FLORIDA, November 20, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) — The United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has ruled that a ban on therapy for unwanted sexual attractions violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
In today’s decision, two of three justices, U.S. Circuit Judge Britt Grant and Circuit Judge Barbara Lagoa, agreed with the plaintiffs, therapists Robert W. Otto and Julie H. Hamilton, that a prohibition on therapy aimed at “reducing a minor’s sexual or romantic attraction (at least to others of the same gender or sex), or changing a minor’s gender identity or expression” violates their “constitutional right to speak freely with clients.”
“We understand and appreciate that the therapy is highly controversial,” wrote Circuit Judge Grant. “But the First Amendment has no carveout for controversial speech.”
**Photo credit: Shutterstock.com
Mainstream media sources are promoting offensive suggestions by some doctors that people who refuse a vaccine for COVID-19 should be "punished" by the government and by business - effectively coercing them into taking the vaccine.
- One group of doctors writing in 'USA Today' suggested that the government impose special taxes (i.e., fines) on people who refuse the vaccination and that business simply refuse to serve them. [see story below]
- Another doctor writing in an online publication called 'The Conversation' shamelessly suggested that people who refuse a vaccine should be given a psychoactive drug to induce compliance. [see story below]
But, these suggestions are plain political posturing, and have nothing to do with science or with the recent trends of the disease.
And, in case they haven't noticed, we live in a democracy not a medical dictatorship!
Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks policy-makers and business people, at all levels, to pledge to respect the rights of those who, in good conscience, decide not to vaccinate themselves or their children.
People should not have to live in fear of governmental or corporate retribution for refusing a vaccine which is being rushed to market by Big Pharma and their fellow-travelers in NGOs, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
It would be intolerable and immoral for the government or business to coerce someone, and their family, to take a COVID vaccine against their will to avoid a fine, or just so they can do their weekly grocery shopping.
Medical freedom must be respected in principle and also in practice.
So, it is now time that our policy-makers listen to all voices involved in this vital conversation, and start to represent those who will not tolerate being punished for refusing a vaccine.
Simply put, legislatures must begin to act as legislatures again.
Questions must be asked. Hearings and investigations must be held. And, the legislatures of each state and country must return to the business of representing the people who voted for them, assuming their rightful place as the originator of legislation.
We can no longer accept the dictates of executive branches without question, especially now that, statistically speaking, the initial brunt of the COVID crisis has passed.
Neither can we accept the dictates of doctors who seem detached from reality and from science, and who only seem to be attached to the idea of promoting ideas which contribute to the agrandizement of power and control of political interests, and wealth of those who stand to make a lot of money from the sale of a COVID vaccine.
Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks government and business leaders to pledge to respect the rights of those who refuse a COVID vaccine, and not seek to punish them for doing so.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
'Doctors lay out plan to ‘punish’ people who refuse coronavirus vaccine: ‘There is no alternative’' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctors-lay-out-plan-to-punish-people-who-refuse-coronavirus-vaccine-there-is-no-alternative
'US professor: ‘Psychoactive pill’ should be covertly administered to ensure lockdown compliance' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-professor-ensure-lockdown-compliance-by-drugging-dissenters-with-psychoactive-pill
“We hold that the challenged ordinances violate the First Amendment because they are content-based regulations of speech that cannot survive strict scrutiny.”
The decision recalls that in 2017 Palm Beach County, Florida, and the City of Boca Raton, Florida “joined a growing list” of states and towns that prohibit therapies the court called “sexual orientation change efforts.” It recognized that plaintiffs reject the term “conversion therapy,” “which they associate with shock treatments, involuntary camps, and other chimerical or long-abandoned practices.”
The City of Boca Raton forbid any professional counsellor, save clergy, from treating minors with “any counseling, practice or treatment performed with the goal of changing an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors, gender identity, or gender expression, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender or sex.”
Palm Beach County banned “the practice of seeking to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including but not limited to efforts to change behaviors, gender identity, or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender or sex.”
However, as the Court underscored, both ordinances allowed counsellors to influence minors to change their biological sex.
“But both ordinances contain a significant carveout: they expressly allow ‘counseling that provides support and assistance to a person undergoing gender transition,’” the majority justices noted.
The plaintiffs provide counselling to minors coping with unwanted same-sex attractions and gender issues through “talk therapy.” According to the judgement, Otto and Hamilton do not claim to be able to change a sexual orientation, but they have been able to help clients “reduce” their same-sex sexual behavior and attraction and also to “eliminate” confusion over gender identity. Their clients seek the treatment of their own volition, typically because they wish to live in conformity with their religious beliefs.
When the plaintiffs first filed against the new ordinances against reparative therapy, the district court denied the motion.
“This is a case about what speech the First Amendment allows the government to ban, and under what circumstances,” the majority justices wrote.
They were particularly interested in the question from the point of view of speech “content.” They noted that the “First Amendment exists precisely so that speakers with unpopular ideas do not have to lobby the government for permission before they speak.” However, both the City and the County ordinances specifically banned the content of speech, that is, anything that helps the client not to act on same-sex desires or not to seek a sex change.
“So the ordinances discriminate on the basis of content—at a minimum,” the majority justices ruled.
“They also discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. After all, the plaintiffs’ counseling practices are grounded in a particular viewpoint about sex, gender, and sexual ethics,” they continued.
“The defendant governments obviously hold an opposing viewpoint—one that they surely have the right to promote. But they cannot engage in 'bias, censorship or preference regarding [another] speaker’s point of view’.”
It is obvious that this is what the governments were doing because they made an exception for professional therapists who support minors in their wish to “change” their sex.
“The exception expressly allows ‘counseling that provides support and assistance to a person undergoing gender transition,’” the majority justices observed.
“No such carveout exists for sexual orientation. The ordinances thus codify a particular viewpoint—sexual orientation is immutable, but gender is not—and prohibit the therapists from advancing any other perspective when counseling clients,” they continued.
“That viewpoint may be widely shared in the communities that passed the ordinances, but widespread agreement is beside the point; the question is whether a speaker’s viewpoint determines his license to speak. Here, the answer is yes.”
The majority judges stated that viewpoint-based regulations are “an egregious form of content discrimination” and that there is an argument that they are in themselves unconstitutional.
“The Supreme Court has said that ‘the First Amendment forbids the government to regulate speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others,” they wrote.
Grant and Lagoa were appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump. Lagoa is on Trump’s list of possible Supreme Court nominees, and was rumored to be a frontrunner to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before Trump officially nominated now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, dissented from the decsion. She believes that talk therapy aimed at helping clients reduce their same-sex desires or gender confusion is a “harmful medical practice.”
“The majority is correct to say this case implicates sensitive considerations about when and how government bodies may regulate speech,” Martin wrote.
“Instances in which a speech restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest are deservedly rare. But they do exist,” she continued.
“I believe the Localities’ narrow regulation of a harmful medical practice affecting vulnerable minors falls within the narrow band of permissibility.”
This article has been updated.