Ted Lieu said he designed the bill to deny parental rights.
Posted on 08/30/2012 2:50:48 PM PDT by NYer
SACRAMENTO, August 30, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) - A first-of-its-kind state measure banning voluntary therapy for same-sex attraction for minors has passed California’s Assembly, moving it a step closer to law, pending the reconciliation of the bill’s versions this week.
The latest version of the bill states that California has a compelling interest in protecting minors against “exposure to serious harms caused by sexual orientation change efforts,” and prohibits any mental health professional from providing sexual orientation therapy to individuals under 18 years old.
The measure passed by a 51-21 vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly, and was approved by the Senate in May.
Critics have blasted the bill as an infringement upon parents’ rights, while supporters say that’s precisely the point.
“The attack on parental rights is exactly the whole point of the bill, because we don’t want to let parents harm their children,” the bill’s sponsor, State Senator Ted Lieu, said this summer. “We have these laws to stop parents from hurting their kids. Preventive therapy hurts children, so this bill allows us to stop parents from hurting their children.”
Family rights activists say that the bill’s therapy crackdown neglects one of society’s most victimized members: children traumatized by sexual molestation.
“It is absolutely wrong to withhold emotional, mental, and physical help from a child who has been raped or molested, who, as a result of this physical, mental, and emotional exploitation, is confused about his or her sexual identity,” said SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson in statements following the Assembly’s vote. “The professional counseling that an abused child receives is often the key to the child’s recovery and overall mental health.”
Conservative legislators such as Republican Assemblyman Donald Wagner object that the government had no right to interfere in “matters of medical decisions made between parents and children.”
“That’s why parents have children—to hand down their legacies, their belief systems, the way they want their children raised,” Republican Representative Shannon Grove said during floor debate, according to Reuters.
The bill originally dictated that any speech by therapists favoring sexual change therapy, or indicating it could possibly work, constituted “therapeutic deception” and could be brought to court by “a patient, former patient, or deceased former patient’s parent, child, or sibling” with an eight-year statute of limitations for patients and five years for other relatives.
The latest version of the bill was simplified to state only that the therapy is harmful, that homosexuality is not a disorder, and that all such therapy for children and teenagers is illegal regardless of consent.
The two chambers must pass a final bill reconciling their two versions by Friday before sending the bill to Democratic Governor Jerry Brown.
Brown, a regular backer of gay rights initiatives such as redefining marriage, has yet to confirm he will sign the bill.
Ping!
What will happen if the parents seek religious counceling to help their sexually confused child? The social services step in and take the kid away as a form of child abuse?
This bill is extremely unconstitutional. Oh yea, there are other states one can move if they want to do this. California just needs to drop into the Pacific already. No offense Cali FReepers.
What will happen if the parents seek religious counseling to help their sexually confused child? The social services step in and take the kid away as a form of child abuse?
This bill is extremely unconstitutional. Oh yea, there are other states one can move if they want to do this. California just needs to drop into the Pacific already. No offense Cali FReepers.
And yet the Science Guy says to keep kids away from Creationism because it’ll confuse them.
Children belong to the state, not their “parents.” Parents are not trained to raise children or to make them aware that the state is the true source of their being permited to live and work as members of the state cooperative. And this leaves “Parents” free from having to be responsible for raising a child and thus maturing and having to leave their desire to be an unresponsible child.
The obvious solution is to set up “therapy centers” just over the border in Arizona. Right next to the foie gras ranches, as well as a bunch of other stuff the authoritarian government of California bans.
What would the government of California do, try to forbid parents from taking their children out of state? If they get any more obnoxious, the government of Arizona will reopen its fruit inspection stations, with complementary immigration status checks.
Does this jerkwad have any ties to the Chinese Communist Party? He sounds like a Maoist....
Take the kids away and put them into homosexual foster care and then sign them up with one of Mitt’s homosexual Boy Scout Leaders.
Decent parents of troubled California kids now have a choice: do they move to another state or just travel out of state when their kids need help?
Will they also prohibit homosexuals recruiting the children into sodomy??
No. He is just looking for an angle— a way to be noticed and to attract funding from an interest group. A couple of years ago, his cause was opposing private businesses doing 3D ultrasounds for non-medical purposes. He was trying to get $ from Planned Parenthood.
I have never heard of him offering any intelligent legislation regarding California’s real problems.
But I did see him at Mass a few weeks before his last election.
“California just needs to drop into the Pacific already. No offense Cali FReepers.”
Sorry, I take offense! This is my home and it’s not going anywhere! Try finding something of value to contribute, we’ve heard every variant of cutting our state loose from the Continent already! I guess you don’t know that there is actually about 40% of the state’s population that doesn’t like our current government either. Besides, FR is in California! Where would you go to express your feelings?
“Does this jerkwad have any ties to the Chinese Communist Party? He sounds like a Maoist....”
If you think things are bad here in California, take a trip to Hawaii. Now there you have the whole state run by guys like Liu.
If your 12-year old son wants to wear a dress, is it illegal to stop him?
Lieu is a worthless waste of oxygen.
Which is odd when you think about it: how does someone with their head so far up their ass, breath?
I can see this colliding with the First Amendment protections for freedom of religion. As well as free speech. This is just another attempt to impose a liberal tyranny on the politically incorrect.
Doesn't California have a compelling interest in protecting minors against exposure to serious harms caused by encouraging sexual aberration and psychopathology?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.