By Mary Slosson
SACRAMENTO, Dec 3 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday
temporarily blocked California from enforcing a landmark law
that bars therapy aimed at reversing homosexuality in minors,
but he applied the ruling to just three people.
Two licensed therapists and one aspiring therapist filed a
suit against the law, which is due to go into effect on Jan. 1.
U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb ruled the trio would
temporarily not be subject to the legislation pending resolution
of a trial on their complaints.
California's Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, in September
signed into law a ban against the 'conversion therapy' for
children and teenagers, making the nation's most populous state
the first in the country to do so.
The law bars therapists from performing sexual-orientation
change counseling with children and teenagers under 18 and was
supported by the California Psychological Association.
Gay rights advocates say the therapy can psychologically
harm gay and lesbian youths, leading to depression or even
suicide. They say the treatment, also called reparative therapy,
has no medical basis because homosexuality is not a disorder.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case, filed by the
Christian legal group Pacific Justice Institute, argued that the
law violates constitutionally protected rights to free speech
and freedom of religion.
Granting the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction, Judge
Shubb ruled that their claims were likely to succeed based on
freedom of speech violations.
They had also shown they were likely to suffer "irreparable
harm" in the absence of an injunction, he said in written ruling
just hours after a hearing on the matter.
UNLICENSED PROCEDURES?
Attorneys for the state were joined by lawyers from Equality
California, which was a sponsor of the bill, in arguing that
there is substantial evidence that the conversion therapy
practice causes harm to those who undergo it.
The National Center for Lesbian Rights said it was
disappointed with the decision, but stressed the temporary
nature of the ruling and its limited scope.
"We are confident that as the case progresses, it will be
clear to the court that this law is fundamentally no different
than many other laws that regulate health care professionals to
protect patients," the organization's legal director, Shannon
Minter, said in a statement.
Shubb expressed concerns during the earlier hearing that
banning licensed practitioners from offering the therapy would
only drive parents to seek out the treatment from unlicensed
providers.
"That's what they used to do with abortions. It didn't work
very well," he said, mentioning back-alley procedures that
endangered women's health. "It may also be the opposite of what
the state was trying to accomplish."
An attorney for Equality California, Michelle Friedland,
argued it would be unethical for therapists to refer their
clients to a treatment that was scientifically discredited.
Another similar suit seeking a separate injunction against
the law was argued on Friday, and the judge in that case
indicated she would rule this week.
Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook