4/13/18, Maine First Media Staff Report,
Maine State House Democrats passed a bill Thursday dictating to therapists how they are to treat transgender patients.
The bill also includes regulations on handling sexual preference cases.
The bill sponsored by Democrat Rep. Ryan Fecteau of Biddeford passed in the House on a party-line vote. The final vote tally was 76-68 with seven lawmakers missing the vote. 73 “yays” were needed for passage. It will now head to the State Senate for a floor vote.
Rep. Fecteau’s bill prohibits so-called “conversion therapy.” However, “conversion therapy” is loosely defined by the bill and causing legislators confusion ahead of the upcoming vote.
According to the bill, “conversion therapy” is any attempt to reduce or eliminate same-sex attraction or gender confusion, including speech or talk therapy.
However, the language of the bill dictates that any conversation not affirming sexual orientation or gender confusion could result in loss of license and/or civil action for fraud.
The free speech-killing bill equates merely talking about any possibility of change regarding sexual orientation or gender identity with torture and abuse.
And as if violating the first amendment weren’t bad enough, Rep. Fecteau’s bill also infringes on client/clinician confidentiality. If the Senate joins the House in passing the proposal, the state government would be allowed to invade the privacy of the client/clinician relationship.
Maine First Project President, Rep. Larry Lockman (R-Amherst) delivered a powerful floor speech against LD 912. He was interrupted twice by Speaker of the Swamp Sara Gideon. He was once warned not to impugn the motives of the bill. The second warning suggested he was straying from the merits of the proposal.
Maine Frist Media has obtained a copy of Rep. Lockman’s testimony. Read for yourself and judge if the warnings were warranted, or if the only thing Rep. Lockman was guilty of was shining a light on the schemes of the swamp creatures who roam the halls of the Capitol.
Thank you Madame Speaker.
Madame Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the House:
As I listened to the testimony in committee on LD 912, I was reminded of a short story written by the Danish author Hans Christian Anderson, and first published in 1827. “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is the story of a vain emperor who loved wearing fine clothes and spent all of his peoples’ money on them. He had a different set for each hour and was, without doubt, the finest dressed man in the land.
One day the Emperor hires weavers who promise him they will make him the best suit of clothes. The weavers are con-men who convince the emperor they are using a fine fabric invisible to anyone who is either unfit for his position or “hopelessly stupid.” The con lies in that the weavers are actually only pretending to manufacture the clothes; they are making make-believe clothes which they mime. Thus, no one, not even the emperor nor his ministers can see the alleged “clothes,” but pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions, and the emperor does the same. Finally, the weavers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him, and the emperor marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, offering thunderous applause to the now beaming Emperor. None of them were willing to admit that they hadn’t seen a thing; for if anyone did, then he was either stupid or unfit for the job he held. Then, a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all, and the cry is taken up by a few others. The emperor realizes the assertion is true but continues the procession.
So we’ve come full circle, Madame Speaker, in the 181 years since Hans Christian Anderson wrote “the Emperor’s New Clothes.” The bill before us today is part of a much larger campaign to shut down reality-based free speech. And not just shut it down, Madame Speaker. The Left-wing progressives who are waging war on free speech in America have been so emboldened by their recent successes that they have upped the ante. Now they want to strip dissenters of their ability to make a living if they dare to violate the speech codes of the prevailing progressive orthodoxy. As in Hans Christian Anderson’s story, they will be deemed “unfit to hold their positions.”
In the modern era, heretics won’t be burned at the stake, but they will be muzzled, publicly shamed, and driven to the poor house.
In fact, the bill before us today mandates that licensed professionals in Maine play “let’s pretend” much like schoolchildren in California are being trained to do.
As part of transgender instruction in Rocklin Academy in Rocklin, California, a male kindergartner was reintroduced to classmates as a girl. Later that morning, a first grader at the school was sent to the principal’s office after she called the student by his given name on the playground– apparently unaware that the five-year-old had changed his gender identity.
As I listened to the testimony in committee, I was also reminded of something that author David Horowitz said. For members who are unfamiliar with his life and work, David Horowitz, now in his late 70s, was raised by communist parents. They were both members of the Communist Party USA. They were Stalinists. Young David followed in their footsteps.
He was a Marxist academic and a leader of the anti-war, anti-American New Left in the 1960s. But by the time he was in his early to mid-thirties, Horowitz had what he called “sober second thoughts.” He began the intellectual odyssey from Marxism to liberty and American exceptionalism.
Having been born and nurtured in the belly of the beast, here is how Horowitz describes the mindset of modern-day Leftists:
“Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.”
I was reminded of that observation as I listened to testimony in committee, Madame Speaker.
I was also reminded of what’s happening right now in New York City, and I wondered how long it would be before Maine enacts similar policies here.
Individuals living in New York City can choose from a minimum of 31 different gender identities, many of which allow them to fluctuate between some version or combination of male or female identities.
Businesses that don’t respect and accommodate an individual’s chosen gender identity risk incurring fines up to a quarter of a million dollars under rules implemented by the city’s Commission on Human Rights.
Madame Speaker, do we really want to unleash the Thought Police and the Speech-Nannies in Maine?
The bill before us will punish licensed professionals who dissent from the prevailing progressive orthodoxy on the subject of gender identity disorder. Refusal to play “let’s pretend” with patients will become a punishable offense. But nobody knows exactly where the boundaries are for the therapists who will be under the thumb of the Nanny State enforcers.
For example, I’m fairly confident that the following hypothetical conversation between a therapist and a minor child would run afoul of the law, but I don’t know. Perhaps the sponsor of the bill can tell us what’s legal and what’s not if LD 912 is enacted.
Here’s the hypothetical: an eight-year-old boy has become convinced that he is a girl trapped in a boy’s body. The eight-year-old dresses as a girl and wants to start hormone therapy and eventually undergo sex-change surgery. His parents take him to a licensed therapist for treatment.
At the first appointment, the therapist says to the eight-year-old: “I have helped many kids your age, and if you work with me, I believe I can help you. By the time you’re in your mid-twenties, chances are you will look back to this time as a time of confusion. Most of the kids I’ve counseled are glad that they didn’t go ahead with hormone treatment and surgery.”
Would that conversation be legal? Some will say yes; some will say no.
Madame Speaker, LD 912 has been amended again and again, mainly because nobody can say with any certainty what a therapist can say to a minor child without running the risk of tripping over the statutory language in this proposed statute.
My position is that it’s none of our business here at the Statehouse if Maine parents choose to take their minor children to a therapist who is brave enough to say the emperor has no clothes when the emperor parades past as naked as the day he was born.
Thank you, Madame Speaker.