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:

• They emphasize stories of aversive techniques that are no longer used or are used by unethical practitioners.
• They distort theories and approaches to make them sound shaming or dangerous when in fact they are not.
• They operate from the false assumption that behaviors and attractions cannot be changed at all and ignore a number of studies showing that change can and has occurred in some people.
• They use deeply flawed studies that, among other things, conflate positive therapy with societal pressure to suggest that talk therapies cause suicidality and depression.

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.
https://usbe.civicclerk.com/web/Home.aspx

If you want to speak send an email or call: Lorraine Austin
Board Secretary
Utah State Board of Education
PO Box 144200
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
801-538-7517
[email protected]

​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.

https://www.schools.utah.gov/file/d66aa7d3-cb1f-4f47-a576-aaa4b8a351fc

Please do something to fix this very serious problem.

Thank you,


Gayle Ruzicka, President. Utah Eagle Forum


(e)
(i)
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.

(ii)
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:

• Creating a financial and physical separation between an organization’s healthcare facility and abortion facility.
• Eliminating the requirement that recipients must offer abortion counseling and refer their patients for an abortion.
• Implementing better reporting of Title X subrecipients to better ensure funds are not being used for abortion.  

The announcement is not surprising given the fact that the Hyde Amendment, a traditional rider placed in spending bills, prohibits the use of tax-payer money to fund abortion. The updated rule provides Americans with the transparency they need to ensure their money isn’t being used by abortion providers.
 
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.

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.

Transcript:
​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.

​https://www.abortionfreeutah.org