Absolutely there are plenty of good, generous, kind, dedicated people who are foster parents or work in children's welfare in one way or another - I know these people. They would be the first to say that the system is fundamentally flawed even while there are successes as well.
Yes, I was making a diatribe. I was focusing on the negative aspect in order to try to make a point, which is the severe consequences that can occur when something is unnecessarily defined as abuse. For example, I'm against children being subjected to corporal punishment. But to treat minor instances of that as abuse is going to be end up being more harmful to the child than the corporal punishment itself. I know this isn't quite the same thing, but this is where I'm coming from in terms of caution towards legislating something as "abuse." Some instances of gay change techniques can qualify as abuse, but to define it generally as such seems excessive and not especially helpful either.
I looked into the details of this law. The enforcement mechanism seems to be through suit:
SB1172The original version of the bill was awful in terms of patient/therapist confidentiality, and so was opposed by the California Psychological Association. This is much more reasonable, and the CPA
supported it with some reservations.
Only licensed mental health practitioners are affected by this law (people can still look for less credentialed places to do this). I tend to think that the law should focus on those who actively promote sex orientation change. If a teen comes to a therapist of his own free will and says he wants to try to change, maybe that should be allowed. The important thing is that the therapy is sensitive and does not degrade him for who he is. The good thing about this law is that (I think) if a patient or their family doesn't feel like there has been damage, there's no penalty. Still, it could make a therapist a little nervous since there's always a chance for therapy to be misinterpreted or not turn out as planned.
