I keep thinking about Minnesota’s statutory ban on so-called conversion therapy in light of the Annunciation Church massacre committed in Minneapolis last week by Robin Westman. Insofar as Minnesota’s statute is one of 23 such state laws, the ban raises a question of general interest.
Now Governor Walz wants to call a special session of the state legislature to do something about “gun violence.” His purpose would be patently partisan. What else is new?
If he calls a special session, I have a proposal for Republican state legislators in addition to my own thoughts about the 2023 statute banning “conversion therapy.” Repeal the statute!
It’s a sinister law. It limits and deters treatment for mental illness. In the case of minors, it prohibits treatment of gender dysphoria in any fashion that would reconcile a child or teenager with his sex.
This morning Alpha News has published my column “Any special session after Annunciation shooting should address ‘conversion therapy’ ban.”. It begins:
Gov. Walz is said to be in talks with legislative leaders to address “gun violence” in the aftermath of the utterly tragic mass shooting and murders at Annunciation Church last week. “Gun violence” is of course a favorite subject of Democrats and there is no reason to think that Walz would call a special session for any reason other than nakedly partisan purposes.
As we all know, the shooter was Robin Westman, the 23-year-old male formerly known as Robert Westman who identified as a girl at age 17 and changed his name to Robin. If Walz were to call a special session on the basis of Westman’s shooting spree, they should take the opportunity to revisit the statutory ban on so-called “conversion therapy” that Democrats enacted early in their hold on the political branches during the 2023 legislative session. The Westman case strongly suggests that the ban on “conversion therapy” is worse than misguided.
Let’s look at the law — Minn. Stat. § 214.078 — with the Westman case in mind. As it applies to minors, the Minnesota law bans therapy “that seeks to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions …” If Westman had been troubled by the feelings that led to his identification as a girl and wanted to confirm his masculinity, or reconcile himself to his physiological sex, the law would have prevented him from receiving help from mental health professionals to do so. So-called gender-affirming care is the only legal treatment.
As it turns out, before the attack, Westman reportedly professed to “regret being trans.” He wished he “had never brain-washed” himself, according to the New York Post. While Westman was 23 at the time of the attack and the “conversion therapy” law would not have banned his receiving help to resolve the discomfort he felt with his masculinity, it would have limited his right to receive such help were he deemed a “vulnerable adult” as defined by Minnesota law. In effect, the law discourages mental health professionals from providing such help.
One need only change the facts slightly to amplify the point. Suppose Westman had changed his sexual identification at 13 instead of 17 and regretted it at 17 instead of 23. The law would have directly prohibited him from receiving professional help to mitigate or resolve his feelings. Insofar as teenagers are more likely to struggle with issues of “identification” than adults, the ban on their receiving anything but “affirmation” that mismatches their physiology is perverse.
Please see the whole thing here.
To my criticism of the law in the column I would add this note. The ban applies to all “mental health professionals.” Following the trail of cross-references to find who is a “mental health professional” covered by the statute, we discover that the definition includes psychiatrists in addition to other licensed providers. So much for the Democrats’ concerns about keeping the long arm of the law out of the physician-patient relationship.
