Michigan Democrats Propose Ban On LGBTQ Conversion Therapy

Hypocrisy for sure.

Importantly, the term "Conversion Therapy" is itself a bait and switch. Policy-makers and voters need to know the facts to cut through the layers of lies.

As Christianity Today reported in an interview:

CT: The name given for this kind of therapy is 'conversion therapy' or 'gay cure therapy'. Are these names accurate?

Mike: No, I don't know anybody who uses them except gay activists and confused politicians. 'Gay conversion therapy' is a pejorative term and definitely a political ploy, not something that any of us working in this field would ever use. It conveys all the wrong things and is defined by things like electroshock therapy, frontal lobotomies, forced castrations and "corrective" rape - none of which have been practised by any ministry that we would know. The term was coined by Dr Douglas Haldeman, an American Psychological Association activist. It's not a neutral or scientific term."

The full article is worth reading and citing.

https://www.christiantoday.com/article/if.its.us.now.it.will.be.the.pastors.next.mike.davidson.on.why.gay.conversion.therapy.should.not.be.banned/135200.htm

___

All health policy bills are important, but the two "conversion therapy" bills on the Agenda today do stand out for deceit and likeliness to harm. (See pinned Toolbox post for hearing link.)

MI House Health Policy Committee, Rep. Julie M. Rogers, Chair

DATE: Thursday, June 8, 2023
TIME: 10:30 AM
PLACE:
Room 519, House Office Building, Lansing, MI
AGENDA:

SB 69 (Sen. Theis) Health occupations; health professionals; additional individual present during certain examinations of minors; require under certain circumstances and require consent.
SB 70 (Sen. Johnson) Health occupations; health professionals; sentencing guidelines for the crime of performing certain medical treatments on a minor without consent and another individual present; enact.
SB 71 (Sen. Hauck) Health; medical records; provision for the protection, retention, and maintenance of medical records referencing a vaginal or anal penetration treatment for 15 years by a health professional and health facility or agency; implement, and require certain boards to provide guidance to licensees on medical services involving vaginal or anal penetration.
SB 72 (Sen. McDonald Rivet) Criminal procedure; sentencing guidelines; sentencing guidelines for the crime of intentionally failing to document certain services in a medical record; enact.
SB 219 (Sen. Santana) Health occupations; pharmacists; pharmacists to order and administer vaccines and laboratory tests under certain circumstances; allow.
HB 4616 (Rep. Brabec) Mental health; children; conversion therapy; prohibit.
HB 4617 (Rep. Hoskins) Mental health; other; definition of conversion therapy; provide for.

OR ANY BUSINESS PROPERLY BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE

To view text of legislation go to: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=CommitteeBillRecord

I insert the bolded bill texts below, the first in full and the second excerpted.

The first clearly shows the power licensing has to violate individual conscience rights and reduce patient access to care. 

HOUSE BILL NO. 4616

May 23, 2023, Introduced by Reps. Brabec, Hoskins, Pohutsky, Morse, Arbit, Wilson, Rheingans,
Rogers, Paiz, Martus, Steckloff, Price, Wegela, Miller, Hood, Byrnes, Tsernoglou, Hope,
McFall, Stone, Andrews, Brixie, MacDonell, Grant, Snyder, Skaggs, Conlin, Haadsma, Tyrone
Carter, Puri, Scott, O'Neal, Dievendorf, Hill, Witwer, Weiss, Koleszar, Edwards and Morgan
and referred to the Committee on Health Policy.

A bill to amend 1974 PA 258, entitled
"Mental health code,"
(MCL 330.1001 to 330.2106) by adding section 901a.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
1 Sec. 901a. A mental health professional shall not engage in
2 conversion therapy with a minor. A mental health professional who
3 violates this section is subject to disciplinary action and
4 licensing sanctions as provided under sections 16221(a) and 16226
5 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16221 and
6 333.16226.

2
LTB Final Page H01464'23
1 Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect 90 days
2 after the date it is enacted into law.
3 Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect
4 unless Senate Bill No.____ or House Bill No. 4617 (request no.
5 01441'23) of the 102nd Legislature is enacted into law.

HB 4617 inserts a new definition into a long list of definitions in Michigan's Mental Health Code.

It's immediately apparent that this bill defines "conversion therapy" in the sense of changing someone's viewpoint by any means whatsoever.  (As opposed to the horrific connotations the term carries from the days of shock therapy, etc. described in the article quoted above.)

This bill completes the bait and switch.

The full context can be viewed at this link: https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2023-2024/billintroduced/House/pdf/2023-HIB-4617.pdf

(20) "Conversion therapy" means any practice or treatment by a
29 mental health professional that seeks to change an individual's
1 sexual orientation or gender identity, including, but not limited
2 to, efforts to change behavior or gender expression or to reduce or
3 eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward an
4 individual of the same gender. Conversion therapy does not include
5 counseling that provides assistance to an individual undergoing a
6 gender transition, counseling that provides acceptance, support, or
7 understanding of an individual or facilitates an individual's
8 coping, social support, or identity exploration and development,
9 including sexual orientation-neutral intervention to prevent or
10 address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices, as long as the
11 counseling does not seek to change an individual's sexual
12 orientation or gender identity.

"New polling from Washington Post-KFF shows most Americans don’t believe it is possible to be a different gender from the one “assigned at birth,” and that they support restrictions on transgender curriculum, puberty blockers, and hormone treatments." - Independent Women's Forum

Links to the full survey here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/tablet/2023/03/23/nov-10-dec-1-2022-washington-post-kff-trans-survey

The WaPo article includes useful graphics not copied below:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/05/trans-poll-gop-politics-laws/

Clear majorities of Americans support restrictions affecting transgender children, a Washington Post-KFF poll finds, offering political jet fuel for Republicans in state legislatures and Congress who are pushing measures restricting curriculum, sports participation and medical care.

Most Americans don’t believe it’s even possible to be a gender that differs from that assigned at birth. A 57 percent majority of adults said a person’s gender is determined from the start, with 43 percent saying it can differ.

And some Americans have become more conservative on these questions as Republicans have seized the issue and worked to promote new restrictions. The Pew Research Center found 60 percent last year saying one’s gender is determined by the sex assigned at birth, up from 54 percent in 2017. Even among young adults, who are the most accepting of trans identity, about half said in the Post-KFF poll that a person’s gender is determined by their sex at birth.

The Post-KFF poll was conducted in November and December, before state lawmakers introduced more than 400 anti-trans bills this year, up from about 150 bills in 2022, according to a Post analysis of ACLU data. The Post reported initial findings on March 23 and took additional time for analysis and interviews with respondents and others. It is not clear how the surge of anti-trans bills will affect public opinion or whether new laws targeting drag shows and gender-affirming care for adults will be popular.

Alyssa Wells, 29, a behavior therapist in Daytona Beach, Fla., who participated in the Post-KFF survey, said her views have changed on this issue in recent years as she has learned more, chiefly from Christian podcasts.

“At first I was on the side of acceptance, like using the pronouns and stuff, because I want people to be kind to each other. I don’t want people fighting all the time,” she said. But she has come to see things differently. “My concern with transgender is mostly with the children.”

“We can’t vote until we’re a certain age, we can’t smoke, drink or whatever, but we can change our bodies’ anatomy and how it works?” she said. “It just doesn’t seem like that’s okay to me.” Treatments for trans youth sometimes include hormone therapies, but not genital surgery, which guidelines generally say doctors should not provide until patients are 18.

Still, as the country engages in a national debate over public policy around gender identity, interviews and other poll findings suggest that many Americans hold complicated and sometimes contradictory views on the subject.

While a majority of Americans oppose access to puberty blockers and hormone treatments for children and teenagers, for instance, clear majorities also support laws prohibiting discrimination against trans people, including in K-12 schools.

“You have a big swath of the American public still trying to make sense of this issue,” said Patrick Egan, a scholar of American politics and public opinion at New York University. “This is a battle and a debate that is unfolding in real time before our eyes, and we don’t know how it’s going to turn out.”

One of the big unanswerable questions is whether public opinion around transgender issues will shift over time as it did around gay and lesbian rights. Some experts see parallels between the two issues, particularly as conservatives center their efforts on children and schools. Early backlash against gay people also focused on allegations that children would be harmed.

But certainly for now, the new Post-KFF poll finds, Republican lawmakers have the wind at their backs on much of their anti-transgender legislative agenda.

Sports
More than 6 in 10 adults in the Post-KFF poll said trans girls and women should not be allowed to compete in girls’ and women’s sports, including professional, college, high school and youth levels.

In that vein, 21 states have passed laws that bar transgender athletes from participating in sports that do not match their sex assigned at birth, according to the Movement Advancement Project, a research group that supports LGBTQ rights. And in April, the GOP-controlled U.S. House approved changes to civil rights law that amount to a national ban, arguing that trans women’s biology gives them an unfair advantage. Even the Biden administration, which is broadly in favor of trans rights, has proposed a regulation that would allow schools to ban trans girls from competition, depending on factors such as the level of competitiveness and the age of the students.

“I think there is an advantage [for trans women], and you can’t put your head in the sand and pretend there isn’t,” said Americo Lopes, 44, an accountant who lives outside Dallas. He compared trans girls competing against cisgender girls to athletes who use steroids. “There is an advantage.”

Medical treatments
The Post-KFF poll found significant opposition to gender-affirming medical care for children and teens. Nearly 7 in 10 adults said they oppose allowing children ages 10 to 14 access to medication that stops the body from going through puberty, and nearly 6 in 10 oppose giving 15- to 17-year-olds access to hormone treatments. (There was, however, majority support for gender-affirming counseling or therapy, with more than 6 in 10 supporting this for both age groups.)

Seventeen states ban hormone and/or other medical treatments for transgender youth. One additional state has taken other action to stop it, according to Movement Advancement Project’s tracking.

Teaching about gender identity
There is also wide support for limits on classroom conversation about gender identity with younger children. More than 3 in 4 adults said it was inappropriate to discuss trans identity with students in kindergarten through third grade, and nearly as many said the same for fourth and fifth grades.

It was a different story, though, for older students. People were roughly divided when asked about middle-schoolers, and nearly 2 in 3 supported discussion of trans identity in high school.

Eight states have laws limiting classroom discussion of LGBTQ issues. For instance, Florida’s law, which critics call “don’t say gay,” banned instruction and classroom discussion about LGBTQ issues from kindergarten through third grade. In April, the state Board of Education extended the ban through 12th grade, which may prove politically less popular, based on the Post-KFF survey.

Valarie Johnson of LaBelle, Fla., is clear on her stance when it comes to discussing LGBTQ issues in the classroom. “Why would you introduce that subject to children when it has no life skills?” she said. (Saul Martinez for The Washington Post )
Valarie Johnson, 67, of LaBelle, Fla., said there’s no place in school for these sort of discussions. “Is that going to help these young people get a good job or a good spouse?” she asked. “Why would you introduce that subject to children when it has no life skills?”

Not surprisingly, views like this are at sharp odds with the opinions of trans Americans themselves.

The Post-KFF poll asked the same questions of trans people, in the largest nongovernmental survey of U.S. trans adults to rely on random sampling methods. The survey found that 2 in 3 trans adults began to understand that their gender differed from their assignment at birth before they were 18, and almost two-thirds of trans adults said it was appropriate to discuss gender identity with the youngest children.

About 7 in 10 trans people said trans girls and women should be allowed to participate in sports with other girls and women. And about 7 in 10 said it was appropriate for children ages 10 to 14 to have access to puberty blockers under medical supervision.

For many of them, these questions are not abstract; they are deeply personal.

Myron-Hollis Keen, a nonbinary man living in East Texas, sees legislation around gender identity as disingenuous. “They're ‘protecting’ the children from us, and of course they're not going to protect the trans children.” (Cooper Neill for The Washington Post)
Myron-Hollis Keen, 31, a nonbinary man who lives in East Texas, said knowledge of and access to puberty blockers at a young age would have made a huge difference. Without that medication, Keen developed breasts and now wears a sometimes uncomfortable binder to hide them.

“They’re forcing kids to grow up to a body that they already know they’re not going to be comfortable in,” they said.

Keen sees the legislation around gender identity as disingenuous, based on a desire to present trans people as a threat. “They’re ‘protecting’ the children from us, and of course they’re not going to protect the trans children.”

Americans’ views are complex
While there is a huge gulf in public opinion between cisgender and trans Americans, interviews with cisgender adults suggest that many of their views are unsettled. Some see nuance in these debates.

Moshe Peterson, an engineer who lives in Moorhead, Minn., is clear about his views on sports (trans girls should not compete with cisgender girls), and he wants school to stay focused on reading, writing and math. (“It’s hard enough to learn as is without other things thrown at you.”) But he struggles with the question of medication.

Moshe Peterson of Moorhead, Minn., is strongly against trans girls competing with cisgender girls in sports, but is uncertain when it comes to the issue of medication. (Jenn Ackerman for The Washington Post)
“That’s a real tough one,” he said. He would prefer that people wait until they are adults but isn’t sure he wants the law to ban it for those who are younger. “I see both sides. … I’m standing in the center of yin and yang.”

Max Winick, 40, a long-haul trucker from Port St. Lucie, Fla., also feels strongly that trans girls and women have an unfair advantage if they compete in girls’ and women’s sports. “It would be the same thing as letting a man compete in a woman’s sport,” he said.

But Winick was open to the compromise put forward by the Biden administration, in which schools would have to justify excluding trans girls and women based, for instance, on how competitive the sport is or the age of the participants. “If it’s not competitive, what’s the difference?” he asked.

And in Ocilla, Ga., Mark Cromer, 51, does not want gender identity taught in elementary or middle school. But he’s all right with teenagers accessing hormone treatments, and he believes that gender dysphoria is real.

“They are telling the truth,” he said. “They really do feel they should have been born female or male.”

Mark Cromer of Ocilla, Ga., who has a stepbrother who is gay, believes that gender dysphoria is real. He does not, however, think gender identity should be taught in elementary or middle school. (Matt Odom for The Washington Post)
His views have been informed by his stepbrother, who is gay. “I’ve had in-depth conversations with him.” Cromer said his stepbrother is not transgender, but sometimes dresses up in women’s clothing and has taken him to drag shows.

“We just had a blast,” Cromer said. Asked about a new law in Tennessee that bans drag shows in certain situations, Cromer said, “That’s one of the most idiotic things I’ve ever heard of.”

These more nuanced views were also expressed in focus groups on trans issues with swing voters conducted by Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, said Lanae Erickson, the group’s senior vice president for social policy and politics.

“This is all very new to the American public, so unlike some of the other cultural issues, these opinions are not set in stone,” she said.

As in the Post-KFF poll, Third Way’s research found significant concerns over sports participation and medical treatments, though Erickson said views would shift when focus group participants were presented with specific scenarios. Voters in the Republican base are animated by these topics, she said, but independents have given them far less thought.

“This is not abortion. This is not even marriage equality. People have not talked about the details. The more you talk to people, the more they change,” she said.

She added that independent voters know a lot more about what it means to be transgender than they used to. Five or 10 years ago, she said, people would talk about drag queens or the movie “Tootsie,” a comedy about an actor pretending to be a woman to get cast in a soap opera. Now people understand better that being transgender relates to one’s internal sense of gender identity, Erickson said.

The Post-KFF poll found that 43 percent of cisgender adults personally know someone who is trans, not counting acquaintances. This group was much more likely to say a person’s gender can differ from that assigned at birth, with 53 percent of them saying that it can, compared with 35 percent of those who do not have that personal connection.

Experts say these sort of personal connections were an important part of increased support for gay and lesbian rights, notably marriage. One outstanding question is whether public opinion on trans issues will follow the same trajectory.

The 43 percent of people who know someone who is trans is comparable to the 42 percent who in 1992 said they personally knew someone who is gay or lesbian, per a CBS News/New York Times poll. That 42 percent grew to 77 percent by 2010.

Transgender people represent about 0.6 percent of the U.S. population, according to surveys, though the figure is higher among those 18 to 29 years old — about 2 percent. When people who identify as nonbinary are included, the totals rise to 1.6 percent of all adults and 5.1 percent of young adults. That compares with an estimated 2.4 percent of American adults who are gay or lesbian.

As with issues of sexual orientation, younger people are more accepting of differences in gender identity than older people are, though the generation gap on gender identity is not as pronounced now as it was on sexual orientation then.

“If past is prologue, we can say that we’re looking at an eight- to 10-year timeline” for views to change, said Andrew Flores, a government professor at American University who has studied public opinion on LGBTQ issues.

His analysis of public opinion polls found that the share of Americans with warm feelings toward trans people has climbed over time. And he noted that trans characters are more present in media and entertainment than ever before. Those shifts both preceded a change in attitudes about gay people.

There are other parallels, too. Early conservative campaigns against homosexuality were also focused on schools. In 1977, pop singer Anita Bryant, well known for her orange juice commercials, sought to overturn an anti-discrimination ordinance in Miami on the grounds that it would bar firing teachers for being gay. The issue was also fought out in California, where voters considered (and rejected) a ballot initiative that would have required teachers to be fired if they were gay.

“Transphobia is really rampant today the way homophobia was with Anita Bryant,” said Natalia Petrzela, a historian of contemporary politics and culture at the New School in New York. In an earlier age, she said, there were allegations that gay teachers were “grooming” students for abuse; those allegations have returned, now focused on gender identity. “I think we’ve evolved. But we haven’t evolved that much.”

Laura Meckler
Washington, D.C.
Reporter covering K-12 education across the country, as well as federal education policy and politics
Education: Washington University in St. Louis, A.B. in political science and international development

Laura Meckler is national education writer for The Washington Post, where she covers education across the country as well as federal education policy and politics. She came to The Post from the Wall Street Journal, where she covered presidential politics, the White House, changing American demographics, immigration and health care. Before that, she worked at the Associated Press's Washington bureau and covered state government in Columbus, Ohio. She got her start writing about everything from schools and cops to the annual Pro Football Hall of Fame Festival at the Repository newspaper in Canton, Ohio, about 50 miles south of her hometown of Cleveland. Meckler graduated from Washington University in St. Louis and serves on the board that oversees her college newspaper. She is writing a book about her hometown of Shaker Heights, Ohio, and its long-term relationship with race.
Honors and Awards: Nieman Fellowship, Harvard University, 2003-2004; Livingston Award for National Reporting, 1999; First place, Shutdown “Feddie,” for coverage of the government shutdown, National Press Foundation (team award), 2014; First place, series, North American Agricultural Journalists (team award), 2008; Third place, beat reporting, Association of Health Care Journalists, 2007; George Polk Award for Justice Reporting for “George Floyd’s America," 2021 (team award); Education Writers Association, finalist, beat reporting; finalist, feature writing, 2021; Educations Writers Association, finalist, beat reporting, 2020
Professional Affiliations: Investigative Reporters and Editors; board of directors, Washington University Student Media

Scott Clement
Washington, D.C.
Polling director
Education: Vanderbilt University, BA in political science; University of Maryland, MS in survey methodology

Scott Clement is the polling director for The Washington Post, conducting national and local polls about politics, elections and social issues. He began his career with the ABC News Polling Unit and came to The Post in 2011 after conducting surveys with the Pew Research Center's Religion and Public Life Project.

David Kallman, a constitutional lawyer in Michigan, had this to say in a public facebook post.

Saturday Mornin’ Musings (on a Sunday afternoon) June 11, 2023

The Michigan Legislature Interferes with Doctor/Patient Care and Parental Rights.

The Legislature is voting soon on proposed legislation attacking mental health professionals/doctors who engage in so-called “conversion therapy” to help minors struggling with their sexual identity. House Bills 4616 and 4617 ban doctors, psychologists, counselors, nurses, social workers, and marriage/family therapists from counseling a minor to “change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” If a professional violates this law, they are “subject to disciplinary action and licensing sanctions.” This means they will lose their professional license, and no longer be able to earn a living in their chosen profession.

This means it will be the official policy of the State of Michigan to violate the right of a doctor or mental health professional to provide the care they deem best for their patient. Moreover, our government will be directly interfering with the Free Speech and Free Exercise of Religious Conscience rights of both the treating professional and the minor. It also clearly violates the right of parents to direct health care/treatment for their children.

Professor William Wagner, with Great Lakes Justice Center, wrote testimony provided to the House Health Policy Committee warning that it was violating established Constitutional protections. Professionals will be “required to relinquish their religious identity and surrender their right to freely exercise and express their religious conscience.” The State offers no tolerance for differing views or treatment for individuals struggling in this area. This censorship law bans conversations between a doctor and patient that do not conform to the government’s orthodoxy. It promotes LGBTQ identity as the only legitimate result.

The US Supreme Court has already ruled that “Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning, and for this reason, … a law commanding ‘involuntary affirmation’ of objected-to beliefs” is not allowed. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. West Virginia State Bd of Ed v Barnette, 319 US 624, 642 (1943). It is wrong to force a citizen to violate their religious conscience or face punishment. “Tolerance is a two-way street. Otherwise, the rule mandates orthodoxy, not anti-discrimination.” Ward v Polite, 667 F3d 727, 735 (6th Cir 2012).

In its recent Obergefell decision, the US Supreme Court also ruled that the right of personal identity applies not just to those who find their identity in their sexuality and sexual preferences – but also to those who define and express their identity via their religious beliefs. A person of faith who finds his or her identity in their religious faith orientation is entitled to at least as much constitutional protection as those who find their identity in their sexual preference orientation.

State action must uphold constitutionally protected freedoms for all, not grant special protections for some while coercing others to engage in conduct or expression contrary to their religious identity and conscience. For religious people in our current cultural environment, though, their rights continue to manifest as a mirage. In practice, the State of Michigan now elevates sexual orientation/gender identity (SOGI) rights above all others, especially the religious conscience rights and medical care rights of professionals, as well as parents’ rights to raise and care for their own children. The State of Michigan’s special SOGI preferences in this censorship law exalt its particular belief system over others, and clearly signals, by its very nature, official disapproval of religious persons’ identity, expression, and beliefs.

Theophobia has now replaced homophobia.

The US Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop stated, “The government, if it is to respect the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise [of religion], cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.” Yet, that is exactly what this new law will do. It presupposes the illegitimacy of medical or mental health treatment that a professional may deem to be in the best interests of a minor patient.

Such government imposition of SOGI preferences is unavoidably always hostile to the religious identity and beliefs of religious individuals. It is not neutral. The new law necessarily requires a religious professional to relinquish their religious identity and freedom to express and exercise their religious conscience. For the First Amendment to have any meaning, it must include the right to hold and manifest beliefs without fear of government punishment or coercion.

Further, this censorship law requires forced acceptance of the government’s political policy preferences through the force of law and punishment, over the medical/professional opinion of the treating professional. This proposed law, masquerading as a neutral law, effectively censures the viewpoint of a treating professional who maintains legitimate reasons to provide the very therapy or treatment this law bans. All professionals have a First Amendment right to free speech that is clearly violated by this law. It compels them to withhold needed and effective care for their patients. It violates the right of a patient to pursue and receive helpful therapies. What happened to the progressive mantra that the government must not be allowed to come between a doctor and her patient? Apparently, that premise is sacrosanct and must be followed if it deals with abortion, but it goes out the window on this issue!

Finally, this law violates the natural, fundamental right of parents to raise and care for their children. That includes making all medical decisions on behalf of their kids. This law presumes that a parent is not acting in the best interests of their child. This new statute ignores established law and turns it on its head. Parents are the ones legally responsible for their children and this law shuts them out of the treatment decision for their child. The government cannot overrule a medical decision by a parent for their child unless the parent acts in a way that harms the child. Where is the governmental authority to preemptively overrule a parent’s medical decision for their child? This is blatantly illegal and should not be enacted. Children do not belong to the State of Michigan. It has no authority under our Constitution to pass a law abrogating the rights of parents to decide what is best for their children.

Michigan ought not require its citizens serving as mental health professionals to disavow their sincerely held religious beliefs in order to keep their licenses. This law, if enacted, will expressly require professionals to renounce their religious character, identity, and sincerely held religious conscience, or face professional discipline, including the potential loss of their right to earn a living. Government should not improperly insert itself into the doctor/patient relationship in this way. The State of Michigan must not so cavalierly violate the rights of parents.

Please act this week and contact your State Representative in the Legislature and let them know you oppose this law. Ask them how they intend to vote. If they support this terrible legislation, you should work actively to vote them out of office in the next election.

Always remember, the expression of your religious identity and the exercise of your religious conscience is not invidious discrimination. It is not hateful. All Christians know and believe that God created all human life in His image. Thus, everyone has inherent value and deserves respect. We condemn discrimination and hold no animus toward anyone. We must always seek respectful consideration of all viewpoints. However, we reject the assertion that honest disagreement based on religious conscience equates with bigotry. Do not be cowed by name-calling or threats. We are called to be salt and light to our culture. Do it.