Are Bans on Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy Constitutional?

[Nous]

And even if it is speech which is protected by the 1st amendment, no right is absolute, they all must be balanced.

Precedent requires strict scrutiny to ban such speech as banned by the Tampa ordinance. Can you argue that such a ban meets strict scrutiny?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Bloodletting and trepanning are different kinds of things than speaking to another person, and banning the former is a different sort of thing than banning the communication of certain otherwise lawful words or messages. Right? In fact, there is a provision of the US Constitution that proscribes the latter.

Free speech is different from therapy, though. Consider the girl who has just been convicted for encouraging her boy friend to kill himself. Technically, she didn't do anything but speak to him, it still was found to be illegal. Therapeutic relationships and practices are a bit like that. If you tell someone in a non therapeutic environment "hey, stop being gay", that's protected free speech. But in a therapeutic setting, dealing with a vulnerable person, interacting with an authority figure, and especially where the patient hasn't given consent, and/or isn't free to leave or disrupt procedings, that's a very different case.

In terms of "free speech", this ex gay therapy stuff is very much analogous to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. It is likely to cause harm, so it isn't protected speech.

If an adult gives their informed consent to undergo this dubious "therapy", that's one thing, as it is assumed they have some agency in the situation. For minors though? I see all the exact same arguments for why we don't let parents subject their kids to female genital mutilation as directly applicable. The known negative aspects of the procedure outweigh any percieved benefits.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I said medical treatments. And as long as this is presented as a “therapy” I believe that those serve as precedent for banning this practice. Things like trepanning, shock therapy, lobotomies etc.

And let me point out a couple things. Often these “therapies” involved more than just speech, they can involve restraints, physical abuse, deprivation of food and water, etc.

And even if it is speech which is protected by the 1st amendment, no right is absolute, they all must be balanced.

I know shock therapy is legal, and coming back into favour. I know trepanning and lobotomies are very much considered bad medicine, but are they actually illegal? There are certain extreme cases where procedures that could be described in such terms are conducted ("trepanning" to relieve pressure from an IC bleed, lobotomies in the case of brain tumours) are those procedures illegal? Are they special cases? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know how your system works.

 

[columbus]

Parents should have the right to get their kids interested in being with the team that plays with different equipment; so then, if its their only child switching to team heterosexual, the parents could someday become grandparents.

No way dude.
Children aren't possessions. They are a responsibility.

Suppose the parents thought it would be cool to have a gay kid. It's kind of a status symbol in certain circles. Would sending him to someplace to encourage homosexual behavior be OK as well?
Tom

 

[Salvador]

No way dude.
Children aren't possessions. They are a responsibility.

Suppose the parents thought it would be cool to have a gay kid. It's kind of a status symbol in certain circles. Would sending him to someplace to encourage homosexual behavior be OK as well?
Tom

I suppose that choice would be up to the kid's parents, but I doubt most parents would choose trying to get their kids interested in playing with that team, which is the team that has all the same equipment as one another.

 

[Salvador]

Do you think the folksy euphemisms help? Why should "Parents have the right to get their kids interested in being with the team that plays with different equipment"? Do you think parents should be able to attempt to medically alter other fundamental aspects of their child's personality?

Parents can lawfully submit their children to psychotherapy in order to alter their children's behavior as they deem fit.

 

[columbus]

I suppose that choice would be up to the kid's parents, but I doubt most parents would choose trying to get their kids interested in playing with that team.

Why would think that choice should be up to the parents?
I certainly don't think that parents should have that right.

I also realize that raising a child in the modern world is dreadfully complex. This is just one of the new and different moral issues confronting the modern world. Like vaccination and abortion, it just didn't exist for most of human history and our moral codes tend to be extremely conservative.
Tom

 

[Salvador]

Why would think that choice should be up to the parents?
I certainly don't think that parents should have that right.

I also realize that raising a child in the modern world is dreadfully complex. This is just one of the new and different moral issues confronting the modern world. Like vaccination and abortion, it just didn't exist for most of human history and our moral codes tend to be extremely conservative.
Tom

Parents have the right to raise their children in accordance to the parents' beliefs and wishes.

 

[columbus]

Parents have the right to raise their children in accordance to the parents' beliefs and wishes.

Here in the modern world, when somebody does you serious damage, you can expect justice.
Do you think that kids should be able to sue parents who do serious harm by forcing them into "reparative therapy"?
If not, why not?
Tom

 

[Salvador]

Here in the modern world, when somebody does you serious damage, you can expect justice.
Do you think that kids should be able to sue parents who do serious harm by forcing them into "reparative therapy"?
If not, why not?
Tom

If reparative therapy is legal, then parents can't be sued for having this conversion therapy done to their children; if conversion therapy were significantly harmful, then it'd be outlawed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Parents have the right to raise their children in accordance to the parents' beliefs and wishes.

No, they don't.

Children have rights. Parents are entrusted as stewards of their children on the assumption that they'll see to the best interest of the children. When that assumption proves misplaced and harm results, the state not only can step in, it has a duty to do so.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

In the USA, as in most places, you need to have a licence to practice as a physician. Would the OP regard that as an unconstitutional infringement of people's right to give treatment?

I love the USA: if ever I feel that we are being silly in the UK, I can always look over the Atlantic and see that things could be worse!

 

[Salvador]

No, they don't.

Children have rights. Parents are entrusted as stewards of their children on the assumption that they'll see to the best interest of the children. When that assumption proves misplaced and harm results, the state not only can step in, it has a duty to do so.

Of course, If the state can make a valid case the child is being harmed by his/her parents; however, if conversion therapy isn't proven as substantial harmful to a child's well-being, then the state can't do anything to prevent a child from getting this psychotherapy treatment. Please let us agree the state shouldn't overstep its boundaries here.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Parents should have the right to get their kids interested in being with the team that plays with different equipment; so then, if its their only child switching to team heterosexual, the parents could someday become grandparents.

I'm unable to be objective about this subject. I was an effeminate little boy and the "Conversion Therapy" that my stepfather used on me was to beat me several times a week, often threatening to kill me. I was never gay. Years later, I find I was Intersex all along. Some people are so focused on advancing their point of view that the child gets left behind. Christians would do well to leave off that exclusive Male/Female bit of nonsense.

 

[Salvador]

I'm unable to be objective about this subject. I was an effeminate little boy and the "Conversion Therapy" that my stepfather used on me was to beat me several times a week, often threatening to kill me. I was never gay. Years later, I find I was Intersex all along. Some people are so focused on advancing their point of view that the child gets left behind. Christians would do well to leave off that exclusive Male/Female bit of nonsense.

Some Christians I've spoken with do get confused about intersex persons, but in their defense, this does cast shades of grey into their black and white perspective of morality.

 

[columbus]

if conversion therapy isn't proven as substantial harmful to a child's well-being, then the state can't do anything to prevent a child from getting this psychotherapy treatment.

But it can.
It's not even difficult.
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course, If the state can make a valid case the child is being harmed by his/her parents; however, if conversion therapy isn't proven as substantial harmful to a child's well-being, then the state can't do anything to prevent a child from getting this psychotherapy treatment. Please let us agree the state shouldn't overstep its boundaries here.

There's no "if." Conversion therapy has been proven to be harmful.

 

[Nous]

Free speech is different from therapy, though. Consider the girl who has just been convicted for encouraging her boy friend to kill himself. Technically, she didn't do anything but speak to him, it still was found to be illegal. Therapeutic relationships and practices are a bit like that. If you tell someone in a non therapeutic environment "hey, stop being gay", that's protected free speech. But in a therapeutic setting, dealing with a vulnerable person, interacting with an authority figure, and especially where the patient hasn't given consent, and/or isn't free to leave or disrupt procedings, that's a very different case.

No, you need to read and understand the Tampa ordinance. It does not specify that the communication need be in a "therapeutic setting". It is explicitly a speaker-based and content-based restriction on speech.

Let's say that I am a provider as the ordinance defines, and I have developed a close friendship with my 14-year-old neighbor, Tom, who identifies as gay. His liberal parents vociferously approve of this friendship because my husband and I are such upstanding people, and are helping him through some rough patches. As noted in the OP, I firmly maintain that the scientific, historical and sociological evidence all clearly indicates that sexual orientation is a social construct. I can talk about this evidence until your ears fall off, and I do so with Tom. I tell him about the age-structured same-sex relationships in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, ancient China and modern Melanesia; the seasonal variation in the size of the INAH sheeps' brains; about Swedish studies showing that sexual orientation identity exhibits less genetic correlation among women than what color car they have; about the ever-changing self-identity sexual categories of teens and young adults. And eventually Tom began identifying as bisexual, started a sexual relationship with his best friend, a girl; she accidentally got pregnant; they've broken up, and all kinds of crap hit the fan. The neighbor on the other side of Tom is a prosecutor, and he's going to prosecute me now for engaging in conversion therapy, and Tom's parents are going to sue me for a million dollars. Why shouldn't they?

This is why the judge granted the injunction for the ordinance being overbroad. This ordinance does not meet strict scrutiny.

 

[Salvador]

There's no "if." Conversion therapy has been proven to be harmful.

My state of Illinois has banned conversion therapy, but most states still allow this practice; so then, this issue may very well be decided by the SCOTUS.

 

[columbus]

My state of Illinois has banned conversion therapy, but most states still allow this practice; so then, this issue may very well be decided by the SCOTUS.

The same SCOTUS which decided RvW, Dredd Scott, Citizens United, etc.

I am not too fond of SCOTUS, myself.
Tom