ACLU Would Compel Therapists to Counsel LGBT People

by on

The ACLU condemns a Tennessee law that allows counselors and therapists to decline to provide their services to a client for “goals, outcomes, or behaviors that conflict with the sincerely held principles of the counselor or therapist,” as long as the professional recommends somebody else who can help the client.

Who would want a therapist that doesn’t want you as a client because you’re gay or transgender? Same people who want someone opposed to gay weddings to cater their gay wedding.

As Scott Shackford ‏blogged, “Tenn.’s Discriminatory Counseling Law Protects LGBT Folks from Getting Bad Advice.”

More. In a fundraising email, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) declares, “this week in Tennessee, Governor Bill Haslam signed a dangerous bill allowing medical professionals to refuse mental health services to LGBT patients.”

Gay rights advocates used to ask those who encouraged gays to stay in the closet and try to be straight, “Would you want your sister to marry a gay man?” I suggest asking Zeke Stokes, GLAAD’s vice president of programs, whose signature is on the email, “Would you want gay kids to be sent to an anti-gay shrink?” Who, of course, would be prohibited from indicating to potential clients that he or she is not accepting of homosexuality.

Furthermore. No, I don’t buy the argument that the law means suicide hotlines will let gay people kill themselves because the state isn’t compelling them to provide mental health services to LGBT people. Because, you know, Jim Crow.

15 Comments for “ACLU Would Compel Therapists to Counsel LGBT People”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I suggest that folks read and consider the ACLU’s reasoning.

  2. posted by Mike in Houston on

    Once again, you miss the mark Stephen. In your zeal to protest against Evil Progressives ™ and their jihad against poor Persecuted Christians ™ , you

    Every reputable professional therapy association & accrediting organization has a code of ethics that precludes what this Tennessee bill is trying to put into place… to wit:

    Marriage and family therapists provide professional assistance to persons without discrimination on the basis of race, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, gender, health status, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status. – American Association of Marriage & Family Therapy

    Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making. Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language and socioeconomic status and consider these factors when working with members of such groups. Psychologists try to eliminate the effect on their work of biases based on those factors, and they do not knowingly participate in or condone activities of others based upon such prejudices. – American Psychological Association

    Mental health counselors do not condone or engage in any discrimination based on ability, age, color, culture, disability, ethnic group, gender, gender identity, race, religion, national origin, politic beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, or socioeconomic status…
    Mental health counselors have a responsibility to educate themselves about their own biases toward those of different races, creeds, identities, orientations, cultures, and physical and mental abilities; and then to seek consultation, supervision and or counseling in order to prevent those biases interfering with the counseling process. – American Mental Health Counselors Association

    Counselors are aware of—and avoid imposing—their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Counselors
    respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants and seek training in areas in which they are at risk of imposing their values onto clients, especially when the counselor’s values are inconsistent with the client’s goals or are discriminatory in nature. – American Counseling Association

    Finding a mental health professional is not as easy as “find another business to bake your cake”. Mental health professional resources are not like Starbucks — one on every corner. And access to those resources are often determined by your ability to pay: either through your health insurance or own pocket-book.

    Shackford’s snark aside, the problem with this law – like other “religious freedom” exemptions aimed at LGBT people – is that it allows for discrimination by a narrow group, exempts said group from being “up front” about their discriminatory practices and leaves the LGBT person disadvantaged by law in what should be a routine activity.

    But I guess as long as Stephen finds it reasonable for LGBT people to expect & accept second-class citizenship — the rest of us, should just buck up.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      So will this come up in the first session? “Oh, by the way, if you’re gay I won’t treat you.” Or might this come up when the client mentions being gay (which could be unrelated to the reason they are seeking counseling). Will they be refunded for all prior sessions?

      This is the mess we create when we create a carve-out for one group (conservative Christians) to discriminate against one other group (gay and trans people). I can’t think of any relevant examples which shows just how messed up this is.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I would add only that the bill covers both private and public (that is, government employed) counselors and therapists, such as school counselors and county mental health personnel.

  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    As an aside from the discussion of the law, any counselor/therapist who is so wrapped up in a religious box that he or she cannot conform to standard ethical guidelines should seriously consider his or her professional fitness, and perhaps find another job in which he or she is less likely to inflict lasting damage on people.

  4. posted by Mark Johnson on

    If one feels they cannot help people without resorting to Bible-based therapy, they are welcome to hang out their shingle as “Christian Advisor” or “Christian Counselor,” which requires no education or training. (The precise words they can use vary by state licensing boards.) Then they can spew all the nonsense they wish. The trick is that they can’t use any professional certifications they might have.

  5. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Gay rights advocates used to ask those who encouraged gays to stay in the closet and try to be straight, “Would you want your sister to marry a gay man?” I suggest asking Zeke Stokes, GLAAD’s vice president of programs, whose signature is on the email, “Do you want gay kids to be sent to an anti-gay shrink?”

    Anti-gay bias by teachers and school counselors/therapists is an issue in schools, and much more common than it should be.

    As is the case with private counselor/therapists who cannot conform to standard ethical guidelines of the profession, I think that teachers and school counselors/therapists who let their anti-gay bias influence their interactions with kids should seriously (prayerfully, perhaps) consider their professional fitness, and perhaps find another job in which they are less likely to inflict lasting damage on children.

  6. posted by Kosh III on

    I live in Nashville and all I can add is that this bill is ONLY about gay-bashing.

    How is this place “Independent?” Stephen goosesteps along with any and every hateful opinion puked out by the pulpit pounders, Teanuts etc.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      IGF does not use “independent” in the common sense of “aligned with neither the Democratic nor Republican Party”.

      If you read the “Welcome” (upper right) you’ll see that IGF was founded in opposition to “ideological rigidity and leftwing orthodoxy” and if you dig into the “About” (click “More” in “Welcome”) you’ll find that IGF claims to be composed of “libertarians, limited-government conservatives, moderates, and classical liberals” who counter “resistance to libertarian and center-right viewpoints within LGBT organizations and media”, “political correctness … too often wielded to stifle dissenting perspectives”, and “social conservatives [who] still work to deny gay people equality under the law and to exclude us from conservative circles [emphasis mine]”.

      IGF, accordingly, uses “independent” in the sense of “independent of “ideological rigidity and leftwing orthodoxy” but not necessarily “independent of political party”.

      How well IGF fulfills the “independent” goal (as IGF-defined) is yours to decide, but the way I think of IGF is the way I think of the Cato Institute, founded and largely still funded (as I understand it) by the Koch Brothers, which serves the mission of espousing conservative-spectrum libertarianism, while the Koch brothers themselves are active in Republican politics, supporting social conservative Republican politicians out of political pragmatism.

      IGF (like the Koch brothers) is clearly aligned with the Republican Party, in my opinion. You can make up your own mind about it.

      • posted by Kosh III on

        Hmmm, it was more a rhetorical question than not. Stephen may not follow left-wing ideology but certainly follows the ideological rigidity of the right wing nannies and theocrats.

  7. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    I live in Nashville and all I can add is that this bill is ONLY about gay-bashing.

    I don’t doubt that at all, Kosh, but the “cover” for the bill is that the bill is necessary because the American Counseling Association revised its code of ethics in 2014 to add a sentence (highlighted) to Section A.11.b of the Code:

    “A.11.b. Values Within Termination and Referral. Counselors refrain from referring prospective and current clients based solely on the counselor’s personally held values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Counselors respect the diversity of clients and seek training in areas in which they are at risk of imposing their values onto clients, especially when the counselor’s values are inconsistent with the client’s goals or are discriminatory in nature.”

    The 2014 revision, incidentally, did not change Section A.11.1, which covers professional reasons for referral:

    A.11.a. Competence Within Termination and Referral. If counselors lack the competence to be of professional assistance to clients, they avoid entering or continuing counseling relationships. Counselors are knowledgeable about culturally and clinically appropriate referral resources and suggest these alternatives. If clients decline the suggested referrals, counselors discontinue the relationship.

    Therapist/counselors so embedded within a particular religious mindset as to be incapable of providing effective therapy/counseling to particular clients have always had a way out under Section A.11.1, so the Tennessee bill doesn’t do much except make a point.

    As far as I am concerned, the Tennessee bill, and others like it, are just part of the “massive resistance” effort by conservative Christians and their Republican political allies.

    • posted by Mike in Houston on

      It all boils down to this: certain Good Christian People ™ want to reserve the right to discriminate – not just without fear of negative consequences, but with state sanction.

      Stephen seems quite fine with this particular level of government intrusion — and is also seemingly quite fine with contradicting himself with regards to government employees doing their jobs.

      Government employees — like school counselors — should not be able to wield their power to further their own particular religious aims. (ahem, the Establishment Clause anyone? )

      It’s one thing for folks to have to deal with a surly clerk who hates their job of handing out marriage certificates, but quite another for that same type of not-so-subtle animus to creep into a school counselor’s office — where they can wield a tremendous amount of power over the life, future and mental well-being of children that are supposed to be under their professional care.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/16/betrayed-and-exposed_n_4454439.html

      If Stephen and his supporters were actually interested in mental health issues overall — and for LGBT people, especially… never mind… He isn’t. They aren’t.

  8. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    More. No, I don’t buy the argument that the law means suicide hotlines will let gay people kill themselves because the state isn’t compelling them to provide mental health services to LGBT people. Because, you know, Jim Crow.

    If I may ask, who the f*ck is making this argument?

  9. posted by tom jefferson III on

    1. I would think that a “GOP libertarian” would favor a private professional or other private group having its own membership rules, and that they would be opposed to
    government santioned discrimination.

    2. Finding a therapist that is close to you, covered by your health plan and taking new clients is not any easy task. Its a differen

  10. posted by Jorge on

    I suggest that folks read and consider the ACLU’s reasoning.

    Read it. Reject it.

    “Some places—such as schools—only have one counselor. If a school counselor refused care to a student, that child would have no other option to get the care he or she needed.”

    This is the best argument.

    I would consider the law acceptable if it permitted an organization to, as a condition of employment, require therapists to obey their supervisor’s orders as to which clients to accept. The right of refusal should still be granted at the level of the individual private practice or at the level of the business as a whole.

    Since this law amends a title that deals with professional licensing and state-approved standards of practice rather than with labor law, I am in support of it.

    I consider the other arguments either hyperbolic or irrelevant.

Comments are closed.