WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at Family Research Council, testified before the Joint Committee on Children, Families and Persons with Disabilities at the Massachusetts General Court against H. 1190 and S. 62 – two bills prohibiting licensed counselors from providing minors with help to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction.
In Sprigg's testimony against H.1190 and S. 62 he explained how the expectation placed on sexual reorientation therapy is irrational, "The arguments used against sexual reorientation therapy and in favor of restrictions upon it—such as this bill—often hold such therapy to a standard which is wholly unrealistic for any medical or psychological care." Sprigg went on, " Is it possible to find people who will say that they underwent sexual reorientation therapy and found it ineffective? Of course—the same is true of any other treatment, especially for psychological conditions. However, there are also many people who have testified that such therapy was effective for them… it is also possible to find people who underwent sexual reorientation therapy and felt that they were better off afterwards—even if the therapy was not effective in changing their sexual orientation."
"Holding sexual reorientation therapy to a standard of 100% effectiveness together with zero risk is so unreasonable as to be irrational. I hope it is clear to everyone in this body that the purpose of this bill is not to protect anyone’s physical or psychological health. The real purpose is to impose an ideology, and outlaw a desire—the desire that some individuals, including some minors, unquestionably have to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions and abstain from same-sex sexual relationships," concluded Sprigg.
Read Peter Sprigg's full testimony; H. 1190 and S. 62