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.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Tennessee
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
State Senate to consider measure on Wednesday
The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill last week to create a transgender “watch list” that also pushes detransition medical treatment. The state Senate will consider it on Wednesday.
House Bill 754/State Bill 676 has been deemed “ugly” by LGBTQ advocates and criticized by healthcare information litigators as a major privacy concern.
The bill would require “gender clinics accepting funds from this state to perform gender transition procedures to also perform detransition procedures; requires insurance entities providing coverage of gender transition procedures to also cover detransition procedures; requires certain gender clinics and insurance entities to report information regarding detransition procedures to the department of health.”
It would require that any gender-affirming care-providing clinics share the date, age, and sex of patients; any drugs prescribed (dosage, frequency, duration, and method administered); the state and county; the name, contact information, and medical specialty of the healthcare professional who prescribed the treatment; and any past medical history related to “neurological, behavioral, or mental health conditions.” It would also mandate additional information if surgical intervention is prescribed, including details on which healthcare professional made a referral and when.
HB 0754 would also require the state to produce a “comprehensive annual statistical report,” with all collected data shared with the heads of the legislature and the legislative librarian, and eventually published online for public access.
The bill also reframes detransitioning as a major focus of gender-affirming healthcare — despite studies showing that the number of trans people who detransition is statistically quite low, around 13 percent, and is often the result of external pressures (such as discrimination or family) rather than an issue with their gender identity.
This legislation stands in sharp contrast to federal protections restricting what healthcare information can be shared. In 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, requiring protections for all “individually identifiable health information,” including medical records, conversations, billing information, and other patient data.
Margaret Riley, professor of law, public health sciences, and public policy at the University of Virginia, has written about similar efforts at the federal level, noting the Trump-Vance administration’s push to subpoena multiple hospitals’ records of gender-affirming care for trans patients despite no claims — or proof — that a crime was committed.
It has “sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.” She wrote in an article on the Conversation, where she goes further, pointing out that the push, mostly from conservative members of the government, are pushing extracting this private information “while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.”
State Rep. Jeremy Faison (R-Cosby), the bill’s sponsor, said in a press conference two weeks ago that he has met dozens of individuals who sought to transition genders and ultimately detransitioned. In committee, an individual testified in support of the bill, claiming that while insurance paid for gender-affirming care, detransition care was not covered.
“I believe that we as a society are going to look back on this time that really burst out in 2014 and think, ‘Dear God, What were we thinking? This was as dumb as frontal lobotomies,’” Faison said of gender-affirming care. “I think we’re going to look back on society one day and think that.”
Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law’s senior director of Transgender and Queer Rights, shared with PBS last year that legislation like this changes the entire concept of HIPAA rights for trans Americans in ways that are invasive and unnecessary.
“It turns doctor-patient confidentiality into government surveillance,” Levi said, later emphasizing this will cause fewer people to seek out the care that they need. “It’s chilling.”
The Washington Blade reached out to the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which shared this statement from Executive Director Miriam Nemeth:
“HB 754/SB 676 continues the ugly legacy of Tennessee legislators’ attacks on the lives of transgender Tennesseans. Most Tennesseans, regardless of political views, oppose government databases tracking medical decisions made between patients and their doctors. The same should be true here. The state does not threaten to end the livelihood of doctors and fine them $150,000 for safeguarding the sensitive information of people with diabetes, depression, cancer, or other conditions. Trans people and intersex people deserve the same safety, privacy, and equal treatment under the law as everyone else.”
Minimal version of ‘Streetcar Named Desire’ heading to Dupont Underground
Comings & Goings
An effort to increase the number of psychiatrists of color
Calendar: April 10-16
BLUF leather social set for April 10 in Rehoboth
Police mental health struggles gain growing attention
Man faces first S.C. ‘hate intimidation’ charge
Cuba under pressure and without answers
Tenn. lawmakers pass transgender “watch list” bill
