Leading Medical/Mental Health Organizations File Briefs About "Ex-Gay" Therapy Harms

While we have charlatan "ex-gays for pay like Matt Moore peddling the cynical myth that gays can become "straight" through therapy and "accepting Jesus," leading medical and mental health organizations have filed amicus briefs with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit urging the Court to uphold California's ban on "ex-gay" reparative therapy for those under 18 years of age.  These medical and mental health experts call out such religious motivated "therapy" - if one can even dignify the practice with that term - for what it is: fraudulent and harmful.  The sooner "ex-gay" therapy is made illegal nationwide, the better off countless LGBT individuals will be.  As for the Christofascists, they will need to just get over the fact that the selectively cited passages in Leviticus written by ignorant, uneducated nomadic herders (and repeated by the former legalistic Pharisee St. Paul) are simply false.  Better yet, they ought to seek therapy for themselves to discover what motives their sick and selfish need to condemn others so that they can feel better about their own small self-centered lives.  Here are excerpts from an article detailing information of these briefs: 

(San Francisco, CA, February 8, 2013)—A diverse group of prominent mental health professional organizations and social services providers, scholars of constitutional and health care law, civil liberties and religious organizations, the City and County of San Francisco, and individuals and family members filed ten friend-of-the-court briefs this week urging the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to uphold a 2012 California law that prohibits licensed therapists from trying to change a young person’s sexual orientation or gender expression. 

The law, which was signed by California Governor Jerry Brown on September 29, 2012, prohibits state-licensed therapists from attempting to change the sexual orientation or gender expression of a patient under 18 years old. Anti-LGBT legal groups challenged the law in October, 2012, primarily representing California therapists who engage in these practices. Those lawsuits are now before the Ninth Circuit, which will hear arguments on April 17. . . .

On Wednesday, the California Psychological Association, the California Division of the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, and the National Association of Social Workers urged the court to permit the law to take effect because the leading mental health professional organizations “agree that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and have advised against practices that attempt to change an individual’s sexual orientation.”

Twelve regional and national organizations that work with LGBTQ youth .  .  .  .  .  also filed a brief supporting the law. The brief recounts the first-hand experiences of youth who have suffered severe mental and physical health problems as a result of attempts to change their sexual orientation or gender expression, including suicide attempts, cutting and other self-injurious behaviors, severe anxiety, and depression. For example, the brief describes a young woman who called the Trevor Project’s helpline who, after seeing a therapist who tried to change her sexual orientation, “has attempted suicide several times” and “prays that she will die in an accident.”

Another brief tells the stories of individuals who underwent efforts to change their sexual orientation and as a result were plagued for years by problems such as severe anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and drug abuse. The brief includes the story of Kirk Murphy, who as a child in the early 1970s was subjected to an experiment designed to prevent children from growing up to be gay by the University of California at Los Angeles. Murphy’s family was counseled to reward “masculine” behavior and punish “feminine” behavior. Murphy’s sister recalls that these techniques severely damaged her brother, making him withdrawn, isolated and self-conscious. Murphy, a gay man, ultimately died by suicide at the age of 38.

The City and County of San Francisco filed a brief describing how these practices contribute to high rates of homelessness and other serious health problems among LGBT youth, many of whom flock to San Francisco after being rejected by their families. Religious organizations and leaders, including California Faith for Equality and the California Council of Churches, Justice and Witness Ministries, United Church of Christ, and the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry of California, among others, also submitted a brief asking the court to uphold the California law.

“The friend-of-the-court briefs filed in this case underscore the unified message of all leading medical, mental health, and child welfare advocates—efforts to change a child’s sexual orientation are cruel, damaging, and have no place in the provision of mental health care,” said Shannon Minter, Legal Director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “These briefs make an overwhelming case for the necessity for this law, which is now being looked to as a model by a number of other states.”

Law firms and legal organizations representing groups filing friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the California law included: ACLU Foundation Of Northern California, Inc.; Arnold & Porter LLP; Covington & Burling LLP; Foley & Lardner LLP; Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney of San Francisco; Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.; Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP; Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP; Jon B. Eisenberg, Esq.; Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq.; Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.; and Barry R. Levy, Esq.  

Its noteworthy that some of the law firms involved are among the most powerful and prestigious in the country.  It is telling that the only ones opposing the law are (i) cynical quacks enriching themselves at the expense of the well being of their patients and (ii) religious extremist organizations who fund bogus "research" to justify their persecution of LGBT individuals and efforts to deny us equal civil legal rights.

Will We See Health Care Reform?

The Republican Party and their lobbyist friends from the health care and pharmaceutical industries are bad mouthing public option health care reform and as is typical lauding the USA for having the best health care in the world - assuming, of course that one is wealthy and has access to Rolls Royce insurance plans. Sadly, most of us do not fall into that category and over 45 million Americans have no health care coverage whatsoever. Meanwhile, the Democrats are acting spineless and may likely screw up the opportunity to make the systemic change that is needed.

*

I am passionate about health care reform because health care costs are a major burden on small businesses and families as I know well from experience. Personally, my financial difficulties began when one of my children had bacterial meningitis. Even though we had "good coverage" and Anthem paid out benefits in the six figures, due to co-pays, stop loss and policy limits, our savings were wiped out and it took years to pay off the last of the hospital and doctor bills. My child had a miracle recovery and I'd expend the money again, but in the supposedly most advanced county in the world, citizens should not have to be destroyed financially just to secure needed health care.

*

Countering the lies and misstatements of the opponents of systemic health care reform are a number of columns and articles. One is a column by economist Paul Krugman in the New York Times which argues that the public option IS financially possible and notes that France - which is constantly derided by members of the GOP base - has a health care system that covers everyone, offers excellent care and costs barely more than half as much per person as the U.S. system.

*

The Congressional Budget Office has looked at the future of American health insurance, and it works. . . . last week the budget office scored the full proposed legislation from the Senate committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). And the news — which got far less play in the media than the downbeat earlier analysis — was very, very good. Yes, we can reform health care.

*

Let me start by pointing out something serious health economists have known all along: on general principles, universal health insurance should be eminently affordable. After all, every other advanced country offers universal coverage, while spending much less on health care than we do. For example, the French health care system covers everyone, offers excellent care and costs barely more than half as much per person as our system.

*

And even if we didn’t have this international evidence to reassure us, a look at the U.S. numbers makes it clear that insuring the uninsured shouldn’t cost all that much, for two reasons. First, the uninsured are disproportionately young adults, whose medical costs tend to be relatively low. The big spending is mainly on the elderly, who are already covered by Medicare.

*
Second, even now the uninsured receive a considerable (though inadequate) amount of “uncompensated” care, whose costs are passed on to the rest of the population. So the net cost of giving the uninsured explicit coverage is substantially less than it might seem.

*

And those who prefer not to buy insurance from the private sector would be able to choose a public plan instead. This would, among other things, bring some real competition to the health insurance market, which is currently a collection of local monopolies and cartels.

*

The only question now is whether a combination of persuasion from President Obama, pressure from health reform activists and, one hopes, senators’ own consciences will get the centrists on board — or at least get them to vote for cloture, so that diehard opponents of reform can’t block it with a filibuster.

*
This is a historic opportunity — arguably the best opportunity since 1947, when the A.M.A. killed Harry Truman’s health-care dreams. We’re right on the cusp. All it takes is a few more senators, and HELP will be on the way.

*

Everyone needs to call their Senators and Congressmen/women and demand that the vote for health care reform.

California Psychological Association States Opposition to Proposition 8

As Pam's House Blend is reporting, the California Psychological Association has announced it's opposition to passage of California Proposition 8 which would deprive same-sex couples the right to marry under California law. In my view, it is important that LEGITIMATE mental health organizations take public stands in opposition to the quackery of groups like Focus on the Family and similar Christianist organizations who routinely parade out bogus experts who are little more that snake oil merchants and charlatans. Would that the APA and CPA would start revoking the licenses of quacks who peddle reparative therapy and "pray away the gay" programs popular with wingnuts like VP candidate, Sarah Palin. Here are some highlights from the CPA release:

*

This past Spring CPA joined the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the National Association of Social Workers and its California chapter in filing an Amicus Brief with the California Supreme Court on the subject of same sex marriage. The CPA Board of Directors engaged in a robust discussion about this matter, and voted overwhelming to take this action. The Amicus Brief provided extensive psychological research on key points relevant to the issue, and this brief was the only brief cited (out of the 45 Amicus Briefs the Court received) in the Court's opinion issued on May 15, 2008 that struck down California's ban on same sex marriage.

*

The November ballot in California will include Proposition 8, a ballot measure that, if passed, would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. The measure would, in effect, overturn the recent Supreme Court decision that was supported by the Amicus Brief mentioned above.
In light of the fact that CPA joined with APA and the other mental health associations in filing the Amicus Brief, and upon the recommendation of the Government Affairs Committee of CPA, the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors recently voted that CPA take a formal position of opposition to Proposition 8. The CPA Board of Directors and the Executive Committee asked that we inform the full membership of this decision. We ask that you consider this information as you make your decisions in the November election.

*

In the referenced Amicus Brief cited by the California Supreme Court in its historic decision, the CPA argued in part as follows:

*

B. Homosexuality Is a Normal Expression of Human Sexuality. . . . In recognition of the scientific evidence, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973, stating that “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities. After thoroughly reviewing the scientific data, the American Psychological Association adopted the same position in 1975, and urged all mental health professionals “to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations.” The National Association of Social Workers has adopted a similar policy.

*

Thus, mental health professionals and researchers have long recognized that being homosexual poses no inherent obstacle to leading a happy, healthy, and productive life, and the vast majority of gay and lesbian people function well in the full array of social institutions and interpersonal relationships. With particular relevance to the issues before the Court in this case, as explained at greater length in Sections III and IV below, such functioning included the capacity to form healthy and mutually satisfying intimate relationships with another person of the same sex and to raise healthy and well-adjusted children.

*

Like heterosexuals, lesbians and gay men benefit to the extent that they are able to share their lives with and receive support from their family, friends, and other people who are important to them. In many studies, for example, lesbians and gay men have been found to manifest better mental health to the extent that they hold positive feelings about their own sexual orientation, have developed a positive sense of personal identity based on it, and have integrated it into their lives by disclosing it to others (commonly referred to as “coming out of the closet” or simply “coming out). By contrast lesbians and gay men who feel compelled to conceal their sexual orientation tend to report more frequent mental health concerns than their openly gay counterparts, and are also at risk for physical health problems. In fact, no major mental health organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation.

American Medical Association: Stop Discriminating Against Transgender Patients

Raw Story has a story about what one would think would be a common sense issue, namely providing appropriate medical treatment to transgendered individuals. Unfortunately, too many health insurance carriers are always seeking ways to deny coverage for procedures. Now the American Medical Association has stepped into the fray and taken a formal position that treatment should not be denied. While I cannot fully get my head around what it must be like to be transgendered, I guess straights have the same issue with gays. That doesn't mean that all of us should not recive appropriate medical care regardless of our sexual orientations or gender expression. Here are some highlights on the AMA's statements:

*

The American Medical Association is calling on health insurers to cooperate with doctors in providing proper care to meet transgender patients' needs. Resolutions 114, 115 and 122 were passed by the AMA's House of Delegates at its annual conference in Chicago, which concludes today. Noting that Gender Identity Disorder is an internationally recognized medical condition, the Delegates highlight the need to combat the emotional pain and physical incongruity associated with gender dysphoria with proper access to mental health services, hormone treatments, and surgical procedures.

*

The AMA asserts that when discriminatory financial barriers are placed between the transgender community and proper health care by dismissing treatments as "cosmetic" or "experimental," even when covered for other patients with other recognized medical conditions, more expensive problems can develop as a result, such as depression, substance abuse problems, and stress-related illness. The National Center for Transgender Equality has hailed the resolution.

*

"Doctors and patients, not insurance companies, should be making those choices," Keisling [of NTCE] added. "We are so glad that the AMA has taken a leadership role against the rampant discrimination that transgender people have faced for so many years in receiving appropriate medical care and equitable insurance coverage."