muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
Posts: 16,811
|
|
« on: November 24, 2020, 09:58:54 AM » |
|
I read the opinion and it looks like part of the problem was the means by which the two counties legislated their bans on conversion therapy. The ordinances distinguished between disallowed therapies that attempt to change sexual orientation or gender identity and allowed therapies to support to people undergoing gender transition. That explicit difference in content allowed and disallowed in the ordinances allowed the judges to invoke strict scrutiny in their analysis of the case.
I think there was a much easier path for the counties to follow and achieve the same result. Rather than trying to isolate specific professional practices for banning, they could have simply invoked the national professional organizations. For instance they could ban any mental health practice by a licensed practitioner not recommended by the leading national professional organization. If that is coupled with the usual restriction on providing mental health services without a license, then there would be a de facto ban on conversion therapy.
The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Association all oppose the use of conversion therapy. Even the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, which would apply to the plaintiffs in the case, says "As stated in previous AAMFT policy, the association does not consider homosexuality a disorder that requires treatment, and as such, we see no basis for such therapy."
|