With a shameful 25-11 vote, CA Senators just attacked counselors, pastors, and people of faith as frauds

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

AB 2943 now advances to the Assembly

AB 2943 is the radical bill from Assemblymember Evan Low and the LGBT Legislative Caucus. With yesterday’s vote, elected leaders told churches and those with biblical beliefs about gender and sexual orientation that advocating for their views could get them sued. AB 2943 bans counseling, conferences, and even resources advocating the historic Christian theology of gender and sexual orientation.

Our CEO Jonathan Keller gave this statement to the media:

“The State of California has no right to shut down counselors, schools, and religious organizations who provide resources and services. Every person experiencing unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria must be allowed to pursue help in achieving their desired goals and outcomes.”

The implications of AB 2943 are staggering, and spread far beyond merely regulating licensed therapists. Legal experts confirm that by targeting financial transactions, AB 2943 threatens religious non-profits, churches, and pastors who provide paid resources to help people practice their faith.

Watch the Senate Debate on AB 2943 below:

Since AB 2943 was changed slightly in the Senate, the full Assembly must approve those amendments. The next voting opportunity will Monday, August 20th. The bill must be approve by the Assembly by August 31, 2018, or it is dead. We have identified 13 Assembly members who are most likely to listen to our appeal; their office numbers are below, along with the number to Governor Jerry Brown’s office.

Let’s flood the offices of the Governor and these Assembly members so they know how much we value our freedom to follow our faith.

Please Join thousands of liberty loving Californians by calling the politicians listed below.

Governor (Ask him to veto AB 2943)

Governor Edmund G. Brown (916) 445-2841

Assembly members (Ask them to vote no on AB 2943)

Catharine B. Baker: Capitol Office (916) 319-2016, District Office (925) 328-1515

Brian Maienschein: Capitol Office (916) 319-2077, District Office (858) 675-0077

Dr. Joaquin Arambula: Capitol Office (916) 319-2031, District Office (559) 445-5532

Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher: Capitol Office (916) 319-2080, District Office (619) 338-8090

Adam C. Gray: Capitol Office (916) 319-2021, District Office (209) 726-5465

Ken Cooley: Capitol Office (916) 319-2008, District Office (916) 464-1910

Sharon Quirk-Silva: Capitol Office (916) 319-2065, District Office (714) 521-6505

Jim Cooper Capitol Office (916) 319-2009, District Office (916) 670-7888

Rudy Salas, Jr.: Capitol Office (916) 319-2032, District Office (661) 335-0302

Jacqui Irwin: Capitol Office (916) 319-2044, District Office (805) 482-1904

Eloise Gómez Reyes: Capitol Office (916) 319-2047, District Office (909) 381-3238

Miguel Santiago: Capitol Office (916) 319-2053, District Office (213) 620-4646

Tom Daly: Capitol Office (916) 319-2069, District Office (714) 939-8469

(13) Comments

    • It was all the Democrat Senators, except for Senator Roth. Here is a list of their names. You can tell that they are democrats by the (D) after their names. https://www.senate.ca.gov/senators

      Here is the official vote record here:
      Ayes: Allen, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, De León, Delgado, Dodd, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Skinner, Stern, Wieckowski, Wiener

      Noes: Anderson, Bates, Chang, Gaines, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Stone, Vidak, Wilk

      No Votes Recorded: Berryhill, Cannella, Fuller, Roth

      Reply
  1. It’s insane to so specifically target one area of free speech and not understand the potential damage to all free speech. This must be challenged

    Reply
  2. Trying to cast this dispute as a “freedom of speech” issue is nonsensical. States have the unqualified right, under the Tenth Amendment, to regulate the standards of medical licensure and practice within their borders. If a state determines that ANY kind of therapy is ineffective or dangerous it has the power to ban its use by licensed practitioners. AB 2943 would NOT “outlaw helping anyone with unwanted same-sex desires or gender confusion.” It simply restricts the kind of therapy that licensed psychologists and psychiatrists can use to treat them. It would NOT prohibit clergy from counseling people about their unwanted attractions as a religious matter. And it would NOT ban publication of books that advocate such therapy, as long as the authors don’t offer them as a form of treatment.

    The APA, the principal professional organization for psychologists and psychiatrists, rejects claims of “sexual orientation change” brought about by means of psychotherapy. While its proponents claim their therapy is effective they have yet to publish results in any significant, peer-reviewed journals proving that it brings about lasting change in their patients’ orientation. In other words, the consensus among professionals in the field is that it’s worthless.

    Reply
    • Denis, you really need to read the text of the bill: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943
      If you did, you would realized this bill isn’t dealing with the professional code, but the California’s Consumer Fraud law, which applies to all financial transactions. Because of this, all counselors/teachers/anyone who charge a fee to help people changed unwanted same sex feelings, gender expressions, and behaviors will be affected. This includes a unlicensed counseling practice or ministry that serves this population. This would include a speaker at a church who sells his book on the topic on how to change after the service. This would include youth camps and college courses where help is offered on how to change homosexual feelings and behaviors.

      And if you pay close attention, you will also see that this bill isn’t about regulating a type of therapy, but a goal of therapy, an idea, a point of view LGBT legislators find offensive. Sexual orientation can not change, and no one should try it, because to do some who harm the person. That is they idea they want to ban as a fraud. They are seeking to ban an idea they think will hurt you.

      Do you really want to give legislators the authority to declare ideas as frauds, because they find them offensive, or the majority of the public and scientific community disagree with that idea. Has not history taught us over and over, that people should be free to explore unpopular ideas that the majority of experts condemn as wrong. How many scientific ideas were outlawed in the past because they were unpopular, but in the end turned out to be true. Let’s let the free market ferret out which ideas are good and which ideas are bad. We can’t not claim to have freedom of speech in this country if the government is given the authority to protect us from ideas that will make us feel bad.

      Don’t listen to the people promoting this bill, explain it to you what this bill actually bans. Read how broadly they define efforts to change sexual orientation. It clearly states in the bill. Here is how the bill defines “sexual orientation efforts” which are to be deemed illegal:

      (i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.
      (2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; practices or to otherwise promote healthy sexual and romantic relationships; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation.

      And one more thing: You are wrong about no peer reviewed studies showing the positive effects of sexual orientation change efforts. Here is a link to a peer reviewed study from this year Titled: Effects of Therapy on Religious Men Who Have Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction. It was published this year in The Linacre Quarterly. Check it out here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9njBaZTrCfSME44VEozQ2xvU29oenFmbl93c0QwWXNlYTYw/view?usp=sharing

      Reply
  3. Oregon Judge Vance Day recused himself from doing gay weddings 3 years ago. The Oregon Supreme Court is trying to make an example out of him by barring him from serving for 3 years and threatening him horribly for his 1st ammendmant speach. He has been called horrible names, has huge mounting leagal bills, has had to sell his house. Conservative pro-family Constitutional organizations say the Oregon Supreme Court believes that all judicial officers lose thier 1st ammendmant right. It appears 100% of Conservative Leagal Organizations like ACLJ and 14 others are looking at this case so they can prove that ALL Christians regardless of employment are free to speak thier 1st ammendmant right. THis case might be a turning point to shove down the defilement and social molestation of extremist fundamentalst Family Haters, God Haters and America Haters.

    Reply
  4. Pingback: With a shameful 25-11 vote, CA Senators just attacked counselors, pastors, and people of faith as frauds — California Family Council – SHOWERS OF BLESSINGS COVENANT HOUSE

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *