Editorial: Maintain ban on conversion therapy

A federal judge upheld an injunction on Dec. 3 that temporarily excused two therapists and one aspiring therapist from California’s law banning gay “conversion therapy” for minors. According to The New York Times, U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb cited an unconstitutional violation of free speech to justify allowing the injunction.

Conversion therapy, also called reparative therapy, is a non-mainstream type of therapy that claims to convert people from being gay to being straight. Conversion therapy has been criticized as unsuccessful and highly psychologically damaging to clients. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, people who receive conversion therapy have reported increased depression, anxiety and, occasionally, suicidal ideation. More than 70 practitioners in 20 states and Washington, D.C., advertise that they offer conversion therapy, including two practitioners in Pittsburgh.

While the California judge’s injunction only applies to three therapists, it reveals something highly troubling. Adults have the right to choose to attend whatever therapy they want, but minors can’t. According to the World Health Organization, minors have been forced or pressured to enter this type of treatment. Given the evidence provided by mainstream mental health associations that this type of therapy can cause real psychological harm, minors should be protected from it — just like they should be protected from bullying, abuse and neglect.

The injunction was granted temporarily because of the argument that therapists should have the right to freedom of speech. The judge said that, because therapy mostly involves speech, the ban could prevent a therapist from sharing their viewpoint about homosexuality in session.

For most Americans, the thought of government regulating speech or possible denial of free speech is highly uncomfortable, for this is one of the rights that creates and maintains democratic societies.

Judge Shubb said the new law could bar “a mental health provider from expressing his or her viewpoints about homosexuality.” He said that the First Amendment rights of psychiatrists and other health professionals outweigh concerns that the practice is a danger to young people.

However, a therapist masquerading behind free speech at a session that involves morally condemning a client’s sexual orientation, beliefs, lifestyle or values should not be promoted. No one would ever reasonably tolerate mainstream child psychologists discussing their personal viewpoints or stances on, say, political topics or moral issues (especially moral condemnations) with clients — behavior that is normally protected under the right to free speech. Teachers don’t have free speech in their classrooms, either, but this is hardly a source of shock or consternation.

It’s even more troubling that this thin excuse is being used to enable non-mainstream therapists who practice a proven-to-be-harmful therapy without obligation to the norms of ethical clinical psychology. The right to free speech is supposed to liberate and strengthen individuals and societies, and using it as a justification to allow minors’ participation in misguided therapy is an abhorrent misapplication of constitutional rights.