"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"
"An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."
Alan Chambers, the former President of Exodus International (which promotes itself as "the oldest and largest Christian ministry dealing with faith and homosexuality") has publicly apologized to the gay community for what he described as "years of undue suffering and judgment" resulting from Exodus efforts to "cure" people of their homosexuality (using a strategy that he admits is 99% ineffective).
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has unanimously upheld California's ban on gay conversion therapy on the grounds of the apparent danger it presents, especially to children. This court's line of thinking is not dissimilar to that of New Jersey assemblyman Tim Eustice, who qualified it as "an insidious form of child abuse" when championing a bill to have the practice banned in his state.
Given that the Psychological community, significant elements of both the Federal and State governments, and even conversion "therapy" insiders have qualified this practice as harmful, why shouldn't Congress amend the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to explicitly outlaw conversion therapy for children?
Why wouldn't outlawing conversion therapy for children make sense, given that the Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act already outlaws behaviors that carry the risk of "serious physical or emotional harm" to children?
Click here if you'd like information about contacting your Representatives and Senators to ask them this question.