What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

"It was genuine concern for my safety" sounds awfully close to an implied threat to me.  Along the lines of "what a nice family you have, it would bea shame if anything happened to them"...

Yeah especially when the (Republican) Secretary of State in Georgia has been getting death threats.

[Syt]

Here you can see it on video: https://twitter.com/Sky_Lee_1/status/1329482921527439361?s=20

[The Larch]

He's starting to melt! 

[crazy canuck]

It turns out the strategy is to send out a fool to distract from the seriousness of the attack on democracy.

[PJL]

It turns out the strategy is to send out a fool to distract from the seriousness of the attack on democracy.

That's been Trump's presidency to a tee. Always thought he was the US equivalent of Zaphod Beeblebrox (though obviously, ZB was a much nicer guy).

[Syt]

https://twitter.com/ScottJW/status/1329839721971912706?s=20

Kayleigh to CNN's Kaitlan Collins: "I don't call on activists."

[crazy canuck]

It turns out the strategy is to send out a fool to distract from the seriousness of the attack on democracy.

That's been Trump's presidency to a tee. Always thought he was the US equivalent of Zaphod Beeblebrox (though obviously, ZB was a much nicer guy).

Good point

[Sheilbh]

In the long-tail of Trump's presidency one of the Federal circuits has just ruled that bans on "conversion therapy" are unconstitutional as they breach First Amendment rights.

The ban only applied to licensed counsellors and the treatment of children (so it doesn't cover clergy or others). My understanding is there's now a circuit split on this so it's very likely to go to the Supreme Court.

One of the points of the majority was there's not evidence that this type of "therapy" is harmful. The dissent notes that medical ethicists have said it's unethical to research this because you would have to harm some children to do the research.

Edit: And given the Supreme Court's make up, I imagine they'll agree with this decision that it's unconstitutional to ban "conversion therapy"?

[OttoVonBismarck]

I would say it's probably not constitutional to ban someone doing something called conversion therapy, where they basically try to counsel a child into not being gay. But I think if the person doing the counseling has any sort of state accredited professional certifications, or fraudulently presents themselves as having such, the state could pretty easily regulate that aspect of it.

[Sheilbh]

The opening lines of the majority's opinion:

Boca Raton and Palm Beach County prohibit therapists from engaging in counseling or any therapy with a goal of changing a minor's sexual orientation, 2 reducing a minor's sexual or romantic attractions (at least to others of the same gender or sex), or changing a minor's gender identity or expression—though support and assistance to a person undergoing gender transition is specifically permitted.  These restrictions apply even to purely speech-based therapy.  Two therapists argue that the ordinances infringe on their constitutional right to speak freely with clients.

According to the decision the law applies to "any person who is licensed by the State of Florida to provide professional counseling". Would there be alternative ways to regulate it away? Could the state of Florida do it given that they give the license?

[Syt]

One of the points of the majority was there's not evidence that this type of "therapy" is harmful. The dissent notes that medical ethicists have said it's unethical to research this because you would have to harm some children to do the research.

Are there no studies of the effects on persons who have undergone conversion therapy, both long term and short term?  It's not like this form of "treatment" hasn't been attempted.

[Sheilbh]

One of the points of the majority was there's not evidence that this type of "therapy" is harmful. The dissent notes that medical ethicists have said it's unethical to research this because you would have to harm some children to do the research.

Are there no studies of the effects on persons who have undergone conversion therapy, both long term and short term?  It's not like this form of "treatment" hasn't been attempted.

Yes - but it's backward-looking. The majority noted the lack of "rigorous recent prospective research" on the impact on children.

[Syt]

Are they arguing that methods have changed and therefore the effects on previous cases are immaterial to the case?

[Sheilbh]

Are they arguing that methods have changed and therefore the effects on previous cases are immaterial to the case?

I think the issue is there's a lack of recent studies and they mainly focus on "aversive therapy" whereas this is just "talk therapy".

The district court agreed: "Requiring Defendants to produce specific evidence that engaging in SOCE through talk therapy is as harmful as aversive techniques would likely be futile when so many professional organizations have declared their opposition to SOCE."  In other words, evidence is not necessary when the relevant professional organizations are united.

The dissent's response on this point:

Even in the face of this record, the majority opinion fixes its analysis on the Task Force Report's statement that "rigorous recent prospective research" on SOCE has not been done.  Maj. Op. at 21 (quoting Report at 42).  The majority's preoccupation with having additional research done ignores the harm such studies would have on children.  Evaluating the impact of SOCE under controlled conditions would require exposing minors to SOCE.  Cf. Report at 90–91.  And as the Task Force Report recounted, "[ s]afety issues" abound when it comes to studying SOCE.  Id. at 91.  This is true for both aversive and nonaversive techniques.  See id. at 90 ("[R]esearch on SOCE . . . has not answered basic questions of whether it is safe or effective and for whom.").   Moreover, the APA has cautioned that "[t]o conduct a random controlled trial of a treatment that has not been determined to be safe is not ethically permissible and to do such research with vulnerable minors who cannot themselves provide legal consent would be out of the question for institutional review boards to approve."  APA Br. at 9 (emphasis added)).  To be clear, the very research the majority opinion seems to demand is "not ethically permissible" to conduct.  Thus one implication of the majority holding is that because SOCE is too dangerous to study, children can continue to be subjected to it.  The majority opinion has the result of inviting unethical research that is nowhere to be found in First Amendment jurisprudence.
[...]
Even as the majority opinion calls for more "research" and "evidence," it entirely discounts "professional organizations' judgments" in this case and deems the substantial literature on SOCE "equivocal," "ambiguous," and "uncertain" on the harms SOCE inflicts.  Maj. Op. at 22 & n.9, 23–24 n.12.  This is nothing short of a moving target approach to the First Amendment.  The scientific and medical communities have done their jobs, the state has done its job, and now it is for us to do our job in the simple application of the law.

[The Minsky Moment]

I saw that. The majority opinion essentially created a 1st amendment strawman by describing the state law as an outright ban of such therapy.  As Sheilbh says in his post - it's not that.  It's a prohibition on state licensed counsellors performing such therapy.  Licensed counsellors are permitted to discuss the availability of such therapy and make referrals.  So strict scrutiny should not apply which would render the lack of peer reviewed studies essentially irrelevant.