This week True North Legal General Counsel Renee Carlson and Minnesota Family Council’s Assistant Policy Director Rebecca Delahunt submitted written testimony forthe House Preventive Health Policy Division’s hearing on HF 2516, a so-called “conversion therapy ban” that would threaten First Amendment rights and would infringe on the client-counselor relationship by limiting what licensed therapists and counselors can sayto clients who are struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. You can read True North Legal’s testimony below and Minnesota Family Council’s testimony here.
True North Legal is a non-profit legal organization that advocates for life, family, and religious freedom on behalf of all Minnesotans. We offer the following high-level analysis regarding significant legal and policy concerns relating to HF 2156.
“Conversion Therapy Ban” proposals prohibiting licensed mental health professionals in the state from practicing so- called conversion therapy raise significant legal and policy concerns relating to medical access for all Minnesotans. These bans are unnecessary, unconstitutional, and cause more harm than the good these bills propose to remedy.
Parents’ rights to direct the education of their children does not end when their child goes to school. But are Minnesota schools allowing parents to exercise that right? History is telling. Over the last decade local state agencies, educational organizations, lobbyists, school boards, and administrators have created policies that undermine parental rights. Consider these few examples:
· Minnesota State High School League’s (MSHSL) decision to allow males to play on female sports teams despite significant parent testimony opposing the board’s changes;
· The Minnesota Department of Education’s (MDE) implementation of the Transgender Toolkit over the objections and concerns of many parents;
· The Public Educator Licensing Standards Board’s (PELSB) lack of transparency with regard to changing teacher licensing standards and cultural competency as statutorily defined.
Practically, these changes opened the door to school policies that: Circumvent parental notice in matters relating to students’ physical and emotional health, discipline students for acting consistent with various religious and moral upbringings, teach students about sexuality and how to obtain contraceptives without parental knowledge, and allow teachers to use curriculum that would be considered pornographic in almost any other context outside of diverse literary content.
Nearly 100 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right and responsibility of parents over their minor children, especially in matters relating to their child’s education and upbringing, holding “a child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations…” After all, as the Court later affirmed, “parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment.”
