Please help us now to stop the State of Utah from passing a rule that would ban legitimate and necessary talk therapy when therapists are counseling with children under 18 who are questioning their gender or sexual orientation.
Sign the attached petition and ask the Licensing Boards to Protect All Teens by rejecting the language proposed by the Board of Psychologists and find new language that protects client self-determination of all teens and their families. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ask-dopl-to-protect-all-utah-teens
The proposed rule is based on the premise that ordinary ethical conversational therapy that is open to change in sexual attractions or gender perceptions is harmful to minors.
In the 2019 legislative session there was a bill to ban conversion therapy. The question was, what is the definition of conversion therapy? This legislation stated,” Conversion Therapy means:
This proposed language that would have infringe on the rights of parents, children and professional therapists by allowing only gay affirming help with same sex attraction or affirming the gender identity being questioned. A therapist could have validated a homosexual lifestyle but could not suggest other options. Parents looking for help for their questioning child would not have any place to go for help.
THIS BILL DID NOT PASS THE LEGISLATURE. BUT THE UTAH MENTAL HEALTH LICENSING BOARD HAS PROPOSED A CHANGE TO THEIR RULE THAT WOULD BAN CONVERSION THERAPY, INCLUDING TALK THERAPY. THIS RULE CHANGE WILL HAVE THE SAME END EFFECT AS THE LAW THAT WAS REJECTED BY THE LEGISLATURE. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER WAY TO GET AROUND THE LEGISLATURE AND BAN TALK THERAPY FOR QUESTIONING LGBTQ YOUTH.
If this proposed rule is adopted it will have the same effect as the law they tried to pass in the legislature and would violate:
Children struggling with their gender identity or sexuality need to be able to talk to a professional counselor who will give them honest answers to their questions and parents need to be able to trust that these therapists will do what is best for their child and not be controlled by unreasonable and biased laws that violate their constitutional rights.
Your help is needed ASAP. Please do the following 3 things:
From David Pruden:
1. The proposed rule is unnecessarily vague and open to administrative abuse.
For example, what constitutes therapy that is “neutral with respect to the sexual orientation . . . of the individual.” (The question is not whether the therapist is neutral; it is whether the therapy—the “methods, practices, procedures, or techniques”—is neutral.) What constitutes “neutral” therapy most probably will depend on the “worldview” regarding same-sex attractions or sexual orientation held by whoever decides what the term “neutral” means.
Imagine that a psychologist is working with an adolescent who is experiencing gender confusion and is thinking seriously about whether he wants to undergo gender “change” procedures. In the course of their discussions, the psychologist should address with the minor client (and his parents) the emotional and psychological risks and hazards of “gender change” procedures. Further, the psychologist should advise the minor client and his parents that they will need to discuss the medical and physical risks of chemical, hormonal, or surgical “gender change” procedures—which are many and serious, and often with permanent and irreversible effects—with a competent physician. However, such discussions in a therapeutic context may well be regarded as having the “goal” of changing the minor client’s “gender identity.”
Assume a situation in which a 10-year-old male tells his parents that he thinks he really should have been born as a girl, and wants to change his gender. The parents then take the boy to a therapist (who does not take a transgender/gender-change-affirming approach) to help him address his feelings and confusion. Under the proposed rule, addressing the feelings, emotions, or expressions related to the boy’s perceived gender “identity” would put the therapist at risk, because it might result in a change in those feelings, and thus potentially be regarded as having the “goal” of changing the boy’s “gender identity.” To remain safe, the therapist could only “reduce” the young boy’s “internalized stigma,” provide “acceptance [and] support,” facilitate his “active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development,” and assist him in “undergoing gender transition.”
2. The proposed rule threatens a therapist with loss of their license (and their livelihood) if they violate the “sexual orientation change efforts or gender identity change efforts” provision if they are working with any number of common adolescent sexual concerns.
The likely practical result of the proposed rule would be to:
3. The proposed rule is based on the premise that ordinary ethical conversational therapy that is open to change in sexual attractions or gender perceptions is harmful to minors because it does not work and cannot work.
The proposed rule is grounded in a misunderstanding or mischaracterization of what actually does—and does not—happen in counseling by an ethical, competent therapist who uses an approach that is open to change. Ethical and competent therapy does not involve physically aversive techniques (such as electroshocking genitals or inducing vomiting). No licensed therapist in Utah has used such techniques for decades, as the proposed rule’s supporters concede. Nor does ethical and competent therapy involve verbally abusive techniques such as bullying, intimidation, shaming, or humiliation. Contrary to the impression the activists who support the proposed rule want people to have, the proposed rule is not directed either exclusively or even primarily at physically aversive practices.
4. The proposed rule, in its operation, would not be neutral toward religion.
It is based on an implicit hostility to the religious principles of clients (of all religious backgrounds) who seek therapy to address unwanted same-sex attractions or to resolve gender dysphoria, and would make it more difficult for those clients to obtain professional assistance in living according to their faith and religious convictions. The proposed rule further would exert forceful legal pressure on therapists of faith to either provide therapy that is contrary to their religious convictions or to remain silent. The proposed rule could be regarded as neutral only if the State could demonstrate as a matter of scientific fact that same-sex attractions (or gender perception or gender confusion contrary to physiology) are immutable. The proposed rule implicitly presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs that do not accept that proposition, that view same-sex sexual activity as immoral, or that reject transgenderism or gender-change procedures.
By Steven Done
Equality Utah and others are pushing to enact a broad ban on any therapies they refer to as "conversion therapy". The practical effect of this ban would be to prevent teens from receiving ethical therapies aimed at helping them live according to their deeply-held religious beliefs.
“Conversion therapy” is a term coined by political activists that is intentionally unclear. Ethical, licensed psychotherapists respect the right of clients to choose the goals of their therapy and help them work through emotional and relational issues that may influence these life circumstances. It is both dishonest and unfair to label these ethical mental health professionals as “conversion therapists”.
Equality Utah defines "conversion therapy" as "the practice of attempting to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity". The legislation they introduced in the Utah State Legislature defined it even more broadly:
"Conversion therapy" means any practice or treatment that seeks to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of a patient or client, including mental health therapy that seeks to change, eliminate, or reduce behaviors, expressions, attractions, or feelings related to a patient or client's sexual orientation or gender identity.The proposed rule currently before Utah's Division of Occupational and Professional licensing closely mirrors the effect of the original legislation.
Under this definition, "conversion therapy" is any therapy with the goal of change - no matter the approach.
Remember: change is the goal of any therapy for any unwanted feelings. Therapy, by its very nature, for any purpose, has a goal of changing behaviors, feelings and expressions. Indeed, what would be the purpose of going to a licensed therapist for help if not to hope for some change, at a minimum, in behaviors?
It's time for society to push aside the propaganda.
Equality Utah and other lobbying groups are playing a careful game of word chess to attack ethical, positive therapies for unwanted same-sex attractions and gender identity conflicts. They do so in a few ways:
But the truth is, ethical therapists work to help their clients accomplish their chosen goals using standard techniques used for any unwanted behaviors or feelings, such as EMDR and Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy. They don't engage in aversive techniques. They don't guarantee change, even if that is the client's goal, just as they don't with any other unwanted behaviors or feelings. But they do help the client with their desired goal. They help their client think about attractions in different ways, heal wounds and rebuild relationships, reprocess old traumas to reduce their power, and overcome shame. This therapy approach is not shaming, coercive, or dangerous. Yet it still falls under the definition of "conversion therapy" proposed by Equality Utah and would be outlawed under the current proposed rule.
My therapist was instrumental to my healing. My attractions used to bring me a lot of shame, and they used to be a very powerful force in my life. I frequently thought of my "attractions" as a single thing that was exclusively related to sex, and as a result I deliberately avoided touching other men or looking them in the eye. The therapy I received from my licensed therapist focused on thinking about attractions in different ways, and on reducing the shame I felt. My therapist helped me see that most of what I was experiencing had nothing to do with sex. He helped me see that my desire for hugs from another man was a need for confirmation that I am valued by other men. I began to understand that intense feelings when looking other men in the eye were there because I had avoided it for so long, and because being seen by another person is a powerful experience. I came to understand that spending time with other men is a need that all men have. In other words, much of what I experience can be interpreted as intense desires for friendship and a deep, unfulfilled need for confirmation that I have value. I believe the eroticization came because I had denied myself true friendship for so long and because of the false stories I had in my head about the desires for friendship that I had. Not only did this approach greatly reduce the shame I felt, but it eliminated entirely my suicidal thoughts.
Ethical therapy for unwanted same-sex attractions and gender dysphoria is simply that - good, ethical, safe therapy. Equality Utah's definition of "conversion therapy" and the associated stories are straw men set up to distract from this fact. It is just like any other therapy for any other unwanted feelings or behaviors. It is not dangerous or shame-inducing. Indeed, it saved me and others I know from suicide. Had I not had the ability to set my own goals in therapy, I likely would have killed myself. Please help protect all teens by asking the licensing boards and the governor to keep all goals for therapy on the table.
Take a first step by signing this petition. You can find out about additional ways to help at ProtectAllTeens.com.
From Gayle Ruzicka, President of Utah Eagle Forum:
I recently checked the website for the Utah Board of Education looking for up-dated information on Health education. I was shocked to find some very disturbing information. For years Utah law has allowed for spontaneous questions in sex education classes. I have always been concerned about this and I use to keep an eye on what was happening, but like all of us, I got busier and busier and quit checking. That was a mistake. Below is an email I sent to the State School Board members and Superintendent Dickson. I also sent a similar letter to several legislators and I hand delivered a packet of information to the Governor and the AG.
Now I think we all need to get involved and let the the Board know that there has to be changes and children need to be protected. You also need to contact your legislators 'they need to change the law and remove the language allowing spontaneous questions. Thursday, September 5, is the monthly State School Board meeting. We need to show up to testify and ask that they shut down the spontaneous questions and they also need to stop any programs that create secrecy in the classroom. Said here, stays here, should never be said in a public school classroom.
The school board meeting is at 9:00 am Thursday morning. The address is 250 E 500 S Salt Lake City.
If you want to speak send an email or call: Lorraine Austin
Utah State Board of Education
PO Box 144200
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Please bring a copy of your written testimony to leave with the board members. Even if you don't speak bring a statement for the Board members. it can be just one paragraph or 4 or 5 paragraphs. All they really need to know is you are concerned and you want changes. Alway include your name and contact information. Bring your friends with you.
If you can't make it to the meeting please send all of the Board members an email with your concerns. https://www.schools.utah.gov/board/utah/members. Click on each board member's name to get their contact information. Also contact your own legislator, House and Senate. It would be a good idea to send them emails even if you are at the Board meeting.
This is the email I sent to the State School Members with a copy to the Superintendent. It explains all of my concerns. Hopefully they are your concerns too.
Dear (School Board member's name)
As you know, Utah law allows teachers to answer spontaneous questions during sex education classes. I recently checked on the State Office of Education website under teacher’s resources to see what information was there for teachers about answering classroom questions. What I found was shocking. https://www.schools.utah.gov/file/03e62195-10a8-47af-810a-7234c7153008 I could not believe that teachers were having these very graphic discussions with Utah children. Parents would be shocked, and most would be angry. The worst part is that by the time the parents fine out, if they ever do, the children will already be damaged. As a member of the Utah State Board of Education it is your responsibility to protect Utah's students from exposure to this damaging information.
I was told that approximately 90% of the parents are allowing their children to participate in sex education classes because they think Utah teachers teach an abstinence-based curriculum. These allowed questions and the answers are as graphic as any Comprehensive Sex Education taught in the schools in California. Every parent should be given a copy of these questions along with the answers before they are asked to grant permission for their child to participate in sex education classes.
The guidelines say a teacher cannot answer a technique or “how to” question, yet in many cases by simply defining the individual sexual practice they are describing the "technique." Out of 29 questions under the heading of sex, only 4 times did the teacher say they could not answer that question, and yet most of the question are inappropriate. One of those 4 questions was, "How do you put on a condom?" The teacher said, "I am not permitted to answer. Please refer to the package instructions."
I assume that most of you have not read these questions and answers or you would be doing something about it. I find it embarrassing to have to send this email to you, but I do not know any other way to get this stopped because the children, as young as 13, could be discussing this in the classrooms. Who was responsible for compiling these questions and answers and putting them under the teacher's resources? The legislature should change this law. These spontaneous and inappropriate questions should not be allowed in the classroom. Children with questions should be encouraged to talk to their parents or, with parental permission, talk to the school nurse where the entire class will not be exposed to the individual student’s question.
One other concern. Many parents would not want their children to be taught about any of these alternative sexual practices, let alone that they are normal and acceptable.
There is another document under the teacher's resources that may explain why parents are not aware of these discussions in the classroom. This document is called "Ground Rules. Group Agreement/ Guidelines/ ROPES Activity. The first paragraph of this agreement states, "It is important when discussing topics surrounding sexual health to try and create an environment where everyone feels like they can voice their thoughts in a safe manner. These “ground rules” often take various forms, but the framework remains consistent."
This is the explanation for ROPES:
R: Respect, responsibility, keep it “real”, reporting
O: Open mind, opportunity, “Oops/Ouch”
P: Participating (with the right to “pass), personal questions, prepared
E: Empathy, education, excited, “escuchar” (Spanish for listen), ELMO
S: Said here, stays here (confidentially, unless…), safe space, self-aware, share, sense of humor
As you can see, S: says, "Said here, stays here." Children are agreeing to not share what they are talking about during this Q&A sharing time. They are having to choose between keeping the commitment they have made to their teacher and classmates to keep the conversation private versus talking to their own parents. Never should there be a pact made about keeping classroom secrets. There should never be classroom secrets.
Please do something to fix this very serious problem.
Gayle Ruzicka, President. Utah Eagle Forum
At no time may instruction be provided, including responses to spontaneous questions raised by students, regarding any means or methods that facilitate or encourage the violation of any state or federal criminal law by a minor or an adult.
Subsection (2)(e)(i) does not preclude an instructor from responding to a spontaneous question as long as the response is consistent with the provisions of this section
National Eagle Forum Capitol Hill Report
August 29, 2019
So far, in the House of Representatives, the 116th Congress has been a term of extending freedoms to some at the expense of others. We’ve seen bills, committee hearings, and floor speeches promulgating the Left’s talking-point demanding that our laws affirm a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).
The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), H.R. 1585, was one of the House’s first successful attempts at including SOGI language in a piece of legislation. SOGI language in VAWA has been interpreted to allow biological males who identify as a woman to enter into biologically female only places, not only violating the privacy, but also sometimes the safety of women seeking shelter.
On top of this, the House’s passage of the Equality Act, H.R. 5, has also been celebrated by liberals and main-stream culture. Proponents of this legislation believe it is a landmark win for the LGBTQ community that gives them the protections from discrimination they deserve by making SOGI protected classes under federal civil rights laws.
Most recently, the House unanimously passed the PRIDE Act, which allows same-sex couples to receive tax benefits that were previously awarded only to traditionally married couples, a husband and wife, by nullifying the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It does so by modifying the tax code to allow same-sex couples to receive retroactive tax refunds from years prior to the 2013 Supreme Court decision striking down DOMA in U.S. v. Windsor.
These three pieces of legislation are dangerous because they undermine the United States Constitution. Our Constitution already grants all people equality under the law, especially through the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972. Furthermore, by not including any conscience protections in VAWA and the Equality Act, and providing retroactive benefits in the PRIDE Act, all three pieces of legislation extend special protections and privileges for only LGBTQ people at the detriment of Americans who oppose their lifestyle, like Jack Phillips, the owner of a bakery repeatedly targeted for his refusal to bend his conscience and the Downtown Hope Center, which refused to allow a transgender female into their women’s only shelter.
It is more important than ever to continue telling Washington, especially the Senate who has yet to vote on these pieces of legislation, of your disapproval of these harmful policies. Eagle Forum will continue to fight the assault on our Constitutional rights.
NATIONAL EAGLE FORUM CAPITOL HILL REPORT
August 19, 2019
This past July, recipients of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Title X grants had to implement several institutional changes to qualify for funds. These changes target abortion providers, like Planned Parenthood, who have manipulated the Title X federal funding stream into supplementing their “reproductive health services” for too long.
The changes, announced in February 2019, are meant to restore the integrity of the Title X programming, which is the only federal grant program providing low-income individuals with access to comprehensive family planning and preventative health services. Specifically, some of the provisions include:
In response, Planned Parenthood announced that it would be forgoing Title X. The organization brought in more than $1.6 million in revenue and received $563.8 million in government funding for the year ending on June 30, 2018. On top of that, Planned Parenthood is still receiving government money in the form of Medicaid reimbursements, which accounts for the majority of its government funding. Planned Parenthood will have no problem continuing their abortion services to millions of women.
In reference to HHS’s rule change, Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson said:
"Imagine if you show up as a patient to a health center and the doctor's only ability is to refer you to prenatal care, and you may have already decided that you want to have an abortion," McGill Johnson said. "Federal regulations will ban that doctor from actually giving you advice and referring you to abortion."
For them, abortion is a necessary piece of medical care. They even have a section on their Planned Parenthood Action website dedicated to defending and implying their use of Title X funds for abortion procedures: “By giving women more control over if and when they have children, Title X allows women to have more control over their lives, including their health, careers, and economic security.”
Unfortunately, Americans have also funded abortion globally. In 1984, President Reagan took a step to prohibit this through his Mexico City Policy, which prevents global health organizations that receive U.S. federal funding from providing abortion services. Unfortunately, the policy is not law and has been rescinded by both the Clinton and Obama administrations. President Bushand President Trump both reinstated the policy at the beginning of their Presidential terms.
Although HHS’s Title X rule change and President Trump’s implementation of the Mexico City Policy are good measures, the policies are too easily swayed by Presidential opinion and action. If a Democrat administration were in power, both policies would most likely be reversed. The American people need Congress to enact a permanent ban on the federal funding of abortion to prevent this catch-22. In the meantime, Eagle Forum will continue to support policies preventing government-funded abortion.
Written by Ryan Neuhaus, August 13, 2019. Originally published in the Washington Examiner
Recently, a coalition of 75 organizations including Planned Parenthood, National LGBTQ Task Force, the ACLU, and the National Abortion Federation released a 116-page blueprint outlining a policy agenda aimed at advancing policies for women and children in the name of “sexual and reproductive health care, rights, and justice.” However, after reading over the policies, one quickly realizes that they would substantially harm American families without bringing forth "rights" or "justice."
Parental rights, for example, are targeted for elimination. The coalition deemed parental consent for an abortion as detrimental to the empowerment of “girls and youth assigned female.”
If the true goal of the coalition is to help empower young women, shouldn’t they encourage young women to look to their mothers, their families, or at least an experienced adult such as a judge for guidance in potentially intense and emotional times? After all, considering that adult engagement is required for getting your ears pierced or taking an aspirin at school, surely making a life-ending decision such as abortion is worth a conversation with someone who isn’t going to profit from it.
Cutting out mothers seems like the most glaring oversight of all.
“Of all familial relationships, the mother–daughter one is most likely to remain important for both parties, even when major life changes occur,” write the authors of a study led by Kathryn Bojczyk of Florida State University. “Multiple theoretical perspectives recognize the mother–daughter bond as lifelong, intimate, and developmentally important.”
Distancing a mother’s guidance regarding the health and well-being of their children is terrible policy.
Research conducted by Paula Goodwin of Purdue University and Osman Galal of UCLA has shown that traditional family structures have positioned women to directly impact the overall health and well-being of their families. If the true intent of pro-abortion activists were to provide healthcare to women, while respecting and valuing women, taking mothers out of the decision-making process alongside their children would be viewed as irresponsible, as it devalues motherhood and endangers adolescent women.
Good policy would uphold parental and adult engagement laws, as mothers and fathers are at the heart of a child’s education and healthcare. And parents will be the ones helping pick up the pieces when things go wrong. Judicial bypass laws also at least ensure that someone with the child’s interest in mind is looking at the needs of all.
Perhaps the abortion lobby’s desire to cut out parents has to do with the fact that they want unrestricted access to minors to make an abortion sale. The substantive work of Dr. Michael New has shown conclusively that when a state passes a law ensuring that parents are involved in the decision, the overall statewide rate of abortion decreases by an estimated 13.6%.
Abortion has harmed millions of women across the United States. Often portrayed as a safe medical practice, abortion has been found to scar the lining of the uterus, damage the cervix and other internal organs, lead to eating disorders, depression, suicidal thoughts, and even death. Complications from botched surgeries have resulted in hysterectomies, ending girls' chances ever to have children of their own later in life.
The overriding problem with the healthcare proposal coming from abortion advocates is a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes healthcare. Pregnancy is not a disease cured by abortion. Pushing an agenda that distills all women’s interests down to the presence or absence of abortion ignores needs for economic advancement, access to education, or a level playing field in the law.
A blueprint for healthcare that values and strengthens the lives of mothers and children is a good idea. It won’t be achieved if we cut the ties between adults and children. The real question is who can be better trusted to help a child make an abortion decision, the people who have devoted their lives to a child, or the people whose goal is to make a sale?
Ryan Neuhaus is Students for Life of America’s Florida Regional Coordinator.
Author: Stephen Done
Many men I know, including myself, experience same-sex attraction. Some of the greatest healing they have experienced is being able to talk to others about it - to stop hiding from it and from others. They and I have learned that it is good to acknowledge the experiences, problems and struggles that we face. It is good to take them head on and not hide them from others. It is good to want to give others courage in the face of difficult circumstances. It is quite another thing to say "I struggle with this, so I'm going to jump in and embrace it, and I'm going to leave my wife and children over it."
I'm not saying that experiencing same-gender attraction is not a struggle. It certainly is difficult. It certainly is hard. I'm not saying it's wrong to talk about how difficult it can be to navigate. Talking and asking for support is helpful and good. But it is wrong to use it to excuse breaking commitments and call that act a good thing.
Those who discuss their experience publicly in order to announce that they are now going to have romantic and sexual relationships with others of their same gender frequently claim they are acting out of love. They say they are justified in walking out on their wife (or husband) and children. They claim they are being brave. But breaking solemn commitments is not just and brave, and it is not love.
Let me say it again. Breaking promises and commitments of faithfulness to one's spouse and children in order to pursue other sexual partners - regardless of their gender - is not brave. It isn't praiseworthy. It is selfish.
Were a man to announce he left his wife for another woman, there would be no praise for his choice. There is no reason why these situations are any different. Essentially, these men and women leave their spouses and family in search of different sexual partners. That so many people in society, especially the media, seem ready to praise these actions is quite a serious, concerning matter.
I have personally witnessed the devastation and lifelong trauma that parents who leave their families plant in the hearts of their children and spouses. I have seen the brokenness that comes from mothers and fathers abandoning their posts. These wounds are especially deep when parents part because one of them wants to seek other sexual partners.
The society we live in has so greatly magnified the sex act and the accompanying affections that this form of love has become our god.
C.S. Lewis once said that love "begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god." And so this love has become a demon. By justifying the breaking of solemn vows, it is leaving pain, bitterness and destruction it its wake.
Sex is not the foundation of a good marriage. Sex and hormones alone will not make a marriage work. Good marriages are made of friendship and common goals, and for many centuries the decision to marry was not tied so deeply to romance and affection. Though our society no longer believes it, men and women who experience same-sex attraction can have happy, fulfilling marriages with the opposite sex.
Given the experiences of many men I know who left the homosexual lifestyle, I am concerned that men or women who leave their families in order to live out their sexual inclinations will find, as did my friends, that the lifestyle will not bring them the contentment or fulfillment they are seeking. In cases where spouses and children are involved, this would be especially tragic.
Some people say men and women who experience same-sex attraction and marry someone of the opposite gender were shamed into it. They claim this justifies ending the current marriage now that same-sex marriage is more acceptable. They assert there is no other way or other choice to be made. But there are other ways. There are other choices. The struggle does not justify the breaking of commitments, and while experiencing same-gender attractions is not a choice, breaking solemn vows is.
Claiming that these men and women are shamed into marrying someone of the opposite gender imposes a narrative that may not actually be true. For instance, I was attracted to my wife when I married her. It was only years later, as a result of repeated exposure to the common societal narrative, that I, for a time, convinced myself that I married her out of duty.
When I first discussed my experience with same-sex attraction publicly, my main purpose was to try change the narrative around same-sex attraction. But there was also some streak of attention-seeking that fueled my announcement. I was not disappointed in that wish. My post received 90 likes and loves on Facebook and 44 comments from family and friends praising me and giving me support. I loved that praise. I loved that support. But I soon realized that very few people reached out to my wife, though she was experiencing a lot of pain. I am still surprised that less than a handful of people said anything to her, asked how she was doing, or offered support.
I am quite concerned that in the current social climate, women, men, and children whose spouses leave do not receive the support and comfort they should. They have to endure deep pain and anguish while their former husband or wife gains attention and praise.
I grieve for the wives and children of any man who chooses to end his commitments to them. I grieve for the children and husbands whose mothers and wives leave them. I hope and pray that more people in our society will recognize and speak out about the need for strong fathers, strong mothers and strong commitments and will cease to praise such acts of selfishness.
I have faith that in a future day men and women who stick by their spouses as they work through difficult things - as so many of the men and women that I know and love do - will no longer receive the ridicule and distain that they currently do from some in society. In that day they will receive the respect that should be afforded anyone who does their best to live according to their commitments and promises and keeps trying.
Many young people are deciding they no longer want to live as the biological sex they were assigned at birth. These children start putting pressure on their parents to let them begin the process of transitioning to the sex they think they really are. This transition process will include using powerful puberty blockers, extreme hormone treatments such as giving testosterone to girls who want to become boys, and top and bottom surgery to change their sexual body parts.
Utah parents are taking their children to the University of Utah health center for these services. The clinic is called the GEMS Clinic (Adolescent Gender Management & Support Clinic) at Eccles Primary Children’s Outpatient Services. The GEMS Clinic states that it helps teens affirm their gender through treatment and support.
According to their website by the third appointment the children can start puberty blockers and hormone therapy. They state, “that before preforming gender-affirming surgery (top or bottom), most surgeons prefer that you take hormones for at least 12 months and you establish a relationship with a mental health therapist.” How can doctors who are pledged to do no harm, do these horrible things to children? How can they give them life altering, dangerous drugs and surgery that will forever change and endanger their lives?
Further more, notice in the paragraph above where the U of U says they want the child (patient) to have a "relationship with a mental health therapist." If Equality Utah gets their way and passes a ban on conversion therapy, patients will have a relationship with a therapist who is unable to do nothing but affirm the gender of choice.
From LifeSite News: Click here to read how Italy is putting an end to this child abuse
In Regards to the “Original Intent” of those Who Created the First Amendment and the “Religious Clause” Let Us Examine The FACTS.
The following FACTS debunk the FALSE position that government is intended to take an adversarial position against religion.
IMMEDIATELY after approving the words of the First Amendment, those who created what is now our First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”) passed a resolution requiring George Washington to establish a national day of thanksgiving and prayer:
A NATIONAL THANKSGIVING.
[From Sparks's Washington, Vol. XII, Pg. 119.]
Messages and Papers of the Presidents, George Washington, Vol.1, Pg. 56
Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and
Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.
And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A. D. 1789, Geo. WASHINGTON.
Happy Birthday America!
My name is Gayle Ruzicka. I Am President of Utah Eagle Forum and also, along with so many people you see here today, a founder of this organization. The day that we got Roe v. Wade, I determined that I would never stop fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade. I want to share with you some of the things that have happened over the years as we've worked towards this goal. Back in 1991, I had just moved in the state two years before that, we passed a bill. I want to tell you about that bill because we worked hard. We spent two years traveling around the state, organizing and planning to make this happen. This bill was a bill that said that life begins at implantation of a fertilized egg.
We went on from there, in this bill, to talk about the rights of the unborn. In this bill, it said the policy of the legislature in Utah, under the Utah Constitution, which recognizes that liberty and life, founded on inherent and inalienable rights, are entitled to protection of the law and due process, and that the unborn children have an inherent and inalienable right that are entitled to protection by the State of Utah, that the State of Utah has a compelling interest in the protection of human life, including that of unborn children.
It goes on again and talks more about the Utah Constitution and the protection of the unborn, giving unborn children the very same rights as children that are born. As people, as all of us in the State of Utah, that is what we need to work for. That bill passed. It was signed by the governor and passed. And you know what? It went all the way to the Supreme Court. It got cert. That is important. Very few bills ever make it all the way to the Supreme Court. This one got there. On the way, we had a lot of mishaps and people playing games with it and trying to stop it from passing, I mean, getting all the way there. But it went there. It made it. But when it got there, sad to say, one of the judges, one of the justices had retired Byron White. We needed his vote to overturn Roe, so it was struck down.
But that doesn't mean we give up. That was 1991 and I have not given up one day since then. I have worked, every year, to see that something ... we try to get something passed. We have passed lots of bills over the years and we have worked our way toward that very thing of going back to the gold standard, the standard that says life begins at conception, the standard that says the unborn child has a constitutional right to life just like you do, like all of us do, And we're going to do that. We're going to keep going and we are going to do that. That is our goal. I think everybody in this room who loves those unborn babies would agree with that, that those little babies have that right. I want you to know that I will not stop fighting, and I'm sure all of you in this room feel the same way, or you wouldn't be here today. We will not stop until we pass that same bill again, and this time, make sure it's upheld. Thank you.
Volunteers of Utah Eagle Forum.