26 states banning therapy for LGBT individuals increases suicide risks
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court made a controversial decision to reject a challenge to 26 state laws that are based on flawed studies claiming that “conversion therapy” increases the risk of suicide among LGBT Americans. However, recent research reviews have found that all of these studies are seriously scientifically unsound.
These studies not only rely on unscientific methods, but one highly cited study actually shows the opposite of what its authors claim, according to a sociologist who reanalyzed the data. The study’s authors omitted standard scientific controls, which led to misleading conclusions.
Paul Sullins, a research professor at Catholic University and senior researcher for the Ruth Institute, stated in a press conference that “the evidence shows that SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] is fairly effective at preventing suicide attempts.”
These flawed studies have had a significant impact on efforts to ban therapists from helping distressed individuals in the United States and around the world. According to Sullins, approximately 20 states and the District of Columbia have banned therapists from assisting individuals struggling with homosexual desires or gender dysphoria. In six states, such therapy is partially banned, limiting therapists to only nudging children towards transgender mutilation instead of providing help.
Last week, three Republican-appointed Justices, John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch, joined the court’s leftists in refusing to address the issue of whether states can punish therapists who discuss unwanted sexual attractions and gender dysphoria with willing clients. Barrett also voted to uphold a lower-court decision striking down laws against children attending transvestite shows.
Since 2009, every study on therapy for individuals struggling with sexual orientation distress has shared a major scientific flaw identified by Sullins. These studies failed to control for suicidal thoughts and actions expressed by LGBT individuals before they underwent ”conversion therapy.”
Despite claiming that “conversion therapy” caused LGBT participants to have more suicidal thoughts and attempts, none of these studies separated the pre-therapy suicidal thoughts and attempts. It is both logically impossible and scientifically invalid to attribute something that occurred after a certain event as the cause of that event. However, all of these studies made this mistake.
By failing to account for preexisting suicidal distress among LGBT individuals before therapy, these studies falsely claimed that “conversion therapy causes suicide.”
When Sullins reanalyzed the data with proper controls, he found that two-thirds of the LGBT participants’ suicidal thoughts and attempts in the 2020 study occurred before they sought therapy. This means that therapy could not have caused the majority of suicidal thoughts or attempts among LGBT individuals because they happened before therapy.
In fact, Sullins’ analysis showed that “conversion therapy” actually reduced suicide attempts and intentions by up to 80 percent when controlling for pre-therapy suicidal behavior. This contradicts the claims made by the study authors using their own data. By banning talk therapy and refusing to address the issue, the Supreme Court is enabling higher levels of distress and self-harm among LGBT Americans.
These scientifically incompetent studies are being used by major queer organizations to advocate for therapy bans. The studies only include self-identified LGBT individuals, excluding those with similar attractions who do not identify as LGBT.
Sullins described the 2020 Blosnich study as an “elaborate falsehood” that intentionally ignored scientific standards of evidence to support the claim that “conversion therapy” is harmful.
The social sciences have been heavily impacted by the replication crisis, which affects the credibility of scientific research. Many studies, including these ones, seem to serve political agendas rather than seeking the truth.
In his review and replication of the Blosnich study, Sullins noted that the choice to ignore the time order in attributing causation was intentional. Despite being aware of the difference between pre-therapy distress and post-therapy distress, the authors failed to distinguish between the two in their studies.
Sullins also examined the four most recent studies cited by the American Psychological Association and U.K. Government Equalities Office in support of therapy bans. All four studies made the same error as the Blosnich study by not controlling for pre-therapy suicidal thoughts and attempts.
These scientifically flawed studies are being used by major queer organizations to push for therapy bans. The false claim that “conversion therapy is unnecessary, ineffective, and harmful” is being spread, despite the misleading nature of these studies.
If you or someone you know is in crisis, please reach out to the national suicide hotline at 1-800-273-8255. Additional resources can be found here.
rnrn
How does the reliance on flawed and misleading studies in policymaking compromise the integrity of scientific research and the pursuit of truth
T identify as LGBT. This selective sampling introduces bias and undermines the credibility of the studies.
Furthermore, these studies fail to consider the potential benefits of therapy for individuals struggling with sexual orientation distress. Sullins’ analysis found that therapy can be effective in reducing suicide attempts and intentions among LGBT individuals. By ignoring this evidence, the Supreme Court is neglecting the well-being of LGBT Americans and denying them access to potentially life-saving support.
The reliance on flawed and misleading studies also raises concerns about the politicization of science. It is crucial that scientific research is conducted with rigorous methods and objective analysis to ensure accurate and reliable results. By allowing flawed studies to influence policies and laws, the Supreme Court is compromising the integrity of scientific research and undermining the pursuit of truth.
The impact of these flawed studies is not limited to the United States. Efforts to ban therapy for individuals struggling with sexual orientation distress have been adopted in various countries around the world, influenced by the misguided conclusions of these studies. This further emphasizes the need for accurate and unbiased research to inform policy decisions.
It is essential for the scientific community and policymakers to critically evaluate the methodology and findings of studies before citing them as evidence. The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the challenge to state laws based on flawed studies is a disheartening setback for evidence-based policymaking and the well-being of LGBT individuals.
Moving forward, it is imperative that research on conversion therapy and its effects is conducted with scientific rigor and ethical considerations. By addressing the methodological flaws of previous studies and conducting unbiased research, we can gain a clearer understanding of the potential benefits and risks of therapy for individuals struggling with sexual orientation distress.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the challenge to state laws based on flawed studies undermines the well-being of LGBT Americans and the pursuit of scientific truth. It is essential that policymakers and the scientific community critically evaluate the methodology and findings of research before making important decisions that impact the lives of individuals. Only through rigorous and unbiased research can we develop effective policies and support systems for those in need.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
