This term, the US supreme court will decide whether a law prohibiting conversion practices infringes on constitutionally protected free speech. During last month’s oral argument in that case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the regulation wasn’t “just the functional equivalent” of another recent supreme court case. In June, the court upheld a ban on a different treatment – puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans youth. “It just seems odd to me that we might have a different result here,” she said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, meanwhile, likened conversion therapy to a dietitian telling a client to do something physically harmful, saying: “I don’t think the state has to provide a study to show that the advice is not sound.”
The constitution doesn’t uphold freedom of medical treatment. It does freedom of speech. ‘Mazin’ that a judge is confused over that.
This before we get to what they’re going to try to define “conversion therapy” as. For some at lesat “You sure?” would count as that….
But the Left tell us that being gay is not a choice so just what is the ‘threat’ of conversion therapy that cannot workl.
Just as any “Treatment” that doesn’t work? And is actually likely to cause mental and/or physical harm?
They really should cast the net wider, and treat “Conversion Therapy” as just One of the Snake Oils.
But that would include the Woo Stuff quite a lot of the Skittle Hairs are fond of…
If you remember, nobody gave a toss about “conversion therapy” in the 2000’s when gay rights groups were pushing for gay marriage. It was a complete non-issue, and rightly so.
It’s already illegal to force people to undergo medical treatments or therapy they don’t want to undergo (unless it’s COVID, then government ministers can freely threaten to exclude you from society). If they’re there of their own free will, it’s nobody’s business what kind of conversations people have with therapists. If “conversion therapy” doesn’t work, well, neither does therapy. Talking cures generally are shit, regardless of what you’re talking about. So most people didn’t
It only became an issue later due to the tranny issue cannibalising the gay rights infrastructure after they’d won everything they campaigned for and it looked dangerously like professional activists might need to get real jobs. The purpose of “conversion therapy” bans was art and part with the Canadian government jailing parents for not supporting their child’s gender transition and the SNP regime oop north trying to insert a government nominated “named person” as a third “parent” in every child’s life. They don’t come up with these ideas on their own you know.
Since, unlike gays, people who identify as “transgender” are obviously mentally ill, the subject of “conversion bans” was twofold: continue terrorising trick cyclists into automatically saying “yes” to every demand from a tranny, rather than ask Dave to pause and think whether he really wants to become a woman at the age of 47. And to remove the ability of parents to seek any medical or psychological treatment for gender distressed youths that doesn’t involve automatically affirming their incorrect genderfeels and putting them on hormone blockers. Quite diabolical, but Davina, 47, in a Primark dress with horror makeup slathered over his stubble doesn’t invoke automatic sympathy, so they pretended it was about protecting Julian Clary from all those evil Christians who want to straighten him out.
Tl;dr – shut that door!
Nah, not stupidity, not confused. Deliberately twisting to fulfil the desired political ends. Complete with the “look how clever I am” preen.
I always wondered how someone as mentally subnormal as David Lammy could have qualified as a lawyer. Then I saw he got his degree at Harvard and realised that it was accorded in compliance with a Dulux Paint Colour Chart rather than an old fashioed, stupid exam. Perhaps he and the fragrant Ketanji were classmates…
You don’t have to be intelligent as a Lawyer..
You just have to have the weasel mind to niggle at Loopholes, and some Salesmanship.
“You don’t have to be intelligent as a Lawyer”
No, but in Britain you do need to be moderately intelligent to get a law degree. It isn’t just about remembering facts (although I’m not sure whether Lammy can do that either).
(note that not all British lawyers have a law degree)
It’s not about stupidity, it’s about power.
Same reason India wants to bug everyone’s mobile phone as above.
Same reason stacks of US ‘judges’ have rejected claims in respect of the 2020 election despite the evidence of the fix being plain for all to see.
They were so close – had they been a tiny bit less arrogant and a tiny bit more patient, and had let Trump take 2020, it would have all been a fait accompli.
Newsom (or some other psychopath), would have won in 2024 after a standard lame duck presidency during which he would have done a lot more angry grandstanding and a lot less scorched earth.
As it was, they are arrogant and greedy and impatient, and Trump won in 2024.
If he had not we would be looking at a US with a permanent ‘Democrat’ majority shored up by the election of more Dem candidates in blue states on the basis of increased population sizes, that population having been illegally imported across the border by the Dems.
It is a crazy but true fact that representation is based on population size, and population size is decided by the census, and the census merely attempts to count everyone in a given state at a given point. Even tourists count.
Had they won 2024 they would have accelerated this process to the point of supermajority, and it would have been – absent a US revolution 2.0 – game over.
Trump is just about the only thing preventing a totalitarian one world government, and we are by no means out of the woods yet.
The US election system is wonderful. Representation is based on population, so pulling in huge numbers of furruiners gets you more seats, but the vote is based on citizenship, so you don’t have to bother with actually getting all the population to actually vote.
I assume they’ve got rid of the rule that blacks only count as two thirds?
The Californication gambit of making it illegal to prove you are a citizen when voting is a bonus
Who’d have thought “affirmative action” might lead to a crisis of competence, eh?
Homosexuality is an illness that therapists can and should cure: that’s the rationale for “conversion therapy”, a practice promoted as a way to change an individual’s sexual orientation from gay to straight.
But a host of studies conclude that such counseling doesn’t work – small wonder, since sexual orientation is a core part of an individual’s identity.
If “conversion therapy” doesn’t work on poofters, why do they think it’ll work on racists?
I think they’re okay with racists performing racist acts in the privacy of their own bedroom, no?
Free the racists. #HateisHate
RESIST!
Gamecock gives wide latitude to what parents do with their minor children. This is not adults being forced into it. This is parents putting THEIR children – not the state’s – into it.
It’s none of the government’s f***ing business.
You have to remember, this is the justice that said in her confirmation hearing that she couldn’t tell you what a woman was because she wasn’t a biologist. So this comment is par for the course for her.
What is “freedom of speech” when it comes to medical treatment? If a doctor tells a patient to take paracetamol, knowing they are allergic, is that “speech”? If telling a patient what treatment they should have is “speech”, then you can’t require doctors to be licenced as that would infringe freedom of speech.
It seems that in the current circumstances, where medicine is tightly controlled and licenced, it is perfectly reasonable to apply an objective standard to any treatment and ban treatments that do more harm than good to a patient.
People – especially the young – go through phases. The middle-aged, after kids and years of apparently content marriage, can suddenly discover they’re bi, gay, lezzer or “trans”. Detransitioners are “trans” youth who have discovered that they were mentally ill, not the wrong sex or “trapped in the wrong body”, and they bitterly regret what they had done to them and its irreversible effects.
This is why, when faced with someone as amorphous as a ‘trans”, or even someone “questioning” their sexuality, it must be legal and preferable to explore the problem dispassionately rather than being legally obliged to go along with the patient’s confusion or mania. We don’t do it with anorexics.
As for medical treatment, all drugs have side effects. For most people they’re manageable but for others they render the drug unusable. You can’t know until you try. Turns out I’m sensitive to dihydrocodeine. Blew me up like a Q Pootle 5 Bladder Monster. It does more good than harm to most people, but not me. Should it not have been prescribed, just in case?