Is Trump mentally ill? Or is America?

I suspect that future historians will long ponder what level of insanity prompted Americans - thanks to an Electoral College that lacked the courage to fulfill the Founder's design to protect the country - to put Donald Trump in the White House (I refuse to utter his title before his name because dishonors the office). At the same times, those future historians will likely ponder the precise form of Trump's serious mental disorders that put the both America and the world at risk).  The Washington Post reviews some new books by mental health experts that collectively conclude that Trump is dangerous and either mentally ill or at best a very horrible person.   As for Trump's supporters, sadly in my view, they fall into that latter category, if not the first.  Here are highlights from the review:

Gone are the days when euphemisms about President Trump’s mental health insulated the man like so many padded walls. 

Erratic. Unpredictable. Unstable. Unmoored. Temperamentally unfit. This was what politicians and commentators said when they wished to question Trump’s state of mind but feared the consequences of a more colloquial assessment. Yet the deeper we plunge into this presidency, the more willing people become to call it like they see and hear it.

Now, some psychiatrists and other mental-health professionals are shedding long-held norms to argue that Trump’s condition presents risks to the nation and the world. “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” features more than two dozen essays breaking down the president’s perceived traits, which the contributors find consistent with symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy and other maladies. “Collectively with our coauthors, we warn that anyone as mentally unstable as Mr. Trump simply should not be entrusted with the life-and-death powers of the presidency,” Judith Lewis Herman of Harvard Medical School and Bandy X. Lee of the Yale School of Medicine write in the book’s prologue.

If so, what should we make of the nation that entrusted him with precisely such powers? In his new book, “Twilight of American Sanity,” psychiatrist Allen Frances asserts that Trump is not mentally ill — we are. “Calling Trump crazy allows us to avoid confronting the craziness in our society,” he writes. “We can’t expect to change Trump, but we must work to undo the societal delusions that created him.”

[D]epending on which of these books you trust — and their persuasive powers vary considerably — you might conclude that Trump is of unsound mind, or that we’re the deranged ones for electing him, or that America has always been disturbed, with Trump’s presidency just the latest manifestation.  And here’s the really crazy thing: These options are not mutually exclusive.

[C]ontributors argue that Trump’s behavior — his political statements and actions as well as his interviews, books and social-media activity — suggest more ominous possibilities.

Trump displays signs of “extreme present hedonism,” the tendency to live in the moment without considering consequences, seeking to bolster one’s self-esteem no matter the risk. Or he exhibits “narcissistic personality disorder,” which includes believing you’re better than others, exaggerating your achievements and expecting constant praise. Combine hedonism, narcissism and bullying, and you get “an impulsive, immature, incompetent person who, when in the position of ultimate power, easily slides into the role of the tyrant,” Philip Zimbardo (of the famous Stanford prison experiment) and Rosemary Sword write. Others suggest that Trump shows indications of sociopathy, including lack of empathy, absence of guilt and intentional ma­nipu­la­tion. Put it all together and you have “malignant narcissism,” which includes antisocial behavior, paranoid traits, even sadism.

Over time these characteristics will only become worse, either because Mr. Trump will succeed in gaining more power and more grandiosity with less grasp on reality, or because he will engender more criticism producing more paranoia, more lies, and more enraged destruction.” And when the president stands before the U.N. General Assembly and threatens to “totally destroy” an enemy country of 25 million people, enraged destruction seems on point.

The volume’s contributors take solace in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, a 1976 casein which the California Supreme Court held that mental-health experts have a responsibility to speak out when they determine that someone poses a physical danger to others. 

In the final chapter, psychiatrists Nanette Gartrell and Dee Mosbacher call for an independent panel to evaluate Trump’s fitness for office, and they urge Congress to pass legislation ensuring that future presidential and vice-presidential candidates undergo evaluations. I would not want Tansey, for one, serving on that body. Wouldn’t dream of it.

We are living in very frightening times to say the least.  We can only hope that Mueller does his work quickly and can not only take down Trump but Pence as well.

Over 36 Mental Health Professionals: Trump Too Mentally Ill for Office

I have not made any effort to hide my view that Donald Trump, a/k/a Der Trumpenführer, is mentally ill.  Perhaps dangerously so.  Now three dozen plus mental health professionals, one of whom is a retired  professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, have voiced similar concerns in a letter to the editor of the New York Times. Indeed, they state that Trump is too mentally unstable to occupy the office of the presidency.  The following is their letter in full (the full list of signatories is here):

Charles M. Blow (column, nytimes.com, Feb. 9) describes Donald Trump’s constant need “to grind the opposition underfoot.” As mental health professionals, we share Mr. Blow’s concern.

Silence from the country’s mental health organizations has been due to a self-imposed dictum about evaluating public figures (the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 Goldwater Rule). But this silence has resulted in a failure to lend our expertise to worried journalists and members of Congress at this critical time. We fear that too much is at stake to be silent any longer.

Mr. Trump’s speech and actions demonstrate an inability to tolerate views different from his own, leading to rage reactions. His words and behavior suggest a profound inability to empathize. Individuals with these traits distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them (journalists, scientists).

In a powerful leader, these attacks are likely to increase, as his personal myth of greatness appears to be confirmed. We believe that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.

Yes, admitting that one made a mistake isn't always easy, but we are far past the time when not hurting the feelings of Trump supporters cannot make us hold are tongues and not state the obvious truth: Trump IS mentally ill and he poses a danger to the nation and the world. He needs to be removed from office ASAP.  True, that would leave the country with the every foul Mike Pence in the oval office.  But at least Pence isn't flat out insane.  Scary and a danger, yes, but not an utter insane loose cannon that is the only way to describe Trump. 

District of Columbia Bans "Ex-Gay" Therapy

The Christofascists have lost another battle in their war to perpetuate the myth that sexual orientation is a "choice" and that gays can "change" their sexuality - claims that are condemned by every legitimate medical and mental health association in America.  The truth and the findings of medical/mental health experts mean nothing, of course, to the "godly folk.  If you want some insights on just how bogus "ex-gay" therapy is, check out this piece at Queerty that looks at an undercover effort to expose "ex-gay" charlatans.   But back to the developments in the District of Columbia.  Here are excerpts from a press release from the National Center for Lesbian Rights:

Today, the District of Columbia Council unanimously approved a bill that will protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth from the dangerous and discredited practice of conversion therapy.

When signed into law, Washington, D.C. will become the third jurisdiction—behind California and New Jersey—to pass legislation protecting LGBT youth from practices that are known to cause severe depression and even suicide.

“Today, the DC Council sent a powerful message to LGBT youth and their families that they are accepted, supported, and loved,” said Samantha Ames, NCLR staff attorney and coordinator of the #BornPerfect campaign at the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR). “The Council has used its authority to protect our most vulnerable youth from dangerous and discredited pseudoscience that tells them who they are is wrong, and reaffirmed the consensus of every major medical and mental health organization that all children are born perfect, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.”

NCLR, in conjunction with other organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, played a key role in organizing the coalition behind the bill, which was authored by Councilmember Mary M. Cheh. A broad range of groups supported the Youth Mental Health Protection Act, including national LGBT organizations, mental health organizations, faith leaders, youth advocates, reproductive justice groups, and civil rights organizations.

The reality is that "ex-gay" therapy needs to be banned nationwide with no exemption for religious "ministries."  At the same time, we need more victims of these programs to come forward and file lawsuits against these therapists and organizations on the basis of the intentional infliction of emotional harm, negligence and fraudulent advertising.  With a fee successful lawsuits, insurance carriers would drop coverage of "Christian counseling" clinics (Think "Ladybird" Bachmann), churches and other organizations   that peddle these fraudulent "therapies."

Is Conservative/Religious Extremism Genetic?

The Christofascists refuse to believe that sexual orientation is genetic and not a choice.  Now, new research suggests that perhaps religious extremism and adherence to conservative dogma may somehow be genetic/hereditary.  One of the aspects of the far right and the Christofascists in particular is - at least in my view - an almost sick need for  what some describe as order, structure, closure, certainty, and dogmatism.  And anything that threatens this need - e.g., gays suggesting that the Bible is wrong about homosexuality - is enough to cause these folks to go into hysteria.  A column in the New York Times looks at this new area of research.  Here are excerpts:

It’s been a key question of American politics since at least 1968: Why do so many poor, working-class and lower-middle-class whites — many of them dependent for survival on government programs — vote for Republicans?

The debate over the motives of conservative low-income white voters remains unresolved, but two recent research papers suggest that the hurdles facing Democrats in carrying this segment of the electorate may prove difficult to overcome.

In “Obedience to Traditional Authority: A heritable factor underlying authoritarianism, conservatism and religiousness,” published by the journal Personality and Individual Differences in 2013, three psychologists write that “authoritarianism, religiousness and conservatism,” which they call the “traditional moral values triad,” are “substantially influenced by genetic factors.” According to the authors — Steven Ludeke of Colgate, Thomas J. Bouchard of the University of Minnesota, and Wendy Johnson of the University of Edinburgh — all three traits are reflections of “a single, underlying tendency,” previously described in one word by Bouchard in a 2006 paper as “traditionalism.” Traditionalists in this sense are defined as “having strict moral standards and child-rearing practices, valuing conventional propriety and reputation, opposing rebelliousness and selfish disregard of others, and valuing religious institutions and practices.”

Working along a parallel path, Amanda Friesen, a political scientist at Indiana University, and Aleksander Ksiazkiewicz, a graduate student in political science at Rice University, concluded from their study comparing identical and fraternal twins that “the correlation between religious importance and conservatism” is “driven primarily, but usually not exclusively, by genetic factors.” The substantial “genetic component in these relationships suggests that there may be a common underlying predisposition that leads individuals to adopt conservative bedrock social principles and political ideologies while simultaneously feeling the need for religious experiences.”

From this perspective, the Democratic Party — supportive of abortion rights, same-sex marriage and the primacy of self-expressive individualism over obligation to family — is irreconcilably alien to a segment of the electorate. And the same is true from the opposite viewpoint: a Republican Party committed to right-to-life policies, to a belief that marriage must be between a man and a woman, and to family obligation over self-actualization, is profoundly unacceptable to many on the left.

If these predispositions are, as Friesen and Ksiazkiewicz argue, to some degree genetically rooted, they may not lend themselves to rational debate and compromise.

There are many scholars who challenge the quality of the evidence amassed to date linking genes, politics and values. The field is highly controversial, to say the least. But let’s take a look.

The three psychologists found evidence that they believe demonstrates that authoritarianism, religiosity and conservatism are “different manifestations of a single latent and significantly heritable factor,” the tendency to follow conventional authority “in attitudes toward the structure of family and society, toward religious conventions, and toward conventional attitudes on political issues.” They argue that each of these traits is shared to a substantially greater degree among identical twins than among nonidentical twins

Everett notes, the need for “order, structure, closure, certainty, dogmatism, and discipline are often shown to be more central to the thinking of conservative proponents, whereas higher tolerance of ambiguity and complexity and greater openness to new experiences appear to be associated with liberal cognitive styles.”

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.

Does Religious Belief Atrophy Your Brain?

LOL! This story from Scientific American which theorizes that deep religious belief results in atrophy in the hippocampus portion of believers' brains is too funny in some ways. It certainly dovetails with my view that far right Christian conservatives are mentally challenged and abhor thinking - indeed, they want a sheep like existence where they are told what to do and what to think with absolutely no thought process involved. It also may help to explain the growing idiocy in the Republican Party as well. According to Wikipedia, the hippocampus plays important roles in the consolidation of information from short-term memory to long-term memory and spatial navigation. It is also one of the first regions of the brain to suffer damage; memory problems and disorientation appear among the first symptoms. The symptoms also would seem to describe the Tea Party crowd as well. Here are some story highlights:
*
“Religious factors and hippocampal atrophy in late life,” by Amy Owen and colleagues at Duke University represents an important advance in our growing understanding of the relationship between the brain and religion.
*
In this study, Owen et al. used MRI to measure the volume of the hippocampus, a central structure of the limbic system that is involved in emotion as well as in memory formation. . . . The study by Owen et al. is unique in that it focuses specifically on religious individuals compared to non-religious individuals. This study also broke down these individuals into those who are born again or who have had life-changing religious experiences.
*
The results showed significantly greater hippocampal atrophy in individuals reporting a life-changing religious experience. In addition, they found significantly greater hippocampal atrophy among born-again Protestants, Catholics, and those with no religious affiliation, compared with Protestants not identifying as born-again.
*
The authors offer the hypothesis that the greater hippocampal atrophy in selected religious groups might be related to stress. They argue that some individuals in the religious minority, or those who struggle with their beliefs, experience higher levels of stress. This causes a release of stress hormones that are known to depress the volume of the hippocampus over time.
*
[A] person might perceive God to be punishing them and therefore have significant stress in the face of their religious struggle. Others experience religious struggle because of conflicting ideas with their religious tradition or their family. Even very positive, life-changing experiences might be difficult to incorporate into the individual’s prevailing religious belief system and this can also lead to stress and anxiety. Perceived religious transgressions can cause emotional and psychological anguish. . . . And all of these phenomena can have potentially negative effects on the brain.
*
To me, Christianists clearly demonstrate an atrophied mindset when it comes to thinking. And just as they unthinkingly claim to follow the Bible, they latch onto other precepts that they clearly do not understand. A case in point? Bob Felton at Civil Commotion notes the Tea Party's bizarre admiration of Ayn Rand. In contrast to the Tea Party/Christianist/GOP resistance to thinking, Ayn Rand believed that “To think or not to think” is a moral question, and that the moral answer is “to think.” Obviously, this crowd may need to engage in more thinking and less blind obedience to mindless dogma. We were endowed with intelligence and an ability to reason. One of the biggest sins is to refuse to use this innate gift.

American Psychiatric Association Urges Hawaii Legislature to Keep Pushing for Civil Unions

The real battle underlying the issues of gay rights and the legal recognition of same sex unions in my view comes down to this: (1) a battle between modernity and ignorant embrace of a less than wonderful past, and related to that (2) a battle between often deliberately blind/wrong headed religious fundamentalism and the acceptance of new medical and scientific knowledge. Obviously the two overlap and as I have long maintained, the terror on the part of religious fundamentalists when it comes to homosexuality is the fact that if the Bible's alleged condemnation of homosexuality is not accurate, then the entire house of cards world view of the Bible beaters begins to collapse. Worse yet, these folks might have to think for themselves and analyze many of their extremely selective religious beliefs. This prospect scares the living crap out of them and, as a result, they exhibit knee jerk reactions both to gays and modern medical and mental health knowledge. By vetoing the Hawaii civil unions bill, Hawaii Governor Linda Lindle - twice divorced herself and obviously a hypocrite when it comes to living according to Biblical mandates - opted for the path of ignorance and bigotry. The American Psychiatric Association has acted promptly to condemn Lindle's action and to encourage the Hawaii Legislature to go back and enact another civil unions bill. A copy of the APA's news release is here. Here are some highlights:
*
ARLINGTON, Va. (July 8, 2010) —The American Psychiatric Association strongly supports legislation recently approved by the Hawaii legislature that would have made Hawaii the 11th state, along with the District of Columbia, to recognize same-sex civil marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships.
*
“We regret Gov. Lingle’s veto and pledge our ongoing support for enactment of same-sex civil marriage or civil union laws in Hawaii and throughout the United States,” said APA President Carol A. Bernstein, M.D.
*
“As physicians who specialize in psychiatry, we recognize the positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members,” Dr. Bernstein said. “Marriage and family, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, are among the cornerstones of social relationships and other supports that help us face life’s challenges. All Americans should be able to enjoy these benefits.”
*
“In the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health, the American Psychiatric Association supports the legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage with all rights, benefits, and responsibilities conferred by civil marriage, and opposes restrictions to those same rights, benefits, and responsibilities.”

1967 CBS Reports: The Homosexuals

I graduated from high school in 1970 in at the time conservative Central New York. In addition to the area's general conservatism and my Roman Catholic indoctrination, being gay was not something that was even capable of being considered by those of us now finding ourselves coming out in mid to later life (remember, being gay was classified as a mental illness until 1973). Reinforcing such self-denial of the truth was the general anti-gay rhetoric one saw in the media - assuming gays were depicted at al. The Advocate and other blogs are reporting on a 1967 CBS Reports special on "The Homosexuals" which is not only homophobic but sounds as if it was written by James Dobson at Focus on the Family. Indeed, one of the "experts" CBS consulted was the now discredited Charles Socarides who was affiliated with NARTH. The Advocate article that looks at the homophobic depiction of gays citizens - a depiction that the Christianists still endeavor to paint us with. The younger generation needs to watch this video to get a sense of what so many of us older gays were faced with and why so many of us tried to conform to societal expectations - assuming we could even admit to ourselves that we were indeed gay. Here are some highlights:
*

The Homosexuals first aired on Tuesday, March 7, 1967, at 10 p.m. I was 2 years old then, so I didn’t catch it. In fact, it would be another 10 years or so before I ever even knew there was such a thing as a homosexual. My dad talked about “fruits” from time to time, but it never made much sense; I assumed that it had something to do with ladylike men who wanted to kiss my father against his will. Then they ate pineapple. Something like that. It was the most exotic fruit I could think of in first grade.

*

I remember being shocked that network television — at a time when there were only three major networks — could have aired something so creepy and gross all the way back in 1967. Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes (who I’m sure thinks it’s all pretty embarrassing now) hosted the special, all about the “problem” of homosexuality, and over 45 minutes he detailed how it was growing and spreading like a cancer across the country.

*

Some quotes, some from Wallace, some from clergy and other “experts” on the subject:

“They frequent their own bars ... where they can act out…”
“The average homosexual isn’t capable of love.”
“Homosexuality is, in fact, a mental illness.”
“The church has a great deal of sympathy for those who are handicapped in this way.”
[Being a homosexual] automatically rules out that [the man in question] will remain happy.”
*

The men (no mention of lesbians is ever made) who aren’t on camera as representatives of fledgling gay rights groups at the time, like the Mattachine Society, are interviewed in shadow or behind plants, and say things like, “I know I’m sick inside ... immature.” And then comes the segment on a 1955 homosexual witch hunt in Boise, Idaho, one that apparently turned the whole town upside down with fear and paranoia, with a close-up of an op-ed piece in the Boise newspaper titled “Crush the Monster.”
*

It’s a piece of historic television that deserves to be seen, especially if you’re too young to remember how quickly the world has changed in 43 short years, changed to the point where Brian Posehn and Steve Agee’s costar Sarah Silverman can go on The View, like she did last week, and respond to questions about her recent breakup and thoughts on marriage with this comment:“If you’re for equal rights, why would you get married right now? It’s like joining a country club that doesn’t allow blacks or Jews. There’s no difference.”

Legal Liability of Ex-Gay Programs

Truth Wins Out and Lambda Legal have teamed up to produce a booklet, 'Ex-Gay & The Law', that looks at the possible harmful effects of reparative therapy utilized by "ex-gay ministries" - which is condemned by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. More importantly, the booklet lays out steps those harmed by ex-gay ministries and their "counselors" should consider taking, including one or more lawsuits against the "ministry" and its counselors. Theories of recover of damages may vary based on the facts and laws of the state where the "therapy" is administered.

*

By holding ex-gay "ministries financially liable for the harm they do through successful lawsuits will do much to put an end to these bogus programs and also educate the larger public as to the witchdoctor like practices that occur in these so-called ministries. The fact that (1) reparative therapy is condemned by the legitimate experts and (2) the ex-gay ministries are aware of the position of legitimate experts sets the stage for possible negligence law suits and/or complaints against any licensed professionals who put religious fanaticism over scientific knowledge and engage in therapy regimes condemned by the true experts. A copy of the booklet is available here. Here are some highlights:

*
Anyone who may have been harmed by any sort of counselor or therapist should contact Lambda Legal or a local lawyer as soon as possible. All states have a “statute of limitations” which limits the length of time for filing a lawsuit. These periods vary greatly, and may have exceptions if the patient is a minor. To best protect your legal rights, it is very important to consult an attorney sooner rather than later.

*
Whether or not someone can take legal action against an “ex-gay” counselor or facility will depend on factors including the law of the state where you met with the practitioner and the specific facts. There are many reasons “ex-gay” programs or practitioners may be liable for harm. If representatives of an “ex-gay” program make false claims, they may have committed fraud, breach of contract, or violated state laws against unfair business practices. If a practitioner does not adequately describe the potential harms of an “ex-gay” program, he or she may be liable for violating the duty to get consent from a person seeking care. If a practitioner is not qualified to provide therapy for a specific mental health condition and fails to refer to a qualified doctor or psychologist, he or she may be liable for negligence or violating rules governing professional licenses. If a counselor threatens to “out” you to your community if you decide you do not want to continue therapy, he or she may be liable under state law. If a practitioner tells third parties about details of your life or your same-sex attractions, that could
violate your right to privacy.

*

It is impossible to list all of the factors that might be important in evaluating whether or not someone harmed by an “exgay” program or practitioner may be able to sue in court or take other legal actions, so it is important to consult an attorney. Minors as well as adults have legal rights, including the right to consult with an attorney.