2. What Happened
Sen. Ted Lieu, with the encouragement of Equality
California, introduced a bill to ban the use of Sexual
Orientation Change Efforts by mental health
professionals in CA.
No prior consultation or conversation with any mental
health organizations
CPA was asked to support the bill, along with
California Psychiatric Association, CAMFT, and the
Licensed Professional Clinical Counselors.
3. What Happened Next?
Major concern about the legislature stepping into
dictating clinical practice
CPA’s advocacy team provided an analysis of the bill,
which initially included a wide open path to litigation
against psychologists and a prescribed consent form
that would have been required.
Formed a coalition of the mental health professional
groups to discuss and explore the implications of the
legislation.
All groups took an “oppose unless amended” position
4. CPA’s Role
CPA took the lead in gathering the coalition together to
work with Sen. Lieu and educate him about the problems
with the initial bill
Significant time spent on educating him and his staff about
the consent form, the potential unintended outcomes of
the bill (therapists opting out of providing legitimate
treatment around sexual orientation), and the complexity
of the issue
Provided ongoing consultation with his office on
amendments to correct these problematic areas.
Once those elements were removed, headed coalition to
work on the language around the definition of SOCE in
order to get to a neutral position
5. Many iterations of definition of SOCE, but finally all
organizations signed off (the night before the bill was
to be heard in committee)
When bill was in Committee, all mental health
organizations changed position to “neutral”, allowing
the bill to get our of Committee
6. Success!
Major milestone was to get the bill out of Committee
without opposition from mental health organizations
Gratitude all around from the Senator, and Equality
California
7. But Wait! One More Chapter
CPA’s Executive Committee was asked by CPA’s CEO
(me) to continue to consider a “support” position
Executive Committee ultimately voted to move to a
“support” position, based on the fact that we
considered SOCE to be “outside the continuum of
legitimate practice” and “potentially harmful to
minors.”
This reasoning allowed us to support what we might
normally view as the “legislation of practice.”
8. Now We Wait
The legislation was challenged in the Courts
Two cases, with two different outcomes
Now with the 9th Circuit, and we are waiting on the
outcome after hearing in April, 2013
Pivot point, as described by one of the Judges, is
whether SOCE is “free speech” or a “medical treatment
that can be regulated by the government.”
9. Whatever Happens, This Raised
Awareness
Huge interest in this topic
25 (at least) interviews about this bill, far more than
any other piece of legislation recently
Interviews included Al Jazeera American and the BBC
Northern Ireland
Continued interested following SCOTUS rulings
Fingers crossed…
10. The SPTA Role
This time, able to serve as a resource and affect
ultimate legislation
Next time—we would evaluate again, based on the
specific issue
Still start from the premise that legislating practice is
not optimal
Prefer to be asked involved rather than NOT be
involved in order to protect psychologists
