Its protracted and divisive struggle over the legalization of same-sex marriage notwithstanding, the state of California has taken the lead on another vital issue on the pro-equality agenda\u2014by enacting a legislative ban on so-called \u201cex-gay\u201d therapy for minors.<\/p>\n
Effective January 1, 2013, SB 1172 will prohibit children under 18 from undergoing sexual orientation-change efforts (SOCE). Alternatively labeled \u201cconversion therapy,\u201d \u201creparative therapy,\u201d or \u201csexual orientation therapy,\u201d\u00a0SOCE often comprises<\/a>\u00a0efforts by mental health professionals and religious leaders to \u201cconvert\u201d people to heterosexuality by techniques including \u201caversive treatments, such as the application of electric shocks[\u2026], and nausea-inducing drugs\u2026 administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli, masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions, such as \u2018prayer and group support and pressure.\u2019 \u201d SB 1172 defines SOCE as denoting any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual\u2019s sexual orientation. \u00a0This includes efforts to \u201cchange behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.\u201d \u00a0Psychotherapies that: (i) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients\u2019 coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (ii) do not seek to change sexual orientation, are categorically excluded from the purview of the legislation.<\/p>\n The law forbids any mental health provider from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age.\u00a0 Any such attempt will be deemed \u201cunprofessional conduct\u201d and shall subject the concerned provider to discipline by her\/his licensing entity.<\/p>\n Predictably enough, the law has already been challenged in federal court, as an \u201castounding violation\u201d of the right to free speech and religious liberty. The challengers assert that the law is tantamount to\u00a0viewpoint discrimination<\/a>\u2014which tends to attract strict scrutiny under a First Amendment analysis\u2014because \u201cit is telling a client that he or she may not receive a specific viewpoint in counseling,\u201d even if that viewpoint coheres with their religious or moral values.\u00a0Arguments based on the judicially recognized \u201cright to privacy\u201d have also been raised, with the law being cast as an egregious intrusion into an intimate sphere of thought, belief and activity.<\/p>\n
\n
\nThe legislation\u2019s sponsors allege that when applied to minors, such therapy is tantamount to \u201cpsychological child abuse,\u201d and have received endorsement from\u00a0the California Psychological Association and the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, among others. \u00a0While there is no evidence to support the conclusion that such therapy leads to or induces suicide, the fact that the therapy often fails to cause the \u201cdesired\u201d results exacerbates a child\u2019s internal struggles and compounds distress,\u00a0thereby lowering self-esteem<\/a>\u00a0and possibly triggering depression.<\/p>\n