I’m still parsing out the implications for medical insurance if “talk therapy isn’t medical care,” the future of evidence-based arguments in future court cases, etc.
IANAL, but isn't practicing conversion therapy akin to practicing medicine without a license? This isn't true therapy; it's quackery and it's coercive and isn't successful. "Conversion therapy" represents a fraud. Fraudulent speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
This is beyond frustrating. Therapy, no matter how it is administered, is treatment not speech as it pertains to the First Amendment. The cruel legal gymnastics SCOTUS uses to strip rights away from anyone considered other is mind blowing.
The procedural challenge to deciding the merits has bite, as noted over at Dorf on Law & Balls & Strikes blogs. This is an ideological vehicle, and like the wedding photographer website and praying coach cases, the procedural issues and factual problems will be handwaved at best.
The conservatives raising past misuse of medical knowledge is hypocritical at best. They were not concerned about that when anti-trans care laws were involved. Free speech > equal protection.
Roberts' opinion in the trans case played keep away, and his technique could be used here, too. Jackson was right to compare the two cases.
This hyper-protection of speech, including in areas that traditionally (history and tradition for the win) were not protected to this extent, is unsustainable. The net result will be Calvinball.
Yeah setting aside medicine for a second there are laws banning gender affirming counseling, talk therapy where they support the expressed gender in therapy, and the laws banning that speech is constitutional but a law banning someone for doing the opposite, conversion therapy, in their speech is unconstitutional? Yet another Roberts Double Standard ™️
I respectfully swear that these justices don't know what they're talking about.
Don't the professions have their own standards and regulations, based on the specialized expertise that they have from their intense, specific training? Are they not allowed to establish these standards and regulations, since they have far more understanding of their discipline than, excuse me, a bunch of legal judges?
The Oath of Hippocrates -- essentially, "first do no harm" -- would include a physician using judgement and restraint in what she says to a patient. Her careless or unwise choice of words could harm him.
Therapists, whose words are essentially their tools of healing, would understand even more so that words can wound, even mortally. Are there not already standards and regulations established by the profession that restrict what a therapist says to a client, and that are not being called into question as interfering with the therapist's freedom of speech? The therapist's freedom of speech is the absolute last priority here; her skillful use of speech in her work with clients is her sole focus! She leaves her "freedom of speech" outside the door, as a matter of professional competence.
Restraining from anything to do with conversion so-called therapy is, i believe, currently mandated by her profession. Just as she would not have the expertise to advise on legal matters (unless she had a law license), these justices lack understanding of her work. This shouldn't even be before SCOTUS at all. It's as bad as congress members butting in on gynecological appointments.
As a retired therapist I can reassure you that conversion therapy doesn’t work and is an Avenue for lifetime trauma for LGBTQ that white males (yes, it is mostly white males) find unacceptable because of their fear (yes, their Fear) as if it’s contagious. Gay people take nothing away from white males. However, white men see them as a sexual challenge to their own masculinity and that is the problem. The average white American male constantly seeks to prove his masculinity and authority over women, girls and all races because of their their own fears of masculinity and the incapacity to accept that it isn’t their masculinity that’s questionable, it’s their personhood. As a society, we have positioned males this way and that is erroneous. I know, and yes, I do know that all men are not included. But in today’s America, the majority of ICE are haters of anyone who looks different from them or acts different from them or speaks what they don’t like. They are the masked society The Felon sent to kidnap people without due process and send to god knows where. They think they are proving they are “real men”. The LGBTQ will be next and be prepared to stand up for that vulnerable community. People are people and I believe in a Creator that loves all of US no matter who we are where we are and how we are. You are my brothers and my sisters and in this society, ai need you and you need me. This is not a time for Silence but a time for action.
Real men stand up for LGBTQIA. And for Women and Girls. Real Men Stand Up for the Constitution and for Equality.
I would like to find 1 million Real Men. Wouldn’t you?
Chris, despite your best effort to pedestrianize this case, I must say I get completely confused by the bassackwards nature of the arguments and discussion in this case. Is obfuscation the point or am I too straight-line, simple-minded? Anyway, I feel horrible for families dealing with gender identity issues and now a government that intercedes in a very personal decision and what should be a personal right guaranteed under 14th Amendment.
A different way to frame? You expect decency and logic from a court indebted to a sexual predator? A white manly man who believes groping is wooing? Oh, please.
It seems to me from reading the briefs as well as listening to the arguments, that there is a rather significant issue in the background: how close to the core role of the first amendment is the speech in question. The fact that counselling in this area (as opposed to, say, whether one should chew gum, or how attorneys should advertise) is so very close to the orginal purpose of the first amendment (the government putting its fingers on the scales of issues of public controversy) seems to me to have been a big deal in the briefs, and lurking in the background of the arguments.
The underlying issue in this case, as posed by at least one justice, revolves around a client coming to the counsellor and saying, "I don't want to have same sex attraction, help me not have it," and the counsellor having to say, "I am not legally allowed to help you with that". And that is a huge public controversy... unlike telling you to eat donuts for your cholesterol.
What are you guessing the numbers will be? Eight to one?
Surprised they don’t just go full hypocrisy and say “the state doesn’t have the right to get between the family and their provider when it comes to private “medical” decisions about sex or reproduction. It’s about choice and the right to privacy”
So you can cut down a kid psychologically so long as you just yell at him or tell him his feeling are shit, but with this court we are likely to see protesting about kids being led outside naked in zip ties is “rebellion” if the president says it is. Got it.
I’m still parsing out the implications for medical insurance if “talk therapy isn’t medical care,” the future of evidence-based arguments in future court cases, etc.
IANAL, but isn't practicing conversion therapy akin to practicing medicine without a license? This isn't true therapy; it's quackery and it's coercive and isn't successful. "Conversion therapy" represents a fraud. Fraudulent speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
Lord help me, I loathe these people.
This is beyond frustrating. Therapy, no matter how it is administered, is treatment not speech as it pertains to the First Amendment. The cruel legal gymnastics SCOTUS uses to strip rights away from anyone considered other is mind blowing.
The procedural challenge to deciding the merits has bite, as noted over at Dorf on Law & Balls & Strikes blogs. This is an ideological vehicle, and like the wedding photographer website and praying coach cases, the procedural issues and factual problems will be handwaved at best.
The conservatives raising past misuse of medical knowledge is hypocritical at best. They were not concerned about that when anti-trans care laws were involved. Free speech > equal protection.
Roberts' opinion in the trans case played keep away, and his technique could be used here, too. Jackson was right to compare the two cases.
This hyper-protection of speech, including in areas that traditionally (history and tradition for the win) were not protected to this extent, is unsustainable. The net result will be Calvinball.
Expect Loving v. Virginia to be the only protection standing.
How exactly do bans on gender affirming therapy NOT affect free speech, but bans on conversion therapy do?
Yeah setting aside medicine for a second there are laws banning gender affirming counseling, talk therapy where they support the expressed gender in therapy, and the laws banning that speech is constitutional but a law banning someone for doing the opposite, conversion therapy, in their speech is unconstitutional? Yet another Roberts Double Standard ™️
Yes this is exactly what I mean!
Oh, good—I especially want to live in an America that’s straight, white, male, and Christian. Lower courts? Conform!
I respectfully swear that these justices don't know what they're talking about.
Don't the professions have their own standards and regulations, based on the specialized expertise that they have from their intense, specific training? Are they not allowed to establish these standards and regulations, since they have far more understanding of their discipline than, excuse me, a bunch of legal judges?
The Oath of Hippocrates -- essentially, "first do no harm" -- would include a physician using judgement and restraint in what she says to a patient. Her careless or unwise choice of words could harm him.
Therapists, whose words are essentially their tools of healing, would understand even more so that words can wound, even mortally. Are there not already standards and regulations established by the profession that restrict what a therapist says to a client, and that are not being called into question as interfering with the therapist's freedom of speech? The therapist's freedom of speech is the absolute last priority here; her skillful use of speech in her work with clients is her sole focus! She leaves her "freedom of speech" outside the door, as a matter of professional competence.
Restraining from anything to do with conversion so-called therapy is, i believe, currently mandated by her profession. Just as she would not have the expertise to advise on legal matters (unless she had a law license), these justices lack understanding of her work. This shouldn't even be before SCOTUS at all. It's as bad as congress members butting in on gynecological appointments.
As a retired therapist I can reassure you that conversion therapy doesn’t work and is an Avenue for lifetime trauma for LGBTQ that white males (yes, it is mostly white males) find unacceptable because of their fear (yes, their Fear) as if it’s contagious. Gay people take nothing away from white males. However, white men see them as a sexual challenge to their own masculinity and that is the problem. The average white American male constantly seeks to prove his masculinity and authority over women, girls and all races because of their their own fears of masculinity and the incapacity to accept that it isn’t their masculinity that’s questionable, it’s their personhood. As a society, we have positioned males this way and that is erroneous. I know, and yes, I do know that all men are not included. But in today’s America, the majority of ICE are haters of anyone who looks different from them or acts different from them or speaks what they don’t like. They are the masked society The Felon sent to kidnap people without due process and send to god knows where. They think they are proving they are “real men”. The LGBTQ will be next and be prepared to stand up for that vulnerable community. People are people and I believe in a Creator that loves all of US no matter who we are where we are and how we are. You are my brothers and my sisters and in this society, ai need you and you need me. This is not a time for Silence but a time for action.
Real men stand up for LGBTQIA. And for Women and Girls. Real Men Stand Up for the Constitution and for Equality.
I would like to find 1 million Real Men. Wouldn’t you?
.
Chris, despite your best effort to pedestrianize this case, I must say I get completely confused by the bassackwards nature of the arguments and discussion in this case. Is obfuscation the point or am I too straight-line, simple-minded? Anyway, I feel horrible for families dealing with gender identity issues and now a government that intercedes in a very personal decision and what should be a personal right guaranteed under 14th Amendment.
Finally, do we really want the Supreme Court to devolve into an ecclesiastical court?
A different way to frame? You expect decency and logic from a court indebted to a sexual predator? A white manly man who believes groping is wooing? Oh, please.
It seems to me from reading the briefs as well as listening to the arguments, that there is a rather significant issue in the background: how close to the core role of the first amendment is the speech in question. The fact that counselling in this area (as opposed to, say, whether one should chew gum, or how attorneys should advertise) is so very close to the orginal purpose of the first amendment (the government putting its fingers on the scales of issues of public controversy) seems to me to have been a big deal in the briefs, and lurking in the background of the arguments.
The underlying issue in this case, as posed by at least one justice, revolves around a client coming to the counsellor and saying, "I don't want to have same sex attraction, help me not have it," and the counsellor having to say, "I am not legally allowed to help you with that". And that is a huge public controversy... unlike telling you to eat donuts for your cholesterol.
What are you guessing the numbers will be? Eight to one?
Surprised they don’t just go full hypocrisy and say “the state doesn’t have the right to get between the family and their provider when it comes to private “medical” decisions about sex or reproduction. It’s about choice and the right to privacy”
It seems we just keep losing our rights by drips and drabs. And we lose most of them at the hands of this not-supreme court.
So you can cut down a kid psychologically so long as you just yell at him or tell him his feeling are shit, but with this court we are likely to see protesting about kids being led outside naked in zip ties is “rebellion” if the president says it is. Got it.
Being female an pregnant, in Texas, is already suspicious. Being gay? Better hide, sissy boy!
Perhaps you are overly optimistic—SCOTUS is uninterested in logic or precedence or law … just in appeasing its “Christian” audience of one.