“In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” George Orwell
“You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” John 8:32
In our previous article, we explained why gender confused children are harmed by giving them toxic drugs and thus should be provided with counseling to help them address their underlying mental health problems. This article is a part of our series of articles intended to convey the truth about a war being raged against the rights of our children – a war using weapons such as propaganda and lies, toxic addictive drugs, trans sports cheating and state-sponsored child abuse to arrest the natural and normal development of our children. Our goal is to use scientific truth as our first line of defense to win this war against our children’s rights.
Our mission is to advocate for a Childrens Bill of Rights that address each of these weapons being used against them. These fundamental rights include the right to be told the scientific truth about the world they will grow up in. As just one example, they have a right to know that there are only two biological sexes – male and female – and that changing one’s name or taking toxic drugs will not change ones biological sex. Children have a right to a good education – free from political agendas. Children have a right to personal privacy that includes the right to single sex bathrooms and locker rooms. Gender confised children have a right to unbiased counseling to help them overcome their underlying mental health problems rather than masking those problems by taking a lifetime of toxic drugs.
Girls have a right to fair sports competition where they are not required to compete against boys who are at least 20% stronger than them. Most important, children have a fundamental right to be guided by their parents rather than being subjected to state-sponsored child abuse without the knowledge of their parents.
In this report, we will focus on the legal status of two laws each of which is being used to deprive children of their fundamental rights. These laws are:
#1: A 52 year old federal law called Title IX which is intended to protect the right of girls to equal treatment in all educational and athletic programs that get federal funding – but has been hijacked into a law to replace the rights of girls with the rights of transgender students.
#2 State laws banning child counseling such as Washington Senate Bill 5722 passed in 2018 which bans troubled children from getting the counseling they so desparately need and instead manipulating kids into taking toxic transgender drugs.
Then in our next article, we will summarize State laws that eliminate Parental rights:
#3 State laws such as Washington House Bill 5599 and Washington School District Policy 3211 which are intended to deprive children of their right to parental guidance by depriving parents of their right to parental notice.
Section 1: The Status of Title IX
Thanks to a series of federal court decisions in the Summer of 2024, the Biden Final Rule change to Title IX has been rejected in 26 states. Nearly all of these same states have imposed bans on giving minors drugs in order to “transition” their gender.
US Supreme Court rules 9 to 0 against the Ferguson Drug Cartel
On August 16, 2024, the US Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 ruling rejecting the Biden administration attempt to use Title IX to replace Girls Rights with Transgender Rights. Here is a link to their 12 page ruling: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/24a78_f2ah.pdf
The US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that at least three provisions of the Biden Title IX Transgender Rules were illegal. These were: #1 The requirement that Trans Rights replace Girls Rights. #2 The requirement that Trans males be allowed in Girls Bathrooms & Locker Rooms. #3 Defining “Harassment” so broadly that it restricts the First Amendment rights of teachers, parents & students.
Here is a quote from this Supreme Court ruling: “All 9 Members of the Court agree… that (the Biden Final Rule) violates students’ and employees’ rights to bodily privacy and safety; and that its definition of hostile environment harassment violates the First Amendment.“
Sadly, Washington is not one of the 26 protected states. Therefore, we will need to file our own complaint to return to the legal version of Title IX.
Section #2: State laws banning Child Counseling
Since 2018, Washington is one of 23 states that have banned counselors from speaking with gender confused children about the underlying causes of their gender confusion.
As insane as it sounds, Senate Bill 5722 requires licensed counselors in Washington to promote the state-sponsored child abuse of giving gender confused children toxic drugs. This crazy law is an attack on our free speech rights under the First Amendment. It is also an attack on the scientific method as science requires the ability to consider all points of view – and not be limited to only the official dogma. Finally, this new law is an attack on at-risk children – because it forces children to go down a deadly drug path and prevents them from having access to counseling that might help them overcome their mental health problems.
For the past eight years, Bob Ferguson and his accomplices have been telling several Big Lies – including his claim that a federal law called Title IX requires us to allow boys in the girls bathroom and allow boys to compete in girls sports. The driving force behind this law is not a concern for Trangender children but the extreme greed of the drug industry that stands to make billions of dollars in profits by getting vulnerable children addicted to their toxic transgender drugs.
Even worse, Ferguson claimed that if a teacher spoke out against his new rules, they would be “risking the lives of Transgender kids” and would therefore be guilty of committing a crime so dangerous that they could be lose their teaching job.
Any child who spoke out could be kicked out of school and any parent who dared to speak out could lose their children. In short, no one is allowed to speak out against the Ferguson Drug Cartel.
Yet there is a simple reason that giving gender confused kids toxic drugs to solve their problems is doomed to failure - while providing children with counseling offers at least the possibility of success. The fact is that each child is unique. This is why child counseling begins by asking each child about their past experiences and their feelings about those experiences. It is the best way to get at the underlying causes of childhood problems.
By contrast, giving troubled children drugs treats all children as if they are the same. Drugs rest on the false assumption that “one size fits all.” Drugs rely on the desire of parents for a simple “magic bullet” solution. Magic bullet drugs are the con game of drug peddling snake oil salesmen and corrupt politicans like Bob Ferguson and Chris Reykdal.
As a result of Ferguson’s new rules, tens of thousands of children in our state have been misled into a horrible life of taking a never-ending stream of toxic drugs to “affirm” Ferguson’s other Big Lie – that it is possible for a child to change their gender from a boy to a girl or a girl to a boy merely by changing their pronouns as if changing ones pronouns and pretending to be a different sex will somehow will solve one’s underlying mental health problems. Once again, the Truth will eventually come out. To expose the lies of Ferguson and Reykdal and help bring the truth to the light of day, we will review court rulings on the First Amendment rights of counselors, teachers, scientists and other professionals versus recent laws that have been passed in an attempt to silence counselors, teachers, parents and scientists.
Transgender Big Lies Led States to Ban Counseling for Gender Confused Children
In September 2012, California passed Senate Bill 1172 - becoming the first state in the nation to ban licensed counselors giving counseling to gender confused students. California labeled such counseling as “Conversion Therapy,” or “Sexual Orientation Change Efforts” or “SOCE”. The law bans providing gender counseling even to people who want counseling to help them adjust to their biological sex.
Here is what one person who had benefited from gender counseling before the new law took effect had to say about the new law: “The bill intends to prevent any access to what is potentially lifesaving therapy for people who identify as transgender, like I did. The bill’s authors want to make sure the gender-dysphoric people they claim to be “helping” have no way out, even if that’s what they desperately want. If you think detransitions are rare, just Google “detransition” and see the multitude of videos from courageous formerly trans people who tell of the peace they have found with their God-given gender through a combination of counseling and faith. These people will no longer have access to help they choose, because apparently some in California’s government think no one should be allowed to change his or her mind about what constitutes being at peace with one’s sex.”
“This diverse population has a need to act out their cross-gender masquerade. This should strongly suggest that something much deeper sexually, emotionally, or psychologically is causing this unusual behavior. For some I know personally, deep inside remains unresolved grief and pain that just will not go away. Unresolved pathologies need to be discovered and treated before cross-gender hormones are taken and any gender surgeries are performed, to ensure these drastic alterations to one’s body are actually addressing the real needs of the person. People would not be allowed to hear about the failure of sex change to resolve gender confusion or about the high rate of attempted suicide after taking cross-gender hormones and undergoing gender change surgeries. It is important to understand that transgender suicide is not caused by discrimination or family or societal rejection. According to suicide.org, 90 percent of all people who die by their own hand, including those who identify as transgender, have untreated mental illness.” https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/25/californias-lgbt-therapy-ban-law-30-years-ago-might-killed/
Research confirms that gender counseling reduces suicides by about 42% while giving gender confused children toxic drugs increases suicides:
So banning gender counseling is certain to increase suicides. For more on this scientific research, read our previous article at this link: https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/4-evidence-gender-confused-children-are-harmed-by-drugs
The Pacific Justice Institute, a network of more than 1,000 attorneys defending religious, parental, and other constitutional rights, filed suit in the 9th Circuit against this crazy California law, challenging its constitutionality because the ban violates parents’ rights to provide psychological care for their children and violates the First Amendment right of counselors to provide that care.In December, 2012, the district court hearing this case, called Pickup v. Brown declined to issue an injunction against the law while a different judge issued an injunction against the law in a case called Welch v. Brown. In August 2013, the 9th Circuit upheld the law and reversed Welch v. Brown.
In January 2018, the Washington legislature passed Senate Bill 5722, currently Washington Revised Code §18.130.160, which banned giving counseling to gender confused students by calling it “Conversion Therapy.” Giving children counseling instead of toxic drugs in Washington is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 plus loss of license! Therefore, currently in Washington state, the only legal option for treating children suffering from gender confusion is to give them toxic drugs known to increase the risk of both suicide and cancer!
2018 Supreme Court ruling protecting free speech rights
In June 2018, the US Supreme Court specifically overturned Pickup v. Brown in NIFLA, ET AL. v. BECERRA. Here is a link to this opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1140_5368.pdf
Here is a quote from their NIFLA opinion in which the Supreme Court recognised free speech as an important tool for learning truth: “This Court has never recognized “professional speech” as a separate category of speech subject to different rules. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by professionals… When the government polices the content of professional speech, it can fail to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.”
In a powerful concurrent opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote: “This law is a paradigmatic example of the serious threat presented when government seeks to impose its own message in the place of individual speech, thought, and expression. For here the State requires primarily pro-life pregnancy centers to promote the State’s own preferred message advertising abortions. This compels individuals to contradict their most deeply held beliefs, beliefs grounded in basic philosophical, ethical, or religious precepts, or all of these… Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions.”
In November, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit in Otto v. City of Boca Raton citing the NIFLA decision, held that the gender counseling ban implemented by the City of Boca Raton – which was almost identical to the Washington Counseling Ban - violated the First Amendment rights of counselors offering talk therapy to gender confused patients. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201910604.pdf
2021 Tingley v Ferguson
Based on the 2018 Supreme Court and 2020 Florida Court decisions, in May, 2021, Brian Tingley, a family counselor in Washington state, sued Bob Ferguson claiming that the Washington State Gender Counseling Ban violated his First Amendment rights. Surprisingly, the District Court ignored the Supreme Court criticism of Pickup v. Brown and dismissed the case ruling that Pickup v. Brown was still “good law.”
Tingley appealed and on September 6 2022, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit also ignored the Supreme Court criticism of Pickup v. Brown in their NIFLA 2018 decision and affirmed the District Court decision. Tingley v. Ferguson, 47 F.4th 1055, 1077 (9th Cir. 2022) 66 pages https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/09/06/21-35815.pdf
In their Opinion, the 9th Circuit explained why they did not have to follow NIFLA: “The Supreme Court… rejected the professional speech doctrine. (and) criticized Pickup. Explaining that it had never “recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech,” the Supreme Court concluded that speech is ‘not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals’… Pickup “can be reasonably harmonized” with NIFLA (because)... One of the exceptions the Court recognized is the regulation of professional conduct, even if it “incidentally burden[s] speech”. Because Pickup rests upon that exception, it survives NIFLA.”
(Actually, what the Supreme Court really said is that speech is NOT conduct and thus banning speech by calling it conduct violates the First Amendment).
The 9th Circuit then went on to explain that their decision was even somehow compatible with the 2020 11th Circuit decision in Otto v. City of Boca Raton even though the 11th Circuit also said that speech is not conduct and thus banning speech by calling it conduct violates the First Amendment. Tingley then asked for a full 9th Circuit rehearing of the decision of the three judge panel. The rehearing was denied on January 23, 2023. However, four judges filed a 28 page Dissenting opinion which can be downloaded at this link: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/01/23/21-35815.pdf
Here is a quote from the 9th Circuit Tingley Dissent: “Under binding Supreme Court precedents, conversion therapy consisting entirely of speech and therefore cannot be prohibited without some degree of First Amendment scrutiny… Other circuits analyzing the issue have uniformly rejected our Pickup case. Considering a closely analogous challenge to a conversion therapy ban, the Eleventh Circuit held that the ‘conduct’ involved in talk therapy “consists— entirely—of words,” and that calling it non-speech conduct was mere “relabeling.” Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 981 F.3d 854, 865 (11th Cir. 2020).
“Further noting that “NIFLA directly criticized Pickup,” the Eleventh Circuit concluded that there was “not … much question that, even if some type of professional speech might conceivably fall outside the First Amendment,” therapeutic speech did not… Tingley’s religious speech does not lose its constitutional protection simply because he is subject to a licensing requirement.”
2021 Mahanoy Supreme Court First Amendment Decision
NIFLA was not the only recent case where the Supreme Court has defended the First Amendment rights of teachers and students. On June 23, 2021, the Supreme Court issued an Opinion in Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L. ex rel. Levy stating: “Courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all.”
2022 Kennedy v Bremerton School District Supreme Court Decision
On June 27, 2022, the Supreme Court held that Bremerton High School Assistant Coach Joseph Kennedy's brief, quiet, personal postgame prayer was protected by the First Amendment. Here is the link to this 75 page decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf
In 2015, coach Kennedy lost his job for kneeling at the fifty-yard-line after football games to say a brief prayer. Coach Kennedy sued the school district. The District Court granted summary judgement to the school district and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court decision.
On March 18, 2021, a three judge panel of the 9th Circuit again ruled in favor of the school district. Kennedy requested a rehearing before the full 9th Circuit. On July 19, 2021, the 9th Circuit denied his request over the dissents of 8 judges. Here is a link to their 92 page Dissent: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2021/03/18/20-35222.pdf
Here is a quote from their Dissent: “We ask “teachers to foster those habits of open-mindedness and critical inquiry which alone make for responsible citizens . . . . They cannot carry out their noble task if the conditions for the practice of a responsible and critical mind are denied to them.” Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 196 (1952).”
On June 27, 2022, the United States Supreme Court held that Coach Kennedy's brief, quiet, personal postgame prayer was protected by the First Amendment.
The US Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit stating that “The First Amendment’s protections extend to “teachers and students,” neither of whom “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 506.”
The Supreme Court concluded that not “everything teachers and coaches say in the workplace is government speech subject to government control… Acknowledging that Mr. Kennedy’s prayers represented his own private speech means he has carried his threshold burden… a second step remains where the government may seek to prove that its interests as employer outweigh even an employee’s private speech on a matter of public concern… A rule that the only acceptable government role models for students are those who eschew any visible religious expression would undermine a long constitutional tradition in which learning how to tolerate diverse expressive activities has always been “part of learning how to live in a pluralistic society.” Lee v. Wesiman, 505 U. S. 577, 590.. Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic.”
In short, the First Amendment not only allows Freedom of Speech, it encourages and protects Freedom of Speech in schools because hearing a variety of opinions helps students learn how to live in a free society where people often have different points of view on controversial topics.
On March 27, 2023, based on the above Supreme Court decisions, Tingley petitioned the Supreme Court to review the denial from the 9th Circuit. See No. 22-942 Brian Tingley v Robert Ferguson. Here is a link to Tingley’s 253 page Petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-942/259917/20230327112233200_2023.03.27%20USSC%20Petition%20for%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari.pdf
Here is a link to 8 amicus briefs that were filed in support of Tingley’s Petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-942.html
These included a brief from Idaho, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Texas
Bob Ferguson filed an opposition brief in which on page 37, he claimed: “There Is No Meaningful Disagreement In The Lower Courts About The Constitutionality Of State Licensing Laws Like Washington’s.” To justify his remarkable claim, Ferguson explained that there are important differences between the Washington counseling ban and the Boca Raton counseling ban. The difference is that the Washington ban involves taking away the counselors license while the Boca Raton ban involves putting the counselor in jail. The obvious problem with Ferguson’s rationalization is that the First Admendment is not suspended just because a person is in an office or a classroom. Ferguson then gives examples of professions that involve conduct as well as speech. But child counseling does not involve any conduct other than speech. The speech in child counseling thus is not just “incidental to regulating this conduct” as Ferguson claims.
On December 11, 2023, the US Supreme Court denied Tingley’s review. Three Justices dissented from the denial. Two of the three wrote opinions explaining why they dissented. Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Thomas, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. Justice Alito, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-942_kh6o.pdf
Justice Thomas wrote: “This petition asks us to consider whether Washington can censor counselors who help minors accept their biological sex. Because this question has divided the Courts of Appeals and strikes at the heart of the First Amendment...There is a fierce public debate over how best to help minors with gender dysphoria. The petitioner, Brian Tingley, stands on one side of the divide. As a licensed marriage and family counselor, Tingley seeks to assist minors who suffer from gender dysphoria but “want to become comfortable with their biological sex.” Tingley does so through “talk therapy”—i.e., therapy conducted solely through speech. The State of Washington is on the other side of the divide. Its view is that the State should “protect its minors against exposure to serious harms caused by” counseling to change a minor’s gender identity.. This case is not the first instance of the Ninth Circuit restricting medical professionals’ First Amendment rights, and without the Court’s review, I doubt it will be the last… Although the Court declines to take this particular case, I have no doubt that the issue it presents will come before the Court again. When it does, the Court should do what it should have done here: grant certiorari to consider what the First Amendment requires.”
Justice Alito wrote: “This case presents a question of national importance. In recent years, 20 States and the District of Columbia have adopted laws prohibiting or restricting the practice of conversion therapy. It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech.There is a conflict in the Circuits about the constitutionality of such laws. Compare, 47 F. 4th 1055 (CA9 2022), with Otto v. Boca Raton, 981 F. 3d 854 (CA11 2020). And the Ninth Circuit’s holding is based on the highly debatable view that its prior decision in Pickup v. Brown, 740 F. 3d 1208 (2014), survived at least in part our decision in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, which singled out Pickup for disapproval.”
Thus, for the moment, the Washington gender counseling ban is still in effect. But this is not the end of the story. Justice Thomas was correct. There is another case involving a ban on counseling now working its way through the federal courts which should benefit from new research on the harm of drugs and the benefit of counseling for gender confused kids. We will look at this First Amendment case next.
2023 August Michigan HB 4616
In June 2023, the Michigan House of Representatives voted 56-53, passing House Bills 4616. The bill bans conversion therapy for minors, or any practice or treatment by a mental health professional that seeks to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity.
2024 Catholic Charities v Whitmer
On July 12, 2024, Catholic Charities filed a First Amendment complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan on behalf of Emily McJones, a licensed therapist from Lansing, whose practice, Little Flower Counseling, provides “evidenced-based treatments from a perspective that is faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church, while loving and caring for each client.” Their lawsuit seeks to overturn Michigan’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. Here is a link to their 33 page lawsuit: 2024 Catholic Charities v Whitmer et al.
https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20240712181745/Cath-Charities-v-Whitmer-Complaint.pdf
Their filing was assisted by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. https://www.becketlaw.org/case/catholic-charities-v-whitmer/
Here is the case summary from the above web page: “Recent years have seen an explosion in the number of children identifying as transgender. Many of these children have been led down a path of “gender transition”—enduring a regime of drugs, hormones, and surgeries—which often results in profound regret and permanent health harms.There is no reliable evidence that these procedures offer any long-term benefits, and abundant evidence that they cause lasting harms—including loss of bone density, increased risk of cancer, sexual dysfunction, and permanent sterilization. The harms are so significant that 25 states and 5 European countries have banned or limited gender transitions for children, advocating instead for compassionate counseling. Unfortunately, Michigan now bans this compassionate approach, forcing therapists to turn away children and families or risk losing their licenses and suffering hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.”
“Plaintiffs believe that when a client comes to them and seeks to change her gender identity or gender expression to align with her biological sex, or seeks to change her behavior to refrain from acting on same-sex attraction, it is their ethical and religious duty to help that client live the life she desires to live. By helping clients address underlying trauma and heal from past experiences, Plaintiffs have often seen clients change their behavior and gender expression in ways that better align with the clients’ own religious beliefs and the clients’ own goals for their lives — including by accepting and embracing their biological sex and by refraining from sexual activity outside of male-female marriage.”
“Unfortunately, Michigan recently enacted a new law that prevents counselors from using this cautious, science-backed approach to helping children in distress. Rather than allowing children to work through the root causes of their challenges, the law requires counselors to affirm children in their belief that they were born on the wrong bodies and to “provide[] assistance to [a child] undergoing a gender transition”—which often includes puberty blocking drugs, cross sex hormones, and surgeries that cause irreversible harm. As a result, counselors who believe they have an ethical and religious duty not to rush children into harmful, life-altering medical procedures, face the prospect of losing their licenses and fines of up to $250,000. The law thus deprives children and families of the compassionate counseling they desperately need.”
The Catholic Charities lawsuit makes several specific claims against Michigan’s conversion therapy ban. The first is that it violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause, by restricting the speech Plaintiffs may engage in with minor clients. It also claims that it violates the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause, by unduly burdening the rights of religious adherents and treating comparable secular activity more favorably while also interfering with parents’ right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.
Here is a link to their case legal documents page which includes the initial complaint, a motion for a preliminary injunction and three amicus briefs:
https://www.becketlaw.org/case/catholic-charities-v-whitmer/?section=caseLegal
Here is the Introduction to the Complaint:
“This is a lawsuit about helping children who experience distress over their biological sex. In recent years, there has been a spike in the number of children identifying as transgender. Many of these children, when they have sought professional help, have been encouraged to undergo a gender transition. That means they first “socially transition” by adopting a new name and pronouns and presenting themselves socially as someone of the opposite sex. Then they “medically transition” by receiving puberty blocking drugs, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries to make their bodies look more like the opposite sex.”
“Unfortunately, there is no sound evidence that such medical interventions provide any long-term benefits. And there is mounting evidence that they impose lasting harms. For example, cross-sex hormones increase the risk of harms like erythrocytosis, myocardial infarction, liver dysfunction, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, cancer, and sexual dysfunction. And a full medical transition renders an individual permanently sterile—never able to have children of their own.”
“Because of these harms, 25 states and several European countries have recently restricted gender transitions for children. Relying on the latest scientific and medical research, they have instead recommended that children receive counseling to help them understand and address the underlying causes of their distress. Transgender individuals, too, have come forward, expressing profound grief at how hasty medical transitions have harmed them, and expressing the view that what they really needed was not to be affirmed in a gender transition, but to receive compassionate counseling to help them uncover the causes of their distress and to embrace their biological sex.”
“The Plaintiffs are compassionate, professional counselors who help clients address a wide variety of life issues via the time-tested method of “talk therapy”—that is, by listening to clients, asking them questions, and talking with them about their lives. By engaging in thoughtful conversation, Plaintiffs have helped numerous individuals address a wide variety of life issues and accomplish their own unique goals. Among the many issues Plaintiffs have helped clients address are issues of gender identity and sexuality. For example, Plaintiffs have had clients as young as 10 to 12 years old who said they were questioning their gender identity and felt like they were someone of the opposite sex. “
“As with any other issue, Plaintiffs gently help these clients explore why they feel this way. By helping clients address underlying trauma and heal from past experiences, Plaintiffs have helped clients change their behavior and gender expression in ways that better align with the clients’ own unique goals for their lives—including embracing their biological sex.”
“The state of Michigan, however, has recently made such counseling illegal. HB 4616 prohibits counselors from offering minors what the state calls “conversion therapy,” broadly defined as “any practice,” including pure speech, that seeks to “change” an individual’s “gender identity,” “behavior,” or “gender expression”—including to help an individual align her behavior or gender expression with her biological sex. In fact, HB 4616 goes out of its way to say that “counseling that provides assistance to an individual undergoing a gender transition” is permitted, while counseling that helps an individual accept her biological sex is not.”
“This attempt to control counselors’ speech violates several constitutional protections. It violates the Free Speech Clause because it regulates speech based on its content and viewpoint. It violates the Due Process Clause because it employs vague, undefined terms that invite arbitrary and selective enforcement. And it violates the Free Exercise Clause because it targets religious speech and interferes with the right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children.”
“Worse, HB 4616 harms vulnerable children by depriving them of the compassionate counseling they so desperately need. Instead of allowing counselors to help children explore the underlying factors that may be contributing to their distress, and to help them accept and embrace their biological sex, HB 4616 forces counselors to “affirm” children in the belief that they were born in the wrong body and help them undergo permanent, life-altering medical procedures that many will come to regret.”
“This not only contradicts a mounting body of scientific evidence that supports a more cautious approach; it also violates the Constitution. Other courts have enjoined identical laws in other jurisdictions. Otto v. City of Boca Raton, Fla. (11th Cir. 2020). This Court should do the same.”
August 30, 2024 Washington Bob Ferguson files brief in favor of the Michigan counseling ban
On August 30, 2024, Washington AG Bob Ferguson and his accomplices in 17 other states filed a 36 page Amicus brief in favor of the Michigan Counseling ban. Here is a link to his brief: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/030-1_StatesAmiciBr.pdf
Naturally, Ferguson cited his own case in Tingley versus Ferguson as well as Pickup versuson Brown while ignoring the mountain of evidence in favor of talk therapy over giving gender confused kids toxic drugs. On page 8, Ferguson claimed there was new research in favor of giving kids toxic drugs. He then listed a 2020 study by Ryan which like so many others failed to control for the time order of suicidal thoughts and actions that occurred before therapy as we explained in this article: https://washingtonparentsnetwork.com/4-why-kids-should-be-given-counseling-instead-of-drugs
He then cited the 2020 study by Turban, the many flaws of which we covered in detail in the above article. Finally, he cited the SAMHSA report which we also covered in the above article. So nothing in the past 4 years.
On page 21 of 36, Ferguson goes completely off the rails by comparing child counselors to “terrorist organizations.” On page 25, Ferguson continues to cling to the lie that giving kids drugs instead of counseling is some sort of consensus view. Tell this to all the states and nations that have banned the drugs and are now recommending counseling.
Legal Steps to Resolve this case
Regardless of whether the District Court grants or refuses to grant a preliminary injunction, this case will likely go to the Sixth Circuit which has previously upheld the right of Tennessee and Kentucky to ban toxic transgender drugs from being given to minors. From here, it is certain that whatever the Sixth Circuit rules will go to the US Supreme Court. As the 9th Circuit has already ruled in favor of giving kids toxic drugs while the 11th Circuit has ruled in favor of giving kids counseling instead of toxic drugs, it is likely that the Supreme Court will be required to resolve this conflict.
As more scientific studies are being published all the time on the harm of Transgender drugs on children, and because the Supreme Court has a history of ruling in favor of the First Amendment, I am relatively confident that the US Supreme Court will finally overturn Tingley versus Ferguson and rule in favor of Catholic Services v Whitmer. My mission as a child development scientific researcher is to provide the Catholic Services plaintiffs with the latest scientific research on the benefits of giving kids counseling instead of giving them drugs.
What’s Next?
In our next article, we will summarize recent laws and school district policies to eliminate Parental Rights and what we can do to restore parental rights.