I certainly appreciate that Rep. Pike took the time to respond to my meager efforts here on CCP.
The bill in question says this:
House Bill 2451, which passed on a 94-4 vote, would make it an act of unprofessional conduct to try to change the sexual orientation of a patient younger than 18. That would include efforts to change behaviors, gender expressions or to reduce sexual or romantic attractions toward people of the same sex.
That said, there are other ways the goal of eliminating "child abuse" could have been served without voting for this bill.
Earlier today, I posted concerning my disagreement with Rep. Pike and Rep. Vick's vote on HB2451, which removes the ability of parents in this state to engage mental health professionals, should such services be available, should the state not agree with the purpose.
This is Rep. Pike's unedited response.
All elected officials have the ability to provide responses to anything I write and their response will be published as received... as this one is.
The bill in question says this:
House Bill 2451, which passed on a 94-4 vote, would make it an act of unprofessional conduct to try to change the sexual orientation of a patient younger than 18. That would include efforts to change behaviors, gender expressions or to reduce sexual or romantic attractions toward people of the same sex.
That said, there are other ways the goal of eliminating "child abuse" could have been served without voting for this bill.
Earlier today, I posted concerning my disagreement with Rep. Pike and Rep. Vick's vote on HB2451, which removes the ability of parents in this state to engage mental health professionals, should such services be available, should the state not agree with the purpose.
This is Rep. Pike's unedited response.
After much soul searching, I voted "YES" on Bill 2451 for the following reasons:
• The intent of this bill is to protect children from abusive situations.
• A story was brought forward in a House committee public hearing where a child was forced to sit in a tub of ice and watch gay pornography for three hours as part of so-called “therapy.” This is unacceptable. The child was placed into this "aversion therapy" (which sounds like child abuse to me) by the parents to try and prevent this young man into becoming a gay man.
• We also heard testimony on the house floor about many other cases of this type of child abuse.
• This bill would continue to protect non-licensed, religious counseling acting under the auspices of a church or denomination.
• This bill would continue to allow licensed counselors to refer to non-licensed, religious counselors.
I voted "Yes" for this bill because I want to protect all our children from child abuse. That is what this bill boiled down to.
Liz Pike
Washington State House of Representatives
18th Legislative District
"Protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
All elected officials have the ability to provide responses to anything I write and their response will be published as received... as this one is.
I certainly appreciate that Rep. Pike took the time to respond to my meager efforts here on CCP.
ReplyDeleteThe bill in question says this:
House Bill 2451, which passed on a 94-4 vote, would make it an act of unprofessional conduct to try to change the sexual orientation of a patient younger than 18. That would include efforts to change behaviors, gender expressions or to reduce sexual or romantic attractions toward people of the same sex.
That said, there are other ways the goal of eliminating "child abuse" could have been served without voting for this bill.
Those shilling this effort are not in the least concerned about child abuse.
That's not the basis for the homosexual agenda, of which this is part.
If the goal wasn't the homosexual agenda, then the providers of this counseling could be regulated instead of the parents of the children in question.
There may have been horror stories about how these kids were treated. I have horror stories about how I was treated in elementary school in Seattle, but that wouldn't justify ending elementary schools.
Rep. Pike tells us "• This bill would continue to protect non-licensed, religious counseling acting under the auspices of a church or denomination.
• This bill would continue to allow licensed counselors to refer to non-licensed, religious counselors.
So, we go from the realm or regulated treatment through licensed psychotherapists to the realm of UNREGULATED, UNLICENSED councilors.
How does eliminating regulation of this treatment protect anyone?
Those behind this would have people with no dog in the fight believe that the horrific treatment mentioned by Rep. Pike is the only treatment available... that there is simply nothing else that a licensed professional can do.
And that does not pass the straight face test.
I'll be the first to admit that I do not know of the success level of this treatment is high, low or non-existent. And I really don't care. Because much of that sort of description can be said about a variety of medical treatments, both physical AND mental.
I remain convinced that this is the part of the ongoing erosion of parental rights... an erosion that no one gives a second thought now days since its just an accepted part of life in the 21st Century.