Many parents in Utah are taking their children to transgender clinics seeking hormone therapy and surgery for their children to change their sex. This is troublesome because sex cannot be changed. Even with extensive hormonal or cosmetic treatment, affecting the outward appearance of individuals, XX and XY chromosomes will always be XX and XY chromosomes.
Doctors at Utah clinics, including a clinic at the University of Utah, are administering puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even body-changing surgeries to children.
What are these “gender affirming” therapies and what damage are they inflicting on children?
Puberty Blockers: Powerful drugs that will prevent children from experiencing puberty. According to the American College of Pediatricians some of the effects of these body altering drugs include:
Cross-sex Hormones: Giving young girls testosterone who want to become boys and giving young boys estrogen who want to become girls. What are some the side effects of these drugs?
Surgery: Hysterectomy, mastectomy, testicle removal and surgeries that attempt to create male genitalia on females and female genitalia on males which can be non-functional or with limited functionality at best. None of these surgeries are reversible in the sense of regaining full functionality or appearance if these children, or the adults they become, ever change their minds.
The doctors are using the children as guinea pigs with untested and unproven drugs. As a result, their bodies are mutilated, and children become sterilized. This terrible practice must be stopped. Right now there are over a HUNDRED children at the GEMS Clinic at the University of Utah receiving these hormone treatments with more children starting the treatment on a regular basis. That means there will be hundreds of sterile and mutilated children by the end of this year.
Representative Brad Daw is the sponsor of “Prohibition on Transgender Procedures Upon Minors” and Senator Curt Bramble is the Senate sponsor. This bill would make all of these procedures illegal for children under 18. Powerful people, who are not thinking of the best interest of Utah’s children, are blocking this bill from passing. As we have seen many times before, Utahns can be even more powerful than the politicians when they come together and stand for what is right.
We need your help to get this bill to committee and on its way to become the law that will save these children.
This is not a parental rights issue. Parents hold the legal right to care for their children and provide them the healthcare they need but they have never been able to allow their children to be used as guinea pigs. There is never a reason to sterilize or cosmetically alter children, which as a result destroys their God-given right to choose to have children in the future. According to long term studies in Sweden, individuals who have received chemical and surgical gender-affirming operations are 19 times more likely to commit suicide.
The number of children who change their mind is EXTREMELY HIGH. According to the DSM-5 manual, up to 88% of the girls who identify during childhood as boys and up to 97.8% of the boys who identify as girls change their mind if they do not receive puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or surgery.
Please email all the Utah State Representatives and Senators. Call or email the Governor. Ask them to tell their leadership that they want the opportunity to vote on this bill to save the children.
Senate Roster House Roster
Please come to the Capitol with us this week to speak with your legislators. It makes a big difference when they know you are there and have a personal interest in the well-being of Utah children.
For more information please call Maryann Christensen: 801-860-5419
1. Vague and poorly written
ERA does not allow any distinction to be made between men and women – even when it makes sense to do so based on their biological differences.
As a result, the ERA will harm women AND their unborn children by overturning laws and programs that benefit them.
2. Harmful to unborn children
The ERA would be used to overturn all restrictions on abortion (including the partial birth abortion ban, 3rd-trimester abortion ban and parental notice of minors seeking an abortion).
3. The ERA would be used to mandate taxpayer funding of elective Medicaid abortions.
In both New Mexico and Connecticut, their state ERAs were used in the courts to overturn restrictions on abortions and mandate taxpayer funding of elective Medicaid abortions with the rationale that since abortion is unique to women, restricting abortions is a form of sex discrimination. ” (N.M. Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 975 P.2d 841, 1998; and Doe v. Maher, 515 A.2d 134 [Conn Super. Ct. 1986]
4. The ERA would overturn laws and practices that benefit women
Workplace laws that provide special accommodations for pregnant women State labor laws and guidelines which benefit women who do heavy, manual work Government programs that support women as mothers such as the Women, Infants, and Children nutritional program (WIC)
Social Security benefits for stay-at-home mothers based on their spouse’s
income. Justice Ginsberg claims that the current gender neutral benefit language is still a violation of the equality principle because it encourages women to stay out of the workforce, and as such she would overturn the benefit.
Exemption of women from the military draft and front-line combat. Currently, women who feel they are physically able can choose to enlist in the military. The ERA, however, would require that all women be drafted and placed on front-line combat in equal ratios to men.
Laws and presumptions that support women in the areas of alimony, child support, and requirements of husbands to pay for their dependent wives’ medical bills. The ERA will also wipe out state laws that exempt a wife from having to pay her husband’s debts even if he deserts her with children to support.
All other laws that provide preferential treatment for women
5. ERA would impact the privacy and safety of women and girls
By removing gender designations for bathrooms, locker rooms, jails and hospital rooms.
6. The ERA will not give women any more rights than they currently have.
Women already have claim to equal rights through the 14th Amendment (section 1) as well as numerous other laws in virtually all areas of American life – employment (including equal pay), education, credit eligibility, housing, public accommodations, etc.
The US Supreme Court has already applied the 14th Amendment to women’s issues (United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996)).
7. ERA won’t erase the gender wage gap.
Women are already guaranteed equal pay through the federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 and can seek remediation through the EEOC. The currently quoted wage gap between men and women is a misunderstood statistic in which the average wages of all full-time working men and women are compared in one lump sum of men to women across all occupations and education levels. This doesn’t allow for an equal pay comparison. When we compare the wages of men and women within the same career, in similar positions, at the same age, the wage gap narrows to 98 cents for women compared to a dollar for men. Even when we compare within career fields, key factors such as years worked, the level of education, and time flexibility of job, etc. are not factored into the comparison (see “An Analysis of the Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women” U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2009).
8. The ERA would also transfer large amounts of legislative power from the states to Congress creating a greater imbalance of power and placing sensitive issues under the less responsive federal government.
Section 2 of the ERA requires that Congress be given the power to enact the provisions of the ERA.As a result, states would lose their legislative abilities in regards to family law (marriage, divorce, alimony, custody, adoption, and property), sex crime laws, public and private schools, insurance, prison regulations and any other areas of law impacted by gender.
9. It’s clear that ERA sponsors intended for the ERA to overturn all restrictions on abortion.
Efforts to soften the extreme nature of the ERA via amendments were rejected by the supporters of the ERA when the ERA was being drafted in Congress. Courts will look to this legislative history for legislative intent as they interpret the ERA. The sample amendment below that was rejected shows that the supporters intended the applications of the ERA to be extreme and without any protection for women or their unborn children. This amending language for the ERA was rejected by the supporters: “The provisions of this article shall not impair the validity, however, of any laws of the United States or any State which exempt women from compulsory military service, or from service in combat units of the Armed Forces; or extend protections or exemptions for wives, mothers, or widows; or impose upon fathers responsibility for the support of children; or secure privacy to men or women, or boys or girls; or make punishable as crimes rape, seduction, or other sexual offenses” (Cong. Rec., pp. S9538–S9540).
10. The accepted time limit for ratification of Constitutional amendments is 7 years.
ERA failed in 1979. Five states voted to rescind their earlier approval of ERA. Any vote for ERA today is null and void and would be an embarrassment to the state.
November 11, 2019
“On this Veterans’ Day, do as I do; remember those who have served and given so much of themselves for our freedoms in America,” writes Commander Theresa Hubbard, USCG (ret.), who is an Eagle Forum leader. Her reflections and concluding thought help us all to put into perspective what these nameless, faceless, valiant men and women continue to do so every American can live free.
Just who and what is a Veteran?
A Veteran is the neighbor down the street, the school bus driver, the golf car repairman, the guy who drives the garbage truck, the entrepreneur who runs the patriotic T-Shirt company, one who started the coffee company for deployed troops, the CEO, the doctor, the lawyer, and the nurse. A Veteran could be standing next to you waiting, at the light of a busy intersection, to cross the street. Most of the time they look just like you or me, but they carry a load of memories with scars seen and unseen. Sometimes they don’t look like us because they have lost an arm, leg, or both or all. You will see them with the amazing prosthetics made today, or you’ll see them in a wheelchair with their scars from the Middle East, Vietnam, Korea, or the continent of Europe. Some are young and still in their 20’s; others are aging in their 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s.
The Veteran is the man who went off to the South Pacific in WWII with his fellow Marines. He left home a handsome young 19-year-old and came home a white-haired man of 21. Rarely did he talk about the Island hopping that he did, and the intense fighting endured day to day to survive. The raising of the flag on Iwo Jima was 2 minutes in days filled of living in hell. Few know of the hero who came home an old man of 21.
The Veteran is the young woman who joined the Army became an MP, then went to Afghanistan to do her duty. After serval months of routine duty, the day came when she was returning back to base and the Humvee she was in hit an IED. Tangled, mangled and confused she was medevacked out along with the others in the vehicle and before she knew it her duty to country was done. Providentially, no one was killed that day. Back in the states and out of the Army, she became a preschool teacher. Few know of the hero who now teaches young children.
The Veteran is the 90-year-old who after serving 26 years, went to get his benefits from the VA and was told his military record had been destroyed in a fire and his TDY records of his time in Korea and Vietnam no longer existed. There was no proof of his service to his country. Now when he needs his country the most, he is obligated to prove his service to the country. For him it was like being punched in the stomach. Few know of the hero who was told you were never in combat.
The Veteran is the man who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, he survived IED’s, RPG’s, and homicide bombings, lost friends, and spilled blood in a land that is harsh, brutal, unforgiving and tribal. Yet he fights on, continues to serve, but now he drinks too much, is short-tempered, on the verge of losing his family and knows not where to turn for help. He wonders what it is all for, but then realizes that is above his paygrade, and continues to serve. Few know of the hero who is just trying to survive with his demons from one day to the next.
The Veteran is the one who served on missions, secretly going after those who would do America harm. These are stories we will rarely hear about because of their classification. Often times they leave home with no notice and cannot call home because of the secrecy behind what they are doing. When it all goes down, however, family members knowing their loved one is deployed, and hearing nothing from them and now seeing a big mission hit the headlines, they wonder????? Few know of the hero who went on those special, highly classified missions and returned home the quiet, humble solider.
The Veteran is part of a crew who goes into the night by helicopter, C-130, Cutter, or boat when a fishing vessel, small boat, ship or downed aircraft is in distress. He goes when no one else will. On one rescue he was responsible for saving the lives of four M/V crewmembers who had gone aground near a rugged coastline, next to cliffs, in a blinding snowstorm, with 40-knot winds. It was his responsibility to read the radar, direct the pilot on where to hover so they didn’t hit the nearby cliffs, to lower the hoist and time the waves in order to get the crew off the vessel below. This is just one of numerous rescues he was on, going into the water on 4 different occasions, long before there was a rate or training provided. It was a judgment call in those days. At one point a fellow crewmember put him in for the “Distinguished Flying Cross” when he participated in another bad weather mission but was told it was denied because he was “just doing his job.” In 27 ½ years of service he had one personal award to show for the numerous lives he aided in saving. Few know of the hero of the 1960’s who helped saved so many lives under the worst of weather conditions.
The Veteran is the one who lost her arm and leg from an IED, has come back from the abyss and has adjusted to the prosthetic arm and leg she needs to get around, and now has a job. Yet she is self-conscious about her broken and scarred body and wonders late at night if she will ever find someone who will love her for her and if she will ever experience the joy of her own family. Few know of the hero who fears never having a family.
The Veteran is the one who lost everything, faith, family, friends, and home, he lost it all. Then through some miracle came back, got the help he needed and saw the need for helping other Veterans and their families. So, he and a group of fellow Vets got together and started a non-profit for the battle scared Veteran and his or her family. So often we think about what our Veterans are going through and forget about the spouses and the children who so love and admire their Vet but find it difficult to deal with him or her. Often it is only the Vets and their spouses who understand how hard it is to turn around the pain of war, and it is only a fellow Vet they will turn to for help in piecing back the part of their lives so badly broken. Few know of the hero who is now trying to help save a fellow hero to put his or her life back together with their family intact.
The stories of our Veterans and what they go through are countless. If you have one in your family, write down their stories and the struggles they have had. It will help others in the family understand who they are and what they have been through. Even if you don’t have a Veteran in your family, pray for Veterans daily, for they need your prayers. Help where you can. These are just a few of their stories; there are many more out there, some good, some bad and some uplifting. Yet, I can tell you that all Vets have memories that are awe-inspiring and that give credence to the term “Band of Brothers”! If asked “Would you do it all again?”, the answer is always a resounding, “Yes!” On this Veterans Day, do as I do, remember those who have served and given so much of themselves for our freedoms in America. Thank you. Theresa Hubbard, Commander USCG (ret.), November 11, 2019
God bless you; and may God bless America.
President of National Eagle Forum
By Richard Saunders
According to a Swedish study, those who have been sickened, maimed and sterilized by transgender treatments need long-term “psychiatric follow-up.” But for young people tempted by transgender hell, it’s illegal in 18 states for them to get psychiatric help beforehand. Will Utah become state number 19?
I see him once or twice a week as I make my daily Front Runner commute to and from work. He has grown out his hair, and he typically wears makeup, a bra and a dress complemented by something no woman would ever wear—men’s boots. And yet, he apparently considers himself, or at least wants to be, a woman.
But a woman he is not, nor ever will be. That is biologically impossible. At best, he will eventually grow out of his gender dysphoria. At worst, he will become a mutilated man who, like an increasing number of people in the “trans community,” will live to regret any life-altering surgery or chemical regimen he undergoes.
He does not need affirmation. He does not need encouragement. He does not need praise. What he needs is compassion and therapy. And yet Rep. Craig Hall and the Utah Psychologist Licensing Board would deny him that help. According to a proposed rule drafted by the licensing board, “unprofessional” psychological conduct could soon include “engaging in or attempting to engage in the practice of sexual-orientation change efforts or gender identity change efforts with a client who is less than 18 years old.” Psychologists violating the rule could lose their license.
In other words, Utah parents would no longer be able to seek therapy for their children suffering from gender dysphoria. According to the licensing board, such therapy can “risk harm” and is “contrary to the ethical principles and standards of our profession; chief among these ethical imperatives is our responsibility to ‘Do No Harm.’”
Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah, said, “We’re confident that if this rule goes forward as drafted, that we will see a reduction of suicides in our state.”
“Do no harm”? “Reduction of suicides”? Keep those phrases in mind as I share some of the sordid facts about today’s agenda-driven transmania. If therapy is not allowed to help children, what is allowed? And at what cost?
An amicus brief currently before the Supreme Court in the case of R. G. and G. R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sheds some light. The brief was filed by a dozen people who at one point identified as transgendered but now affirm their biological sex at birth. Each of them overcame their gender dysphoria with help from therapy. And through therapy, they were able to identify emotional trauma and other root causes that triggered their dysphoria in the first place.
In the brief, Jamie Shupe, who once upon a time was legally recognized as America’s first “nonbinary person,” said, “I should have been treated. Instead, at every step, doctors, judges, and advocacy groups indulged my fiction.”
Added Hacsi Horvath, who identified as a woman for 13 years, “I am far angrier that thousands of young people are being irreversibly altered and sterilized as they are induced into a drug-dependent and medically maimed lifestyle.”
Mere anecdotes? Hardly. Let’s look at the science.
In one of the most comprehensive studies to date, Swedish researchers who tracked over 300 “sex-reassigned persons” for 30 years discovered just how dangerous playing make-believe has become. When compared with a control group, victims of sex-reassignment surgery were 19 times more likely to die by suicide and were three times more likely to need psychiatric hospitalization, to suffer cardiovascular disease, and to abuse drugs.
“This study,” found at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/, “found substantially higher rates of overall mortality, death from cardiovascular disease and suicide, suicide attempts, and psychiatric hospitalisations in sex-reassigned transsexual individuals compared to a healthy control population. This highlights that post-surgical transsexuals are a risk group that need long-term psychiatric and somatic follow-up.”
In two other studies, one published in 2018 at George Washington University and one published this year in the Netherlands, researchers found that use of cross-sex hormones can substantially increase the risks of heart attacks, strokes, and blood clots (www.ahajournals.org).
The Swedish study concluded that those who have been sickened, maimed and sterilized need long-term “psychiatric follow-up.” But for young people tempted by transgender hell, it’s illegal in 18 states for them to get psychiatric help beforehand.
And so, misogynistic surgical predators are performing double mastectomies on gender dysphoric girls as young as 13 and 14. In Oregon, you can get a taxpayer funded “sex-change surgery” at age 15—no parental notification required. And in England, the ironically named National Health Service is giving transgender treatments to three-year-olds caught playing dress-up.
According to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, 80–95 percent of gender-dysphoric children will accept their physical biology if they are allowed to pass through puberty without transgender treatments, which is more like with therapy. A study by two psychiatric experts affiliated with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine has found that “the hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’—is not supported by scientific evidence.” They also found that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood” (www.thenewatlantis.com).
Sadly, by the time many confused young people reach adulthood, they will have been irreparably injured. What was that about “do no harm”?
Deny a child professional therapy and put that child on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, and the trans identity can become fixed. Unfortunately, the only therapy many children are getting is the propaganda they find on the internet.
Last year, a Brown University study by professor Lisa Littman found that identity politics is fueling a “social contagion” outbreak of transgender identification. Brown University took heat for the study’s publication, but a parent and research-driven petition stands by the study. It states: “The parental reports in this study offer important and much-needed preliminary information about a cohort of adolescents, mostly girls, who with no prior history of dysphoria are requesting irreversible medical interventions, including the potential to impair fertility and future sexual function. In any other group of children, these grave consequences would be seen as human rights violations unless there was significant and overwhelming evidence these procedures would be beneficial long-term.”
We shouldn’t be surprised that “parents describe a process of immersion in social media, such as binge-watching YouTube transition videos and excessive use of Tumblr, immediately preceding their child becoming gender dysphoric” (thefederalist.com).
Watch enough propaganda-filled YouTube videos, and you’ll be convinced you’re an L or a G or a B or a T—or all of the above. Watch a few more videos, and you might be convinced you’re a space alien. Social contagion is the internet’s own brand of conversion therapy—legal in all 50 states.
But there’s hope despite destructive social media mythology, activist witch doctors masquerading as psychologists and surgeons, and the nation’s headlong rush into insanity. Hundreds of transgendered young people in their mid-20s are detransitioning. Soon they will number in the thousands as more and more discover that they’ve been sold an ideological pack of lies.
Of those who would offend “one of these little ones,” Jesus said, “it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:6). As I watch the science-denying child abuse that is occurring in Utah and other states in the name of “do no harm,” it becomes clear just who Jesus was talking about.
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.
Volunteers of Utah Eagle Forum.