Vetoing overturning a ban on undoing gayness. First quadruple negative for 2025 for me.
Yeah, I had to work backwards for this one…
Conversion therapy = bad.
Banning conversion therapy = good.
Overturning the ban on conversion therapy = bad.
Vetoing the overturning of the ban on conversion therapy = Good… I think?The conversion therapy contains potassium benzoate.
- blank stare*
(that’s bad)
Can I go now
Conversion Therapy is known to the State of California to cause cancer.
It took me longer than I’d like to admit to figure out that this was in fact a good thing.
In a statement posted on X Saturday night, Beshear said, "conversion therapy is torture, and that’s why I signed an executive order banning it in Kentucky.
“I’m going to keep fighting for what’s right,” the governor’s statement concluded. “And that’s loving thy neighbor.”
God they love torture and suffering, the ones pushing for conversion torture.
Everyone needs to stop calling anything a religious service provider or old-school rando hired off the street can sloppily deliver as “therapy”
It literally is torture.
For those that don’t understand, here is a example of what happens:
They are brought to the basement of a local church after school hours every weekday where they are subject to shock therapy treatments lasting for around an hour and aversion therapy sessions lasting for three hours, those that are unaware, aversion therapy sessions often are something like being drugged as to induce nausea and at the same time, presented with homosexual erotic imagery so that those ‘treated’ would associate homosexuality with this nausea. This would be supplemented with occasional beatings.
Don’t forget the literal rape.
https://www.nsvrc.org/blogs/conversion-therapy-sexual-violence
THAT’S MY GOVERNOR
I think people paying attention to national politics but not necessarily state level stuff don’t realize just how impressive Andy Beshear has been. In 2024, Trump won Kentucky 65% to 34%, more than 30-point lead. In 2020, Trump won the state 62% to 36%.
And through that, during the Trump era, he has campaigned on unabashedly progressive policy positions (marriage equality, abortion, universal pre-k, renewable energy and EV production, legalizing marijuana), and won statewide elections in 2015, 2019, and 2023.
In many ways, the 2023 win was the most impressive, because that was when the Democrat brand was getting dragged down, and incumbents in that era tended to have a bit of a post-covid drop in the polling numbers.
People like Andy are who we need in politics: unafraid to vote his conscience, and using that charisma and voice to bring the public along to support those things.
he’s done a masterful job of framing issues that the (very) conservative commonwealth can accept without outright rejecting.
and believe it or not, he wasn’t my first choice to be gov in 2019. I thought he was too centrist.
MAGA has a hardon for cruelty.
Conversion therapy for minors
Why spend money on therapy? Just wait until they are 18, then they won’t be minors anymore! Unless it was a typo of miners, then yes, they need all the retraining they can get because coal mining is going away and nothing can stop it.
The children yearn for the mines.
This is an issue where state governing bodies are given too much power away from the ethical boards
The APA for example has firmly opposed conversion therapy officially since 1998 (way too late, but better than our shitty government). This opposition is functionally meaningless though because the APA does not license individuals, state boards do
So if your state is totally cool with conversion therapy it doesn’t matter that you are a psychologist who does this entirely unethical practice that has been recognized by the governing body as not evidenced based. They will both grant you a license as a new practitioner and continue to renew your license.
Now this is a comfortable position the APA can take because they do not have this power. The ACA, the American counseling association, has made a similar statement and has basically the same scenario. This becomes relevant in a moment:
A different scenario: the NBCC has made a softer statement. They “support government bans”. The ACA and APA ethics boards use much stronger language. To compare:
“The American Counseling Association (ACA) opposes the practice of conversion therapy and advocates for the banning of such practices in the United States. As a leading organization in the field of behavioral health care, the ACA stands against conversion therapy because there is no credible scientific data to support its effectiveness. Furthermore, extensive research has demonstrated that conversion therapy is a harmful and damaging practice for clients, often resulting in psychological trauma and distress.”
“NBCC supports all bans on conversion therapy in all its forms. Conversion therapy directly contradicts every moral and ethical standard that mental health counselors are held to, including the NBCC Code of Ethics and the ACA Code of Ethics. Not only is the practice wholly based on unproven claims, it has been shown in multiple scientific studies to cause great mental and emotional harm to those who undergo it”
The NBCC post is buried on their issues blog (instead of a formal post on the topic like the ACA and APA) and the language is not direct, which is ill advised when discussing ethical issues. The ACA is clear: the practice is opposed and advocacy for banning the practice is advised. The NBCC supports bans and feels the practice is not evidence based but does explicitly state that the practice should be prohibited. Again, you might say this can be inferred from their language (it obviously can be) but when you are discussing ethical issues inference is your downfall. The people looking to practice this bullshit will see this and say “oh well you didn’t explicitly say no so that is a yes”
This is important because unlike the ACA and APA the NBCC actually does have power here. They are not a licensing agency but a certifying body on a national level. One must adhere to their ethical code to maintain their certification. This is sometimes required for jobs at the VA or working with TriCare, some school and university jobs require it, and some insurance companies require it for paneling as well. They do hold some power.
In the meantime states should still ban it. But practitioners should still actively petition their boards to make explicit revisions to ethical codes that are equivalent to state bans.
This does bring up the other inherent issue: state licensing boards are in theory guided by the ethical code of whatever. The state licensing board of Alabama psychologists are supposed to go by APA guidelines. But the APA has little power here. The system is designed in a very dumb way that gives the governing ethical body no power over the state licensing body. The APA can pressure the licensing board by “strongly recommending” they take action but there is no consequence, really. They can take action against the licensee directly but only if they are an APA member. If they decline membership or have it revoked they still retain licensure, generally, unless it was for a gross ethical violation (which conversion therapy is not in these states apparently). You can sub in ACA/AAMFT/AMA/etc.
States rights!
This does bring up the other inherent issue: state licensing boards are in theory guided by the ethical code of whatever.
This is the kicker. Doesn’t matter what the APA or anyone says if your state doesn’t feel like going along with their requirements. (I don’t think any providers in Oklahoma are investigated for anything barring a rape with physical evidence).
This is where the whole relationship of everything comes into play:
In a situation like that the role of the APA is to put pressure on the state acting poorly. If the APA fails in this role it is the role of professionals within the state and across the country to put pressure on the APA to act. Obviously this does not occur
How does one organize to put pressure on the APA then….
I don’t understand how the troubled teen industry is allowed to exist. I don’t know if there needs to be some kind of regulation on licensing requirements or what.
The federal government doesn’t regulate; there’s so many ways for them to avoid state regulation. You’d think - the TTI typically traumatizes survivors in a way that leaves them opposed to all forms of mental health care - this needs to be a priority for investigation and research.
There also needs to be a serious push on protections and oversight of inpatient facilities. Especially with the way that the current administration is likely to use institutionalization as a tool for political purposes. I’m familiar with how inpatient facilities work in two states, and have both seen the long term damage and experienced it myself. Patient safety is a serious concern, especially considering that the most vulnerable cannot advocate for themselves.
It is probably how I’m going to get disappeared, so it is a very pressing concern.
Well practitioners who are members of the APA/ACA/etc have the most sway. Writing opeds, participation in meetings, submission to calls to action, becoming more involved in the organization. Like any political action really you have similar challenges: how do you organize members? Except here it’s a bit different; a great deal of membership is in agreement that conversion therapy is abhorrent. But like governmental political action leadership is often hesitant to make serious moves
The troubled teen industry is a different issue. The worst examples of these facilities often operate outside of regulation. The thing is there are regulatory concerns for certain facilities but then there are loopholes around this. If I open an inpatient residential facility I have regulatory guidelines to follow. If I open a “camp” for troubled teens the regulations are much more relaxed, basically nonexistent.
Inpatient facilities that operate properly are a different story. These are fairly heavily regulated in most states but the regulations can vary wildly. However even in states where regulations are more strict it is often cash starved on the side of regulatory oversight. Ie the bodies that exist to ensure regulatory compliance have little money. This is addition to the programs themselves being poorly funded (and often the funding being unfairly distributed)
The solution to mental health treatment is such a multifaceted problem. People don’t want this; they want a simple line. Increased funding would help, but it wouldn’t solve it. In many cases it would simply be absorbed into private equity and administrative salaries. Increased regulation would help but if you just do this it won’t do much because the programs cannot cope without the funding, training, and increased staffing. Additionally regulatory bodies would need the teeth to actually enforce. And this doesn’t even touch upon the health insurance component that is necessary to be reformed heavily so people can access these (absurdly expensive) services without being bankrupted
That last point is key. These services are absurdly expensive. Inpatient on the low end can be 10k per month and as much as 60k a month. People don’t want to pay for this and politicians know this is a class of people that can easily be erased for massive healthcare savings (at the benefit of funneling them into private prisons instead, which is absolutely disgusting, but politicians are scum)
Say one wanted a career change to mental health policy and advocacy - what kind of terminal degree would be taken seriously in these conversations? Or what are the avenues for laymen to be listened to?
I’ve experienced horrendous shit, advocated for people experiencing horrendous shit, seen shit…. My state does not give a flying fuck.
I just do not understand why so much mental health policy and practice seems counter to helping people.
Policy and advocacy? Maybe masters of public health
That said as someone who’s worked as a licensed counselor for over a decade one of my pet peeves is when someone gets an MPH and all of a sudden is an authority because they spent two years learning about “the issues”. It’s kind of like the MBA who comes into a company and is like “oh it’s pretty cool what you’re doing but I know everything because I learned that making more money is great!”
That said it does give you some cred. Ultimately the biggest thing is networking, like all things in life. Get to know people and play the game of “hey remember me from x! I’m doing x now and we’d love to x” it sucks but if you truly want to enact change you need people to know you and be on your side more than any letters
Pedigree and experience helps though. Just don’t get too bogged down in it. I’ve known people with my licensure (masters of counseling, lpc), that do work here. Plenty of psychologists, MDs and DOs, CRNPs, etc. they have the benefit of drawing on experience, which can be powerful.
I recently did some advocacy work and it involved writing an op-ed about my experience working in the residential inpatient system we are talking about here, for example. I have spoken to policy makers about what works and what doesn’t in this vein. I will admit it is unbelievably frustrating to speak to a politician who practices being super polite and nice to everyone. They hear you out and talk in empty platitudes, shake your hand, then vote for the insurance companies that you find out paid them $8,000 via open secrets. It’s disheartening but you keep trying, I guess
Do we really need more depressed gay moms and dads? The true end goal of sexual identity ostracism is a population bump, but is this even the best way to create one in the age of in vitro and cloning? Just seems small minded, in addition to bigoted
It’s not just that. Demonizing minorities creates a boogie man fascists can point to and say “This the terror that only I can save you from”, and scare dipshits into becoming their followers.
