Unlawful business practices: sexual orientation change efforts.
If enacted, AB 2943 will effectively prevent mental health providers from offering conversion therapy services to individuals over 18 and enhance consumer protection measures regarding such services. The bill builds upon existing laws that already prohibit such practices for individuals under 18, emphasizing that sexual orientation change therapies are neither scientifically valid nor beneficial. This aligns California law with contemporary understanding supported by various health organizations, which highlight the detrimental effects of such efforts.
Assembly Bill No. 2943, introduced by Assembly Member Low, aims to amend California's Civil Code to classify advertising, offering, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts as unlawful practices under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The bill underscores the conclusions drawn by various professional and health organizations that assert such conversion therapies pose significant risks of psychological harm, particularly to minors. The legislation intends to protect individuals from deceptive practices that falsely claim to change a person's sexual orientation.
Supporters of AB 2943 express strong endorsement of its aims to safeguard vulnerable populations, particularly youth, from harmful therapeutic practices. The overall sentiment is rooted in a growing recognition of the validity of diverse sexual orientations and the need for protective legislation. However, critics argue that the bill may infringe on personal and parental rights regarding therapeutic choices for LGBTQ individuals. This sentiment reflects a broader societal debate on the roles of individual freedoms and state regulations in matters of sexual orientation and mental health therapies.
The anticipated contention surrounding AB 2943 hinges on its implications for free speech and parental rights. Opponents may contend that the law restricts individuals’ rights to seek particular therapeutic practices. In contrast, proponents assert that the state has a compelling interest in preventing harm and protecting the mental health of its citizens, specifically targeting practices deemed harmful and devoid of empirical support. This debate highlights the ongoing tension between individual rights and societal protectionism in legislation.