Proposed CA law opposed by Theocrats

Discussion of state-church separatio issues, violations, etc
Post Reply
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:13 pm

Proposed CA law opposed by Theocrats

Post by tim »

The Pacific Justice Institute is a legal organization that fills the role of an anti-ACLU for the most part, supporting every incursion on religious liberty that helps to advance Christian fundamentalism and opposing anything that might slow down that political agenda. This from the PJI:

>> Sacramento, CA - Attorneys with the are warning a California Senate committee against banning some types of counseling.
PJI sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee this week outlining its opposition to SB 1172. Among other things, the bill would prohibit psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, therapists and others from giving any advice to minors that could be considered an effort to "change" their sexual orientation. The ban would apply even if a minor or their parents sought out counseling for that very reason.
"SB 1172 is blatantly unconstitutional," said PJI Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds, who wrote the letter. "We absolutely cannot allow the government to step into the counseling room or doctor's office and clamp a hand over the mouth of a professional who is asked by a patient for help with sexual identity issues. Have our legislators completely forgotten the First Amendment? Or the right to privacy?" <<

Can't "allow the government to step into the counseling room or doctor's office?" REALLY? Then why don't they oppose laws requiring women who want abortions to undergo forced ultrasounds and turning physicians into ventriloquism dummies who are made to spout the fundagelicals' propaganda about abortion being "killing babies?"

Actually, the CA law seems eminently sensible in that there is every reason to suppose that efforts to change people' sexual orientation are futile and based on the false notion that homosexuality is a "disease." I.e., that such efforts amount to medical/psychaitric quackery. And that sprt of thing should be banned, at least for minors, which the law is restrited to.
Post Reply