WND EXCLUSIVE

8 SUPREMES PULL RUG FROM UNDER 'BASIC FREEDOM OF SELF-DETERMINATION'

Decision not to hear case possibly impacted by loss of Scalia

Bob Unruh

The vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia may have impacted a decision not to hear a case opposing a New Jersey law that bans professional counseling for minors who wish to overcome a same-sex attraction.

The court had been scheduled to hold a conference on the case in January, but it was rescheduled for February.

The non-profit Liberty Counsel, which brought the case to the high court, said Supreme Court watchers “began speculating that the court would decide to hear the case.”

But then Scalia died, and at the next available meeting, the court decided not to hear the case.

“One can only speculate whether Justice Scalia’s absence on the court contributed to the announcement … not to hear the case,” Liberty Counsel said.

The case concerns a law signed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

How did America get from “Mayberry” to “gay marriage?” Here’s the explanation, in “A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.”

The legal team said it challenged the  law on behalf of a minor client, whose name was not released, and his parents, “who desperately wanted to help their son live his life according to the dictates of his conscience and his religious beliefs and values.”

The law firm said that prior to receiving counseling, the plaintiff “dealt with daily thoughts of suicide and depression.”

“As a result of his counseling, however, John Doe was thriving and never dealt with anxiety, depression, or thoughts of suicide.”

But Liberty Counsel Chairman Mathew Staver said that because of the decision not to review the ban, his “client – whose life was literally saved by this counseling – has been told by his government that it does not care about that or about his value.” said

“We pray for our client and countless other minors like him in New Jersey who have now been denied their basic freedom of self-determination,” Staver said.

The decision also allows to stand a conflict among the federal circuits, he said.

“In a country born on the will to be free, it is a sad day when that nation turns its back on the most vulnerable among us and refuses to protect the very freedom upon which this nation was founded,” he said. “Our client’s life was saved by this counseling, and now he will not be able to receive it because activists seek to completely silence the viewpoint that Christ can change lives and that individuals can receive freedom from their unwanted same-sex attractions.”

WND reported last year when the petition was filed that the law mandated that counselors dealing with patients on issues of sexuality must promote same-sex relationships, in apparent violation of the First Amendment and the fundamental principles of mental health counseling.

“[New Jersey law] limits the communication a professional can provide to a consenting client, despite the client’s objectives or therapeutic goals,” according to the document filed by Liberty Counsel.

The same issue arose earlier in California, and also has appeared in Michigan and Iowa, where plans are to have all counselors say only positive things about same-sex affinities.

In 2014, the high court also refused to address the California dispute.

The Supreme Court declined the case despite a powerful dissent from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which upheld the state censorship.

Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote: “May California remove from the First Amendment’s ambit the speech of certain professionals when the state disfavors its content or its purpose? – The Supreme Court has definitely and unquestionably said, ‘No.’ It is no longer within our discretion to disagree.”

He was joined by two other judges in the dissent, which said, “Legislatures cannot nullify the First Amendment’s protections for speech by playing this labeling game.”

“Indeed,” he said, “authoritative precedents have established that neither professional regulations generally, nor even a more limited subclass of rules, remain categorically outside of the First Amendment’s reach.”

Wrote O’Scannlain: “The panel cites no case holding that speech, uttered by professionals to their clients, does not actually constitute ‘speech’ for purposes of the First Amendment. And that should not surprise us – for the Supreme Court has not recognized such a category. … The Supreme Court has chastened us lower courts for creating, out of whole cloth, new categories of speech to which the First Amendment does not apply. But, that is exactly what the panel’s opinion accomplishes in this case.”

Two appeals courts also have issued conflicting decisions on the issue.

California was the first state to make such therapy illegal for minors, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded the therapy, which mostly involves talking, is “conduct” rather than speech. That means it would not be protected by the First Amendment.

How did America get from “Mayberry” to “gay marriage?” Here’s the explanation, in “A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.”

But when New Jersey made the therapy illegal for minors, the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals determined it is speech but concluded it is a special kind of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.

Eric Scalise, vice president for professional development for the American Association of Christian Counselors, or AACC, said the California and New Jersey laws “purport to protect minors because they apparently are not developmentally mature enough to talk with someone about their beliefs, values and sexuality.”

“This is a bit far-fetched” when both states allow minors to seek professional services without parental consent, he said. This includes receiving consultation and other services regarding birth control, pregnancy and abortion-related decisions, substance abuse and mental health needs.

“How and why a minor is considered to be developmentally, emotionally and psychologically mature enough to discuss these very complex and serious matters, but unable to discuss their sexuality is almost laughable,” he said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/8-supremes-pull-rug-from-under-basic-freedom-of-self-determination/#4Opc8Oi0r6cW7lhh.99