On August 29  the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision that upheld the law banning Sexual Orientation Change Effort (SOCE) therapy for minors in California. You can read the full-text by clicking here.

At the crux of the Court’s opinion , they decided that SOCE is subject to rational basis review, which means that the law will not be overturned on constitutional grounds if the legislature enacted it for any good reason. If a standard of rational basis review is applied, the Court will provide no constitutional protection for the issue at hand as it is always possible to find some reason, no matter how small or controversial, for a law to be enacted.

On page 19 of the their ruling, the Court said as justification for their ruling:

(1) doctor-patient communications about medical treatment receive substantial First Amendment protection, but the government has more leeway to regulate the conduct necessary to administering treatment itself; (2) psychotherapists are not entitled to special First Amendment protection merely because the mechanism used to deliver mental health treatment is the spoken word; and (3) nevertheless, communication that occurs during psychotherapy does receive some constitutional protection, but it is not immune from regulation.

The Court went onto discuss the limitations on free speech that can be regulated in the case of a doctor-patient or client-therapist relationship, using a continuum:

On one end of the continuum, doctors and therapists are free to express their views outside of their office as members of the general public, away from their relationship with patients and clients.

At one end of the continuum, where a professional is engaged in a public dialogue, First Amendment protection is at its greatest . Thus, for example a doctor who publicly advocates a treatment that the medical establishment considers outside the mainstream, or even dangerous, is entitled to robust protection under the First Amendment – just as any person is – even though the state has the power to regulate . . . thus, outside the doctor-patient relationship, doctors are constitutionally equivalent to soapbox orators and pamphleteers, and their speech receives robust protection under the First Amendment (pp. 20-21).

At the mid-point of the continuum:

Doctors are routinely held liable for giving negligent medical advice to their patients, without serious suggestion that the First Amendment protects their right to give advice that is not consistent with the accepted standard of care. A doctor “may not counsel a patient to rely on quack medicine. The First Amendment would not prohibit the doctor’s loss of license for doing so. . . . the state’s obligation and power to protect its citizens by regulation of the professional conduct of its health practitioners is well settled. . . . [T]he First Amendment . . . does not insulate the verbal charlatan from responsibility for his conduct; nor does it impede the State in the proper exercise of its regulatory functions . . . thus, the First Amendment tolerates a substantial amount of speech regulation within the professional-client relationship that it would not tolerate outside of it. And that toleration makes sense: When professionals, by means of their state-issued licenses, form relationships with clients, the purpose of those relationships is to advance the welfare of the clients, rather than to contribute to public debate (pp. 22-23). 

And finally…

At the other end of the continuum, and where we conclude that SB 1172 lands, is the regulation of professional conduct, where the state’s power is great, even though such regulation may have an incidental effect on speech. Most, if not all, medical treatment requires speech, but that fact does not give rise to a First Amendment claim when the state bans a particular treatment. When a drug is banned, for example, a doctor who treats patients with that drug does not have a First Amendment right to speak the words necessary to provide or administer the banned drug (pg. 23). 

Thus, in the Court’s decision to employ rational basis review, they essentially punted om the question as to whether the basis of the law was actually legitimate:

Without a doubt, protecting the well-being of minors is a legitimate state interest. And we need not decide whether SOCE actually causes “serious harms”; it is enough that it could “reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decision-maker. The legislature relied on the report of the Task Force of the American Psychological Association, which concluded that SOCE has not been demonstrated to be effective and that there have been anecdotal reports of harm, including depression, suicidal thoughts or actions, and substance abuse. The legislature also relied on the opinions of many other professional organizations. Each of those organizations opposed the use of SOCE, concluding, among other things, that homosexuality is not an illness and does not require treatment (American School Counselor Association), SOCE therapy can provoke guilt and anxiety (American Academy of Pediatrics), it may be harmful (National Association of Social Workers), and it may contribute to an enduring sense of stigma and self-criticism (American Psychoanalytic Association). Although the legislature also had before it some evidence that SOCE is safe and effective, the overwhelming consensus was that SOCE was harmful and ineffective. On this record, we have no trouble concluding that the legislature acted rationally by relying on that consensus (pp. 26-27). 

This is perhaps the most troubling statement of all. The Court, in its use of rational basis review, completely disregarded the task of deciding whether there was sufficient evidence to ban a particular form of treatment. While the “plaintiffs argue that the legislature acted irrationally when it banned SOCE for minors because there is a lack of scientifically credible proof of harm. . . under rational basis review, “[w]e ask only whether there are plausible reasons for [the legislature’s] action, and if there are, our inquiry is at an end (pg. 28).”

There you go. Essentially, the Court can decide that the medical and psychological establishment’s opinion is sufficient, even if that opinion is not based on scientific research. As I have argued in New Jersey and Liberty Counsel in California, there is not one research study published that documents any outcomes for adolescents undergoing SOCE.

Thus, it is clear now that the erosion of political correctness, not scientific evidence, can be justification for banning a particular form of treatment. One has to ask the question, is the Court not supposed be the final arbiter of laws that have been enacted unjustly? Or has the court succumbed, just as the elected body of officials in California, to popular opinion and not sound science?

It thus appears that the Court, in their employment of the rational basis review argument, has done so due to certain political motives. To quote a legal associate of mine, employing rational basis review is the “judicial equivalent of giving litigants the finger.”

Christopher Doyle is the President and Co-Founder of Voice of the Voiceless. For more information, visit: www.VoiceoftheVoiceless.info

Activist-Blogger Claims on National Television He “Probably Would” Have Sex with Someone Who Has AIDS, Calls Abstinence “Reckless” and “Irresponsible”

Anti-Ex-Gay Activist-Blogger Wayne Besen with Liberty Counsel’s Matt Barber at the 2010 Awakening Conference at Liberty University. Besen was posing as an undercover college student when he was called out and shockingly, embraced and loved by Barber, one of those “hateful, bigoted” Christians.

In a shocking display of ignorance and irresponsibility, anti-ex-gay activist-blogger Wayne Besen admitted on national TV that he has, and “probably would” again, have sex with a person infected with HIV/AIDS as long as he wore a condom, although it’s not “optimal,” and that efforts to reduce HIV/AIDS with abstinence, faithfulness, and partner reduction are “reckless” and “irresponsible.”

You can watch Besen’s confusing, contradictory, and troubling statements by clicking here and viewing the 2009 Fox News O’Reilly Factor footage, hosted by Laura Ingraham, where Besen admits that he has had sex and “probably would” have sex again with a person infected with AIDS, as long as he wore a condom.

At the time of the broadcast, some liberal social activists had criticized Pope Benedict for his recommendation that Africa concentrate more on abstinence, faithfulness, and partner reduction rather than promote “safe sex” methods such as condom use to curb the spread of HIV/AIDS.

According to research by Harvard University’s Dr. Edward Green, mass condom promotion in some African countries has actually had a reverse effect on HIV/AIDS prevalence, causing increases, not decreases, in HIV infections.

In a letter to The Lancet who criticized the Pope’s stance, Dr. Green said:

“Ecological and epidemiological evidence from generalised epidemics points to partner reduction as the primary behavioural factor explaining declines in HIV prevalence, which we now see in several African countries. Increased condom availability or use has not shown a similar pattern of association with prevalence decline across multiple generalised epidemics.”

To support his statement for the promotion of abstinence, faithfulness, and partner reduction, Dr. Green cites several scientific peer-reviewed studies that provide data to suggest that condom promotion may actually “exacerbate” the AIDS epidemic within Africa.

“The phenomenon of risk compensation—engaging in higher-risk behaviours because risk reduction technology conveys a greater sense of safety than warranted—could account for higher infection rates, and has been suggested by at least one randomized, controlled study, which found that ‘gains in condom use seem to have been offset by increases in the number of sex partners’.”

Green makes a compelling argument; one that I agree with completely. In fact, around the same time Besen opined his dangerous, ignorant views on Fox News, I consulted with Green when citing some of his research in my own work on abstinence and faithfulness with the Children’s AIDS Fund.

But why should we rely on actual data and science when we can trust Wayne Besen’s “safe sex” practices?

When I confronted Besen in Trenton, New Jersey a couple of months ago when we both testified at the same Assembly hearing, he was very defensive and told me that he stands by his statement, that he is now married to his partner, and that both of them are HIV negative.

That’s a relief. But what about all the other potential victims who may have taken Besen’s dangerous and ignorant advice, and as a result, became infected with HIV?

I tried to reason with Besen (after all, the guy doesn’t know his research) that it’s not necessarily the method failure rate of condoms (which is between 10-20 percent, depending on the study you cite) but rather, the user failure rate of condoms that makes his statement and recommendation so dangerous.

For example, condoms fail 10-20 percent of the time due to breaking during sexual intercourse and other manufacturer’s defects. But the reason they are so risky for the prevention of HIV is because individuals simply don’t use them consistently and correctly, and if someone doesn’t use a condom for every single sex act, 100 percent of the time, it’s like playing Russian roulette.

But perhaps the most troubling aspect of Besen’s statement is that he is a gay man, and the primary audience that listens to and supports him are gay men who have sex with men (MSM).

Frighteningly, there is no condom approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for anal sex, which is a very common practice among MSM!

In fact, the Attorney General has gone on record to say:

“Condoms provide some protection, but anal intercourse is simply too dangerous to practice. Condoms may be more likely to break during anal intercourse than during other types of sex because of the greater amount of friction and other stresses involved. Even if the condom doesn’t break, anal intercourse is very risky because it can cause tissue in the rectum to tear and bleed. These tears allow disease germs to pass more easily from one partner to the other.”

It’s really quite astonishing for Besen to talk about credibility when he stated: “The Pope has got a huge credibility problem. It’s not rocket science that condoms stop HIV, just sound science . . . and to say otherwise is reckless, it’s irresponsible, and quite frankly, it’s unconscionable.”

When Raymond Arroyo (Besen’s counterpoint on the show) corrected Besen’s errors, that condoms are NOT the “responsible” and “effective” way to stop HIV/AIDS, and cited actual research that shows Uganda’s abstinence and faithfulness program has been the only success story in Africa in reducing the prevalence of AIDS, Besen resorted to his typical three-year old bullying behavior:

“What you’re saying is not true, every respected medical and mental health organization will disagree with you.”

Wayne’s usual tactic when he loses an argument is to bully those who disagree with him by citing more bullies who also agree with his liberal views. But the fact is, Besen’s statements are extremely dangerous not only to him and his partner, but also to his primary audience of gay men who listen to him and read his blog.

It’s frightening to think that millions of people watched this broadcast, many of whom may have taken his advice, used condoms to prevent HIV during sex, and subsequently got infected.

Voice of the Voiceless is so concerned with Besen’s dangerous advice and lack of education, that we are contacting Fox News Network and all of the other major TV networks that have brought him on as an “expert” to warn them that his dangerous advice may have resulted in countless men (and women) being infected with HIV/AIDS.

If you or someone you know watched this broadcast, followed Wayne Besen’s advice, and subsequently became infected with HIV/AIDS, please contact Christopher Doyle at [email protected] so we can investigate whether Wayne Besen may be legally responsible for your or your loved one’s life-threatening illness.

Christopher Doyle, M.A. is the President and Co-Founder of Voice of the Voiceless, the only anti-defamation league for former homosexuals, individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions, and their families. For more information on our investigation of Wayne Besen, please visit our website at: www.VoiceoftheVoiceless.info

As a veteran public school teacher, I questioned my niece as to why she wouldn’t send her children to public schools.  She has seven children, all under age 12. She is opting to homeschool her children for a number of reasons.  One of them is that she wants to protect her children’s innocence as long as she can.She is a Harvard graduate and a lawyer, but she has put her career aside in order to  select her homeschool curriculum,to teach her children herself and to  monitor each child as s/he grows intellectually, socially and spiritually .

In addition to homeschooling, she is extremely vigilant about her children’s TV watching and use of computer time.  The family owns a small, 12 inch screen TV, and it is primarily used to watch DVD’s and sports channels.  Yes, she only allows G-rated movies. She monitors educational gaming on her computer which is in her full view. You can imagine that these children are the most wholesome, innocent, pure, and loving children I have ever encountered.

I bring this up because the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Round Table of the American Library Association is continually endorsing new pro-gay books to schools for their libraries. At one school where I used to teach, the school adopted a community read of one of the recommended books. Everyone in the school would read the book.  Students would follow along as their small group mentors, their teachers, read the book to them.

At first glance, the book that was selected is a wonderful, anti-bullying book.  It depicts how many students are marginalized because of their differences.  I applauded the school’s decision to read an anti-bullying book as a community read.  There is an awful lot of bullying at the middle school level, and I thought that the book would bring the problem up for discussion and hopefully stop the bullying. What I did not condone was the choice of the book and the manner in which the book would be read. In my opinion, the book does an excellent job at exposing the bullying of different groups, including same-sex attracted youth. But, it also subtly promotes the gay agenda.  For example, one character in the book advises a homosexual boy to go along with his feelings because “ if it feels right it must be right.” 

I’m not sure how you interpret that line, but I interpreted it as an endorsement for the gay lifestyle. It also is sending the message that whatever feels right is OK. Well, for many of my students, having sex at age 12 feels right. To some stealing feels right.  To some, cheating feels right.  How can a school district force a teacher to read such a statement to his/her class?  A teacher is a role model, and as such has some power of persuasion when he or she says something.  For me to read, “If it feels right, it must be right,” is tantamount to my endorsement of that statement.

For this reason, I submitted a letter to the principal telling her why I could not read the book.  She did not reply, but the next year, the same book (which was slated to be read again to the incoming class) was removed from the required reading list. I think she was afraid that I would make an issue of this with the school board, and she didn’t want to have to defend that line, and others like it, herself.

While the majority of parents cannot homeschool as my niece does, we can monitor the books that are being selected to read at home.  We can also monitor the games and shows watch on TV and gaming devices. We keep our homes safe by locking doors and keeping the lights on.  We should also protect our children’s values by monitoring what they read and are exposed to in school and elsewhere.

Gisele Roy is a parent of a son in his twenties who has battled SSA for 13 years. She has struggled with the emotional pain of seeing her son experience rejection from his peers, loneliness, and deep depression. It is Gisele’s hope that she, her husband and her son will continue to work on healing the deep-seated pain and emotional causes of his SSA and that her son will be able to find a wife who will complement him in every way.