CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Alice Chao, (866) FRC-NEWS or (866)-372-6397
Peter Sprigg Testifies Before New Hampshire House of Representatives
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Earlier today Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at Family Research Council, testified before the New Hampshire House of Representatives against H.B. 587, a bill to prohibit minors from seeking the help of a licensed counselor to deal with unwanted same-sex attractions and H.B. 478, a bill providing special rights on the basis of gender identity which would allow biological men to access women's bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers.
In Sprigg’s testimony against H.B. 587 he explained how concerns with sexual reorientation therapy are misplaced, “At the heart of the attacks on sexual reorientation therapy are two claims: that such therapies are ineffective, and that they are harmful. However, there is abundant anecdotal evidence that such therapies work. Many people say that they have been helped by such therapies to change from predominantly homosexual attractions, behaviors, or identity to predominantly heterosexual ones.” Sprigg went on, “It is important for you to understand the unprecedented nature of the recent wave of legal and legislative attacks upon sexual orientation change efforts. Never before in history has there been an attempt to outlaw a particular form of therapy or counseling based solely upon the goal which the client chooses for himself or herself. No legislator should even consider breaching these longstanding principles on the basis of such weak evidence of (possible, occasional) harm.”
Sprigg then testified against H.B. 478 explaining the implications of this bill on freedom, “the debate over this bill is not about ‘gender identity,’ or ‘discrimination.’ What we are debating here today is: freedom.” Sprigg went on, “Of course, transgendered people have a right to the ‘pursuit of Happiness’ as well. What they do not have, however, is the ‘right’ to enlist the coercive power of the state in an effort to guarantee the attainment of the Happiness that they pursue, at the expense of the liberty of others.”
“In a state that proclaims, ‘Live Free or Die,’ we should certainly leave people free from government coercion on this issue,” concluded Sprigg.