” he said.
The nation’s two largest mental health professional organizations – the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association – have long opposed reparative therapy on grounds that no credible scientific studies have confirmed that someone’s sexual orientation can be changed. The two groups have also pointed to studies showing that seeking to change a person’s sexual orientation could lead to depression and other harmful side effects. The groups didn’t take an official position on SB 1172.
But more than a dozen state and national mental health associations did endorse the legislation, including the California Psychological Association, the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
SB 1172 passed in the California Senate and Assembly by comfortable margins in late August along party lines, with no Republicans voting for it.
Opponents, including the Pacific Justice Institute, announced they plan to challenge the law in court, saying it violates First Amendment free-speech rights. The Pacific Justice Institute said the law also would deny parents the right to choose the type of therapy and care for their children.
The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which promotes reparative therapy, issued a statement on its website saying if SB 1172 became law, “licensed therapists in California who would otherwise be willing to assist minor clients in modifying their unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors will be seriously jeopardizing their professional livelihoods.”
LGBT advocacy groups hailed the law as an important breakthrough in their ongoing efforts to oppose reparative therapy.
“Governor Brown today reaffirmed what medical and mental health organizations have made clear,” said Clarissa Filgioun, board president of the statewide LGBT group Equality California. “Efforts to change minors’ sexual orientation are not therapy; they are the relics of prejudice and abuse that have inflicted untold harm on young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians.”
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, pointed to research showing that reparative therapy causes “serious, lasting harm” to LGBT youth.
“It is time to safeguard the most vulnerable among us by ending the abusive practice of subjecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth to damaging attempts to change their sexual orientation or gender expression,” he said.
Some supporters of the bill expressed concern that its sponsors weakened the measure by dropping a provision that would have required reparative therapy patients of any age to sign a consent form acknowledging the therapy’s potential harm and lack of scientific merit.
Another provision dropped from the original version of the bill would have required mental health practitioners to file a report to the state about the reparative therapy they perform. The provision called for the state to keep records on the therapy and issue an annual report about the “risks and limited potential” of the therapy.
“The focus of the bill narrowed to only minors who were succumbing to psychological abuse,” Ray Sotero, a spokesperson for Lieu, told the Blade.
“Additionally, for fiscal purposes, we removed the reporting requirement and focused instead on a ban for children and adolescents as a first, much-needed step,” Sotero said.
A similar bill calling for banning reparative therapy for minors is pending in the New Jersey Legislature.
Brown signed the California measure less than a week after close to 50,000 people signed a petition organized by HRC urging him to sign it. HRC spokesperson Fred Sainz and Equality California spokesperson Stephan Roth said supported the bill all along.
“By way of our petition, we wanted to make sure that he knew that this issue was a tremendously important one to our community and most especially LGBT you,” Sainz said.
New York psychiatrist Jack Drescher, who’s gay and is a former chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on LGBT Issues, said he has mixed views on the possible impact of laws to ban reparative or “conversion” therapy.
“Most of the people doing conversion therapies are unlicensed, so the bills in California and New Jersey would not affect them as they only concern state-licensed professionals,” Drescher told the Blade.
He said such laws are subject to court challenge, and anti-gay groups supporting reparative therapy could claim a victory if a court overturns a law banning the practice on constitutional grounds.
“On the other hand, in the event the law does pass constitutional muster, it would undoubtedly cast a chilling effect on some unlicensed professionals and perhaps even create a basis to support civil lawsuits against unlicensed practitioners,” he said.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
Sinners and Saints bar vandalized in suspected anti-LGBTQ hate crime
The true cost of cutting DEI
Trans performer, juggler premiering one-woman show
Indian Supreme Court orders government to reconsider trans blood donor policy
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances
D.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment
Frank Kameny’s legacy lives on
-
a&e features2 days agoLooking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
-
Maryland3 days agoWes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
-
Congress4 days agoMarjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances
-
District of Columbia3 days agoD.C. Black Pride 2025: Events, parties, and empowerment