13-4429 #41

CASE NO.
13-4429
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

TARA KING, ED.D., individually and on behalf of her patients, RONALD
NEWMAN, PH.D., individually and on behalf of his patients, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND THERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY
(NARTH), and AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CHRISTIAN COUNSELORS
(AACC),

Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v.

CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, Governor of the State of New Jersey, in his official
capacity, ERIC T. KANEFSKY, Director of the New Jersey Department of Law
and Public Safety: Division of Consumer Affairs, in his official capacity,
MILAGROS COLLAZO, Executive Director of the New Jersey Board of Marriage
and Family Therapy Examiners, in her official capacity, J. MICHAEL WALKER,
Executive Director of the New Jersey Board of Psychological Examiners, in his
official capacity; and PAUL JORDAN, President of the New Jersey State Board of
Medical Examiners, in his official capacity,

Defendants/Appellees,
And

GARDEN STATE EQUALITY,
Intervenor-Defendant/Appellee.
APPENDIX OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS VOL IV (000450-000665)
Mathew D. Staver (Lead Counsel)
Anita L. Staver
LIBERTY COUNSEL
1055 Maitland Ctr. Cmmns 2d Floor
Maitland, FL 32751-7214
Tel. (800) 671-1776
Email court@lc.org
Attorneys for Appellants

Stephen M. Crampton
Mary E. McAlister
Daniel J. Schmid
LIBERTY COUNSEL
P.O. Box 11108
Lynchburg, VA 24506
Tel. (434) 592-7000
Email court@lc.org
Attorneys for Appellants
Case: 13-4429 Document: 003111504697 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/10/2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I (000001-000070)

Plaintiffs Notice of Appeal.............000001

Memorandum Opinion ...........000003

Order ...000069

VOLUME II (000071-000276)

District Court Docket Sheet.....000071

Complaint........000085

Complaint Exhibit A ...000131

Complaint Exhibit B ...000137

Application for Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Preliminary Injunction...000141

Declaration of Dr. Tara King...000167

Declaration of Dr. Ronald Newman....000174

Declaration of David Pruden...000181

Declaration of Dr. Christopher Rosik..000187

Declaration of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi..000231

Declaration of Dr. Eric Scalise000249

Garden State Equalitys Notice of Motion to Intervene
as Party Defendant ...000257

Certification of Troy Stevenson .000259

Defendants Notice of Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56...000272

Proposed Intervenor-Defendant Garden State Equalitys
Notice of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment .............000274

VOLUME III (000277-000449)

Exhibit C, Declaration of Gregory Herek, Report of the
American Psychological Association Task Force
on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to
Sexual Orientation ................................................................................000277

Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Christopher Rosik ..................000415

Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Ronald Newman.....000441

VOLUME IV (000450-000665)

Declaration of Dr. Judith Reisman .....000450

Declaration of John Doe, Minor Child ...000537

Declaration of Jane Doe, Mother of Minor Child ......000542

Declaration of Jack Doe, Father of Minor Child.000549

Plaintiffs Motion Objecting to Courts Dispensing with
Plaintiffs Supporting Declarations and Evidence,
Dispensing with Evidentiary Motions, and Motion
to Deem Certain Factual Allegations Admitted by
the State 000554

Transcript of Motions Hearing000588

Declaration of Dr. Judith Reisman - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN DIVISION

TARA KING, ED.D., individually and on
behalf of her patients, RONALD
NEWMAN, PH.D., individually and on
behalf of his patients, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH AND
THERAPY OF HOMOSEXUALITY
(NARTH), AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
OF CHRISTIAN COUNSELORS
(AACC),

Plaintiffs,
v.

CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, Governor
of the State of New Jersey, in his official
capacity, ERIC T. KANEFSKY, Director
of the New Jersey Department of Law and
Public Safety: Division of Consumer Affairs,
in his official capacity, MILAGROS
COLLAZO, Executive Director of the New
Jersey Board of Marriage and Family
Therapy Examiners, in her official capacity,
J. MICHAEL WALKER, Executive
Director of the New Jersey Board of
Psychological Examiners, in his official
capacity; PAUL JORDAN, President of the
New Jersey State Board of Medical
Examiners, in his official capacity,

Proponents of A3371s.

Civil Action No. 13-5038 (FLW)(LHG)

DECLARATION OF DR. JUDITH REISMAN
I, Judith Gelernter Reisman, PhD hereby declare as follows:
1. I am over the age of 18 and am submitting this Declaration as expert testimony in
response to the declarations of Bayer, Davies, Drescher, Haldeman, and Herek, which I have
Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 33-3 Filed 09/20/13 Page 1 of 87 PageID: 1081
APPENDIX (VOL. IV) - PAGE 000450

reviewed. The statements in this Declaration are true and correct and if called upon to testify to
them I would and could do so competently.
2. I am submitting this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
and in opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.
BACKGROUND
3. My background and experience in the fields of Science Fraud, Human Sexuality, Child
Sexual Abuse, and Mass Media Effects and a list of my published articles, books, and book
chapters are described in my curriculum vitae, which is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit A.
4. I hold a Masters and a Doctorate in Communications, both from Case Western Reserve
University. I am currently a Visiting Professor of Law at Liberty University School of Law.
Formerly, I was Associate Professor "Martze" at the University of Haifa, Israel; Research Full
Professor, The American University; and was part of the adjunct faculty of George Mason
University.
5. I am a former consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S.
Department of Education, as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I have
an expertise in Media Forensics.
6. I am a former consultant to the California Judicial Investigative Task Force and the
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) on Sex Science Fraud, which published my
findings on Alfred Kinsey's criminal and fraudulent scientific data and methods, and the
invalidity of subsequent academic works and policy decisions derived from him and from those
who followed and used his work as legitimate science. See The ALEC Report, attached as
Exhibit B.

7. I am a former consultant to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, providing expert testimony on The Science Behind Pornography Addiction,
providing expert testimony examining brain science related to the media called pornography and
its addiction and the effects of such addiction on families and communities.
8. The United States Department of Justice has published my reports on the Role of
Pornography and Media Violence in Family Violence, Sexual Abuse and Exploitation, and
Juvenile Delinquency. Part 1, NCJ 107147, PDF (24.7 MB) NCJRS Abstract; Part 2, NCJ
107148, PDF (27.1 MB) NCJRS Abstract; Part 3, NCJ 107149, PDF (16.8 MB) NCJRS Abstract;
and Part 4, NCJ 109944, PDF (7.5 MB) NCJRS Abstract.
9. I have lectured at American universities such as Princeton, Notre Dame, Georgetown,
Pepperdine; and internationally at the University of Jerusalem, University of Haifa, and Tel Aviv
University. Additionally, I have lectured at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, the
Rutherford Institute, the Council for National Policy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
the United States Air Force Academy, among many other institutions.
10. I have been cited by or appeared on a lengthy list of media sources: The London Times,
Time, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, The Washington Post, Entertainment Tonight, Larry
King Live, Donahue, The Today Show, Crossfire, The New York Times, Ted Baehrs
Movieguide, and many more.
11. I have earned honors including listings in Whos Who in Science and Engineering,
Whos Who of American Women, International Whos Who in Education, The Worlds
Whos Who of Women, "Who's Who in Sexology," and others.
12. I have authored many books and articles and have been cited in numerous scholarly
works. See attached curriculum vitae Exhibit A. Among my published works is Kinsey, Sex and

Fraud, 1990, Sexual Sabotage, 2010; Kinsey: Crime and Consequences, 1998 and 2000; and Soft
Porn Plays Hardball, 1991. I have been an expert witness in many court, military, and civic
hearings concerning child pornography, pornography, homosexuality, sexual harassment, and
media issues. My works have been referenced in a number of lower court decisions, and in the
following United States Supreme Court cases: Oakes v. Massachusetts, 491 U.S. 576 (1989) and
Osborne v. Ohio 495 U.S. 103 (1990). My scholarly works have also been the impetus behind
the proposed child protection legislation HR 2749 (Washington, D.C., 1995), The Child
Protection and Ethics in Education Act.
13. In addition to the numerous books and scholarly articles that I have written and the
extensive education I have received in the United States, I have also participated in numerous
international training seminars occurring all over the world in places including the Philippines,
the Vatican, Austria, Ireland, Israel, Switzerland, and Croatia.
14. In Croatia, as a direct result of my documentation of the fraudulent research of Alfred
Kinsey, on May 22, 2013, Croatia's Supreme Court - the "Croatian Constitutional Court"
abolished the Health Education Curriculum, which took effect in February 2013, and ordered
that until the adoption of a new curriculum, mandated that Health Education be taught according
to the curriculum that had been in force before the start of the 2013 school year. The court
assessed the constitutionality of the Kinsey-based curriculum and Education Minister Zeljko
Jovanovic's decision to introduce it. Even though only the curriculum's Module 4, which dealt
with sexual and gender equality and sexually responsible behavior was disputed, the
Constitutional Court approved the abolition of the entire curriculum because the disputed points
related to the entire document. In speaking for the Court, Judge Mato Arlovic said that "In this
case, the government has not fulfilled its procedural constitutional obligation to align the Health

Education Curriculum in state schools with constitutional law and parental freedom to choose
education for their children," The curriculum was in violation of the Croatian Constitution, the
Education Act, the Family Act and international conventions such as the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention
on the Rights of the Child.
1

15. In 2012 Switzerland, exposure of Kinseys atrocities led to the Swiss defunding their
Sex Competency education center.
2

16. Recently, the Nordic Council of Ministers (a Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and
Iceland co-operative) closed the Nordic Gender Institute ("NIKK") for its bogus Gender
Theory science, after a creative Norwegian journalist documented the unscientific character of
the NIKK and its research, the was institute closed, and has now moved.
17. I am the unnamed "independent researcher" (quoted in the article cited in Drescher's CV),
who "has charged that Kinsey did more than passively take notes on the habits of a sex criminal,
but that he was involved in such crimes." As stated in the article, "Kinsey has also been faulted
for his chronicling of pedophilia and the sexual habits of young children...he relied heavily on
data from one man a pedophile who reported sexual encounters with hundreds of children, all
of which he chronicled in a journal. Reliance so much on one person was not a reliable way to
gather facts. More than that, however, was a moral issue: Why didnt Kinsey report the man to
the police?" See Declaration of Jack Drescher, MD - The Kinsey Effect Commentary on the
impact of Alfred Kinseys work following the film release of Kinsey. Los Angeles Times,
November 15, 2004, pp. F1, F4-F5.

1
http://inavukic.com/2013/05/22/croatian-constitutional-court-abolishes-health-sex-education-curriculum/
2
http://www.bag.admin.ch/hiv_aids/05464/05470/05482/index.html?lang=en
3
http://www.turtlebayandbeyond.org/2012/homosexuality/nordic-countries-defund-gender-ideology.

18. With this background established, I have reviewed the Declarations of Bayer, Davies, Drescher,
Haldeman, and Herek, and will list my general and specific objections to their testimony.
Scientific Misconduct Invalidates Policy Decisions Based Thereon
19. In general, the Declarations of these individuals are unreliable insofar as they are based on the
scientific misconduct (lies, fabrications, and crimes) contained in the work of Alfred C. Kinsey, and his
ideological progeny. As set forth below, Alfred Kinsey fabricated data upon which rests the entire edifice
of pseudo-scientific human sexuality knowledge supporting the passage of A3371.
20. The American and international science field has been grappling with fraud and misconduct for
years. As of May 2012, at least 2,047 biomedical and life science studies had been retracted by the
journals that published them, meaning that the studies contained errors or fabrications that rendered their
results meaningless. A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed
by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error.
In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud
(43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading
retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing
retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased 10-
fold since 1975.
4

21. Institutions receiving certain federal research funds are obligated to refrain from
scientific misconduct. United States v. Bruening, No. K88-0135 (D. Md., Nov. 10, 1988).
Scientific misconduct may include the use of fraudulent or deceptive data. Id; See also Reisman,
Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud.
22. Stephen Breuning, formerly a research psychologist with the University of Pittsburgh,
was indicted in federal district court in Baltimore for falsifying his research results in 1988. See

4
Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences in the United States of America, vol. 109 no. 42, Fang,
F.C. 1702817033 available at http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028

Kuzma, 25 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 357, 1992; See also Reisman, Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud. The
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) had provided Breuning with grants of more than
$150,000 to investigate the effects of treating hyperactive retarded children with Ritalin and
Dexedrine. Id. Breunings data impacted public health policy nationally. Id. Breunings well-
established reputation was considered instrumental in forming public health and policy
nationallyseveral states amended treatment practices as a result. Reisman, Sexual Sabotage,
325. A 1987 New York Times article noted that Breuning was one of the nations most
influential researchers in his field and many states amended policies governing treatment
practices in an effort to be consistent with Dr. Breunings findings. Boffey (Science 235: 141,
1987)..
23. While Breunings data impacted public health policy nationally, Kinseys data have had a
far greater impact on both public health policy and public morality, both nationally and
internationally. Like Breuning, Kinsey and his research colleagues knowingly misrepresented
their data. See Reisman, Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud. Unlike Breuning, Kinsey and his research
colleagues actually engaged in sex crimes, harming children for their experiments.
Overview of Origin and History of the Founding of the Homosexual Movement in 1948
In light of the serious nature of a charge of fraudulent data, it is advisable to revisit the
founding of the movement which has wrought such social change worldwide. The homosexual
movement was formally organized on the fraudulent
5
sex science of Dr. Alfred Kinsey's Sexual
Behavior in the Human Male, (1948). Harry Hay, homosexual and communist dialectician, read
the Kinsey Report in 1948 and found Kinsey's recommended recreational-sex lifestyle fully

5
Judith Reisman & Edward W. Eichel, Kinsey. Sex & Fraud (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House, 1990). See
especially pp. ISO-ISS "The Fraud Taboo" for a definition of "scientific fraud." "According to the Committee on the
Conduct of Science of the National Academy of Sciences, fraud in science can encompass a wide spectrum of
behaviors but the acid test of scientific fraud is the intention to deceive." That Kinsey's work is incriminated by this
test is beyond question. p. 55.

approving of Hay's homosexual conduct and character. Spurred to action by the "scientific" 10
percent homosexuality figure Kinsey claimed, Hay immediately declared his long-time sexual
"orientation," deserted his wife and two children, and founded the Mattachine Society, the origin
of the political homosexual movement. Gay historians have lionized Hay for his "profound
contribution" to the homosexual estate and for positioning homosexuals not as sodomites but
as a "minority" only seeking "civil rights." Hay took what was criminal conduct in the UCMJ
and all fifty states and crafted the words to transform, and create, a distinct "cultural minority"
claiming minority membership and rights for the first time. This has continued modernly. See,
e.g., Herek Decl., Para. 10. The homosexual movement still follows Hay's original strategy to
claim protection from "discrimination" because of its "victim" status as a cultural minority.
Harry Hay, architect of the modern political homosexual movement, marched with NAMBLA,
the North American Man-Boy Love Association, urging an end to age of consent laws, to allow
sex with children.
6
And the NAMBLA website still offers kudos and thanks to Kinsey for his
contribution to their increasing acceptance.
Fraudulent Science has been Relied upon to Advance the Homosexual Agenda

24. While Davies, Drescher, Haldeman, and Herek may try to employ valid and efficient
scientific techniques in their professional writings and analysis, they cannot escape the
underlying false premises upon which technically accurate techniques are based, which
inescapably lead to fatally flawed results.
25. If the foundation is compromised, the entire structure is as well. If the fount is poisoned,
the societal stream of consciousness is too. Thus, the conclusions of these declarants are

6
Stuart Timmons, The Trouble with Harry Hay, Founder of the Modern Gay Movement, (Boston: Alyson
Publications, Inc., 1991).

inextricably linked to the "sex scientists" who have provided pioneering scientific cover by
creating fraudulent homosexual data, and are themselves invalid.
26. Thus, there can be no correct discussion or judicial decision involving this issue of
homosexuality - (or a moral/values judgment about the same as set forth in A3371) - without
reference to the man who legitimized homosexuality for America and the world; Dr. Alfred
Kinsey and the "sexology" profession which grew from his 1948 data. Post World War II, the
"European" sexology profession became legitimized in America, through Kinsey's alleged "value
neutral" "objective" "science." While Kinsey's shadow is long on the post-1948 legal-socio-
political landscape, it is by no means unopposed. Where the light of truth shines, shadows flee.
Judge Oliver Gasch's decision in U. S. District Court in D.C.
7
(upholding the ban on homosexual
military service on the basis of the author's research - also upheld by the en banc decision in
Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1994).) is but one example of a court shining the light of truth
on Kinsey's homosexual data, which cited Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, of which the Lancet wrote:
... The Kinsey reports (one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later)
claimed that sexual activity began much earlier in life, was more varied and more
frequent, and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than
anyone at the time imagined ... " In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud Dr. Judith Reisman and
her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports . .. The important
allegations from the scientific viewpoint are imperfections in the sample and
unethical, possibly criminal, observations on children. Any questionnaire survey in a
normally private area is subject to bias from differences in those who respond and those
who refuse, and there is no ready means of checking the information. The book goes
beyond that, however, for Kinsey et al. questioned an unrepresentative proportion of
prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of "normal" sexual behavior.
Presumably some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on
stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from pedophiles -or
so it must be hoped. Kinsey, an otherwise harmless student of the gall wasp, has left his
former co-workers some explaining to do. (Emphasis added).

7
Steffan v. Cheney, 780 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1991), affd by Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

27. A3371's claim that homosexuality is as equally valid a character trait as compared to
heterosexual character ("Being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not a disease, disorder, illness,
deficiency, or shortcoming. The major professional associations of mental health practitioners
and researchers in the United States have recognized this fact for nearly 40 years;") (as well as
the position statements of organizations supportive of A3371, such as the American
Psychological Association and others) stands or falls on the viability of "science," particularly
"sex science" to prove homosexual normative health. The Lancet cited crimes against children
and society in Kinsey's work, and called for an investigation of these fraudulent data.
8
Its call
and the calls of others have largely gone unheeded. But just as society had to eventually admit
that the world was indeed round, or that the "science" of phrenology, (intelligence measured by
head bumps and cranial size) was a total fraud,
9
sex "science" based on Alfred Kinsey is also
fraud. In a fashion, it is much like alchemy - a pretend science that had been cultivated in the
past, but that is now held in contempt.
28. Similarly, Kinsey "alchemists" feigned surprise that their "scientific sex survey" of
roughly 18,000 to 21,000 allegedly normal women and men of the 1940s were promiscuous,
adulterous, bi/homosexual, engaged in prostitution, child-adult sex and engaged in the sodomies
and the like- with no ill consequences.
10

29. Kinsey and his team concluded that archaic Judeo-Christian hypocrisy made Americans
"hide" our sexual conduct. If we were but truthful, they claimed, Americans would have paradise
on earth and all measure of sexual disorder, from illicit birth to venereal disease, rape and

8
Dr. Reisman has called for a full Congressional investigation of Kinsey's team, their data and the field.
9
The Oxford English Dictionary, supra.
10
Reisman and Eichel, supra.

divorce, would decrease.
11
While the Kinsey team claimed the data proved Americans were liars,
the data really prove the Kinsey team were liars. Roughly 86% of the team's allegedly "normal"
sample were exhibitionists, prostitutes, pimps, rapists, incest offenders, pedophiles and such, as
well as imprisoned general and sex offenders.
30. Proof of fraud is found in a) the Kinsey team's tainted sample; b) the false predictions
based on a phantom research population of normal men and women; and c) their additional
tendency to alter and trash data that did not support their goals. Nearly seventy years later, every
prediction based on Kinsey's data has been repudiated and disproven, the ultimate test of failed
or false science. Every measure of sexual disorder has increased and AIDS and other once
unknown sexual and heterophobic dysfunctions are now plagues of our time. The sexual panacea
promised by Kinseyan sex "experts" backfired.
31. Nonetheless, the sexuality professions, teaching and counseling, grants, research and
therapies carved out of the Kinsey Institute "alchemy" charge onward. Post-1948, all scholarly
disciplines teach the Kinseyan sexuality model since no other human development theorists (e.g.,
Freud, Maslow, Rodgers, Piaget, Ericson) produced theories of bi- or homosexual normality.
During this time, Kinseyan disciples have poured out similarly groundless sex "study" fantasies.
Kinsey's fraudulent "10 percent" homosexual and "gay youth" population now massively mislead
educators, doctors, parents, pastors, legislators and judges. Homosexual activist organizations
continue to peddle the lie that 10 percent of the population are "born" homosexual, while even
Kinseyan scholars have retreated from that number in the face of legitimate studies in Britain,
France and the United States that have confirmed a 1-2 percent homosexual population which

11
See ''Historical Introduction," etc., Alfred Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia, PA:
W. B. Saunders, 1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, 1953).

should have been known to all sexuality "experts."
12
See also Herek, GM. (1989, August 1). The
tyranny of ten percent: Does it really matter how many Americans are gay? The Advocate, pp.
46-48.
32. Moreover, a poor family environment, abuse and/or neglect, key precipitating factors in
stamping a homosexual character, are now denied by all Kinseyans, including Davies, Drescher,
Haldeman, and Herek. See Reisman, Kinsey, Sex & Fraud, supra, for a discussion of the
fraudulent 10% data and the 1993 and 1995 Advocate studies for an expansive discussion of the
early sex abuse etiology in inherent in homosexuality. Especially note Paidika The Journal of
Paedophilia (Amsterdam, The Netherlands); One Teenager In Ten (Ann Heron, Editor); Robin
Lloyd, For Money or Love: Boy Prostitution in America (New York: Vanguard Press, 1979).
33. In his 2009 article "Queer Diagnoses: Parallels and Contrasts in the History of
Homosexuality, Gender Variance, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual," Jack Drescher
cites with approval Kinsey's biased Kinsey Institute co-authors, (Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard)
that are Drescher's ideological forbears, as well as those of the rest of the "experts" for Garden
State Equality and the State of New Jersey. Moreover, Drescher cites with approval other
pioneering "experts" who were emotionally compromised, scientifically tainted and on record as
pedophile advocates.
34. Drescher's psychobiology authority and expert, Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins
University, argued for man-boy "love" in the Journal of Paedophilia. Dr. Money appeared in the
Spring 1991 issue, assuring pedophile consumers that man-boy sex is
an overflow of parental pairbonding ...into erotic pairbonding ... male paedophilia at
least, is a fatherly relationship.... If a boy aged ten or eleven [has sex with] a man I
would not call it pathological in any way.
14

12
Alan Guttmacher, in The New York Times, found 1.1 percent "exclusively gay." ''The Shrinking Ten Percent,"
TIME, 26 April 1993, p. 27.
13
The Journal of Paedophilia. John Money's interview, Spring 1991, pp. 2-13.

35. Dr. Money served on the Board of Advisors for Penthouse Forum, a Penthouse
pornographic publication, on record as defining incest as "beneficial." Money argued for the end
of "age-of-consent laws" to legalize pederasty (man-boy sex) and sexual or erotic homicide if "a
couple who are sadomasochistic [allegedly consent to} a death pact." "Consent" not the sexual
murder of a child, was the issue for Dr. Money.
15

36. Drescher's sex history expert, Dr. Verne Bullough was also a self-identified pedophile
editor of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia,
16
which states "the starting point of Paidika is
necessarily our consciousness of ourselves as paedophiles ... The Editors"
17
The journal
regularly advertised for NAMBLA members (the North American Man Boy Love Association)
and can be operationally classified as advocating pederasty.
37. Bullough told sex researchers; "Politics and science go hand in hand. In the end it is Gay
activism which
18
determines what researchers say about gay people.
19
Implicitly, he links
homosexual and pedophile research, saying the pedophile researcher "determines" what is told to
the courts and the public about homosexuality. Dr. John Gagnon, another key Drescher authority,
agreed. Gagnon tasked sex researchers to practice "alchemy" - not science - and to create
fraudulent homosexual data to manipulate the courts and society.
[Do not collect data which would] locate the origins of [homosexual] desires ...
Attempts to placate the oppressors will only invite further persecution. The source of

14
Id, p. 3, 5, 13, 7, 8.
15
Sarbin, supra, pp. 20 - 22.
16
The Journal o/Paedophilia, Statement of Purpose, signed "The Editors," Vol. 1, Summer 1987: " ... The ground
on which we stand is the emergence and evolution of paedophile consciousness and identity in history ... [from] the
early German sexual emancipation movement. ... But to speak today or paedophilia, which we understand to be
consensual intergenerational sexual relationships, is to speak or the politics or oppression ... It is our contention
that the oppression or paedophilia is part or the larger repression or sexuality, and that this repression in general
represents an irrational expression of authority in government. "The Editors" (Emphasis added).
17
Id. p. 3.
18
Catholic Medical Quarterly. May 1992, pp. 15-16.
19
Reisman, 1990, p. 212.

freedom in everyday life for gay men and lesbians is continued vigilance and practical
political action.
20
(Emphasis added).

38. What accurate homosexuality data can science predict from such "scholarship," seeking
to legitimize pyschopathologically disordered, criminal conduct? By their writings it is clear
these men consider themselves the sexual and intellectual elite and pederasty to be at the heart of
homosexuality. (An editorial in the Sentinel, San Francisco's premier homosexual publication
asserted that "the love [sex] between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality.
21

Despite gay alchemists efforts
22
to lower the age of consent and legitimize pedophilia,
scientifically, homosexual youth do not exist. Just as there are normally no gay cats, dogs, horses,
etc., no scientific data across time, culture and species finds for normal homosexuality. Rather,
the data do find for early abuse, neglect and seduction as precipitating homosexual and other
heterophohic conduct.
23

39. With this overview of the history of the homosexual movement as founded upon the
fraudulent "science" of Alfred Kinsey and his Indiana University compatiots complete, I turn to
the individual declarations, the ultimate conclusions of which are based upon a fraudulent
foundation, and therefore, provide no support for A3371.
Declaration of Drescher
40. Dr. Drescher is immediate past president of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry
("GAP"). In contrast to its current stance on the relative capacities of minors to receive
information about sexual orientation that does not support a homosexist worldview, GAP has
traditionally supported full childhood responsibility for sexual choices (in areas other than

20
Gagnon, John, The Journal of Sex Research. February 1987, p. 124.
21
"No Place for Homo-homophobia," San Francisco Sentinel, 26 March 1992.
22
Dean Harner et al.., "'A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation,"
Science, Vol. 261, 16 July 1993, p. 322.
23
See the massive body of child sex abuse and homosexual recovery literature.

unwanted same-sex attractions and SOCE): In 1950, GAP set forth the position that in regard to
persons (not children) under 7, "stamped as minors," many are by endowment and training
fully capable of part or exceptionally even full responsibility for sexual behavior.in the later
age levels [somewhere between 7 and 18] the legal concepts of rape and of contributing to
delinquency become increasingly untenable. Manfried Guttmacher, Psychiatrically Deviated
Sex Offenders - Age Disparity (Relations Involving One Adult), Report No. 9, Committee on
Forensic Psychiatry of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, February, 1950.
41. Report No. 9 engaged in full repetition of Kinseys findings that sexual behavior in
minors is common, Manfried Guttmacher in Psychiatrically Deviated Sex Offenders, Report
No. 9, Committee on Forensic Psychiatry of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry,
February, 1950. In his report on the ALI Model Penal Code, David Allyn wrote that Kinseys
data were the points by which we steered. Private Acts/Public Policy: Alfred Kinsey, the
American Law Institute and the Privatization of American Sexual Morality. Journal of
American Studies 30, 1996, at 3, 405-428.
42. Unsurprisingly, Dr. Drescher is also a proponent of the belief that homosexuality is
normal and acceptable and under a normal/identity model, regards homosexuality as a normal
variation of human expression and "acceptance of ones homosexual orientation as a
distinguishing feature of a gay or lesbian identity." Drescher Decl., Para 7.
43. Drescher states that "Since at least the middle of the 19th century, scientists had debated
the issue of whether homosexuality was an illness or a normal variant of human sexuality."
Drescher Decl., Para 6. Who, pray tell, was the father of homosexuality as "a normal variant of
human sexuality" upon which all modern sexology is based? Dr. Drescher has placed at issue the
ultimate foundation of A3371: the veracity of Alfred Kinsey.

44. While placing Kinsey's veracity at issue, Drescher ignores Table 34 (see Reisman Exhibit
C), in which Kinsey colluded in the rape of children, some as young as two months old. Also in
Table 34, a 4 year old boy is reported with allegedly 26 Orgasms in 24 hours- one of up to
2,035 infants and children whom Kinsey and his pederast team sodomized and digitally violated
- ostensibly for science- as the children screamed, fainted, had convulsions and fought to get
free of their rapists. Gagnon calls Kinsey a neutral observer of these sex crime atrocities. As
we proceed, the witnesses for the State of New Jersey and Garden State Equality, and their
reliance on the authority of Kinseyand/or his data--become critical to legal decisions
accrediting the witness expertise. Beyond Kinseys child sexual atrocities, Dr. Reismans books
address the massive sexual frauds in the Kinsey booksfrauds largely responsible for the sexual
revolution and this instant case. As for Drescher's claim that opponents of the "normal/identity"
model dismissed the "moral or scientific authority" of supporters of homosexuality in the
sociopolitical debate, he is correct: those seeking to define homosexuality as normal have neither
moral nor scientific authority, because their source Kinsey, is a clinically definable sexual
deviant who belonged in prison under the then sexual psychopath laws. Drescher Decl., Para. 9.
45. Drescher asserts that in the "social turmoil" of the 1960s and 1970s, "protests"
prompted organized psychiatry to "scientifically" "reassess the pathologizing of homosexuality"
and that "as a result, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed
homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM)." Drescher Decl., Para. 6. Drescher affirms this in his 2009 article
"Queer Diagnoses":
However, the most significant catalyst for diagnostic change was gay activism. In
the wake of the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York City (Duberman, 1994), gay
and lesbian activists, believing psychiatric theories to be a major contributor to

antihomosexual social stigma, disrupted the 1970 and 1971 annual meetings of
the APA. (Emphasis added).

46. Drescher therefore admits that it was disruptive, activist political pressure that caused the
APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM. There was no "scientific reassess[ment]" at that
time, rather, as Drescher admits, it was because the APA "recognized and accepted some of the
social implications of the normal/identity model" (Drescher Decl., Para. 9), in addition to
acquiescing to political pressure.
47. Drescher posits that only individuals seeking to escape "stigma" or "whose religious
beliefs condemn homosexuality" seek to reduce or eliminate their same-sex attractions, while
ignoring other valid reasons for doing so, such as avoiding being one of the 94.9% of new HIV
diagnoses, which are situated in the 13-19 year old age bracket. As shown by the CDC (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention) online slide presentation HIV Surveillance in Adolescents
and Young Adults
[1]
breaking down the incidence of HIV among young men ages 13-24. In
2011, at a nearly 95 percent (conservatively) of HIV diagnoses among teenage boys (13-19-
years-old) were linked to homosexual (male-to-male) sex. And 94.1 percent of the cases
among young men ages 20-24 (more analysis follows graphic) were from gay sex.
48. Drescher admits that moral value judgments on homosexuality as normal and normative
in the form of "non-discrimination policies adopted by the various professional organizations"
(and with no scientific basis) preceded "mainstream professional organizations issu[ing]
recommendations and position papers that SOCE therapy not be practiced" (again, with no
scientific basis). As a result, he posits that SOCE therapists nevertheless continuing to practice as
such are "outside the mental health mainstream" and therefore illegitimate. Drescher Decl., Para.
14.

49. In Drescher Decl., Para. 19, Drescher makes the breathtaking claim that "SOCE has as its
underpinning verbal misrepresentations about human sexual development," again placing at issue
the question of "what is truth?" and "how do we know what we know?" Contrary to Drescher's
claim, we know that the entire "mainstream" understanding of human sexuality - the edifice upon
which Drescher's life's work (and very identity as an out male homosexual) is founded - is based
upon the fraudulent studies created by Kinsey, a certifiable criminal sexual psychopath, and is
therefore invalid. Reisman, Sexual Sabotage. Legislation such as A3371 seeking to silence the
non-Kinseyan understanding of science is likewise invalid.
50. Drescher states that "minors are particularly at risk of harm from SOCE due to their
emotional and cognitive vulnerability. The scientific data confirm the undeveloped teenage brain
until roughly age 21 to 25 hence children should not be exposed to sexual scenarios, whether
masqued as AIDS education, diversity, homophobic re-education or entertainment.: They
have limited capacity to participate in decision-making regarding their own treatment, and dont
have the legal capacity for informed consent." Drescher Decl., Para. 23. Yet, Drescher is
immediate past president of GAP, which as set forth above, took the position that in regard to
persons (not children) under age 7, "stamped as minors," many are by endowment and
training fully capable of part or exceptionally even full responsibility for sexual behavior.in
the later age levels the legal concepts of rape and of contributing to delinquency become
increasingly untenable. Psychiatrist, Manfried Guttmacher, Psychiatrically Deviated Sex
Offenders - Age Disparity (Relations Involving One Adult), Report No. 9, Committee on Forensic
Psychiatry of the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry, February, 1950. No repudiation of
that paper has issued from GAP.

51. "Relations Involving One Adult" figure heavily into the creation of homosexual
attractions. In The Advocate report by Reisman and Johnson, "21% of adult homosexual
Advocate readers/survey respondents admitted that that they were sexually abused by adults
while under age 15.
24
Moreover, the CDC Data on "[F]irst sexual intercourse before age 13
years," found in the 2001-2009 Survey on Sexual Identity, with its alarming findings of 15%
admitted higher rates of gay or lesbian early sexual traumabefore 13-years-oldas well as
its child rape and dating violence data, show that among all categories of "youth," heterosexual
youth had the lowest percentage of those who had their "first sexual intercourse before age 13"
i.e., had been subjected to child rape: 5% for Heterosexual, 20% for Gay or Lesbian, 15% for
Bisexual, and 13% for Not Sure. As can be said for "Gay," "Lesbian" or "Bisexual" youth "Not
sure" in particular implies one is "questioning," and in any event, a child is "queer or
questioning" because one is sexually confused.
52. In regard to the CDC data on the prevalence of early childhood sexual abuse as a
contributing factor to a homosexual identification, and in regard to The Advocate's self-reporting
data of early childhood sexual abuse, momentarily consider that pre-90s bi/homosexual child imagery
was more candid than today. The Advocate, as the mainline homosexist publication, contained numerous
articles, illustrations, and advertisements catering to open pederasty (See, e.g., the long-running
advertisement for a "Penetrable Boy Doll"), and even including as its "mascot" the "playful character" by
the artist "Toby" (Fred Bluth). The character's face, eyes, nose, lips, and cheeks are those of an innocent,
sweet young boy, roughly 10-years-old, blended into and onto a muscular adult body, complete, in at least
one iteration, with subliminal phallus and ejaculate.
25
The "Toby" character "adorned the offices of The

24
Judith Reisman and Charles Johnson, Partner Solicitation as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation (1991).
25
See "Toby" at http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/regent.pdf on pg. 296 of Judith Reisman, Crafting
Bi/Homosexual Youth," 14 Regent U. L. Rev. 283 (2001-2002), Vol. 14-283.

Advocate during its first years of publication. It was affectionately seen as the magazine's mascot."
26
This
character by "Toby" is also identified in Long Road to Freedom: The Advocate History of the Gay and
Lesbian Movement as The Advocates "unofficial mascot during its early years."
27
The sexually
exploitative pose arguably demonstrates "the national gay & lesbian news magazine's" view of early sex
with boys.
28
Images are the language of intent.
29

53. Likewise, the cartoon Boy Scout is the official mascot for "Straight Arrow Publications" edition
of The Queens Vernacular,
30
written by homophile language anthropologist Bruce Rodgers. The first
mainstream dictionary for the homosexual movement in 1972, it was republished in 1979 as [G]ay
[T]alk.
31
Its 12,000 words include 254 words illustrating sex with boysgenerically referred to as
"chicken." Some examples; "ready to crack," "pluck some feathers," "chicken dinner," "butchered
chicken," etc. A boy-scout queen," "pretends to snooze as he is [expletive] or [expletive]."
32
Language is
culture and intent.
54. So, while the American Psychiatric Association determined no specific psychosocial or
family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood
sexual abuse the open seduction and desire for young boys in the movement media belies that
claim.
55. Nevertheless, in spite of these serious shortcomings and credibility issues in his
declaration, Drescher concludes that minors should be helped to "tolerate the feelings that
emerge during the process of exploring possible sexual identities" (Drescher Decl., Para. 28.),

26
Fred "Toby" Bluth, Illustrator, available at http://www.affirmation.org/history/toby_bluth.shtml (last visited
September 18, 2013).
27
LONG ROAD TO FREEDOM: ADVOCATE HISTORY OF THE GAY AND LESBIAN, MOVEMENT 17-21, 84, 263
(Mark Thompson ed., 1994). at xix
28
See Judith Reisman, Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth for more detail, but as is discussed in this report one major
marker is early sexual abuse, commonly same sex but heterosexual abuse is also implicated, 14 Regent U. L. Rev.
283 (2001-2002), Vol.14-283.
29
John Berger, Ways of Seeing, the British Broadcasting Corporation, London, England, 1977.
30
BRUCE RODGERS, THE QUEENS VERNACULAR (1972).
31
BRUCE RODGERS: [G]AY [T]ALK, A PARAGON BOOK (1979).
32
RODGERS, supra note 76, at 90

rather than encouraging impressionable children to seek the outcome consistent with their
religious, rational, and moral beliefs, and one which does not expose them to the documented
harms inherent in exposure to sexuality, and especially that of a homosexual lifestyle.
Declaration of Davies
56. Dr. Davies cites to the American Psychological Association (APA) 2009 Task Force for why
attempts to change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate distress and poor mental health in some
individuals, including depression and suicidal thoughts. Yet, Dr. Davies, trained as a child specialist,
admits that early sexual abuse is causal in depression, substance abuse, bulimia, posttraumatic stress,
disassociation and other problems like hypersexuality. Unfortunately, common sense and hard data find
homo/hetero/bi/trans, etc., sex confusion as common in early sex abuse. The research of the US
Department of Justice, as well as that of the Centers for Disease Control do so as well.
57. The US Department of Justice statistics document 64% of our forcible sodomy victims as boys
under age 18 and indeed under age 12. The United States Department of Justice, Criminal Victimization
2000 finds 14,700 male victims of "Rape or sexual assault."
33
This leads to massive sexual confusion.
58. Davies cites to Recommendations for Promoting the Health and Well-Being of Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender Adolescents: A Position Paper of the Society for Adolescent Health and
Medicine," 52 JOURNAL OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH 506, 509 (2013), for the proposition that
"reparative therapy is an unsubstantiated and harmful option, it should not be considered or recommended
for teenagers who are dealing with issues surrounding their sexual orientation or gender identity." Davies
Decl., Para. 18.
59. This citation and assertion in turn requires some discussion of what protocols Davies would
recommend for confused children - that a therapist "provide supportive counseling to promote self-
acceptance" of a homosexual or transgender identity. This is course is consistent with the long accepted
Harry Benjamin Standards of Care for sexually confused children. The Harry Benjamin Standards of

33
Department Of Justice, National Crime Victimization Survey: Changes 1999-2000, Trends 1993-2000, At 8 (2001).

Care are a reference tool cited by health care professionals considering medical transition for their
clients/patients, but they are recommendations, not requirements. However Dr. Benjamins expertise and
credibilityas that of his followers (such as those listed as authorities in Davies' Declaration) is less than
viable due to Benjamin's glowing preface to French pedophile Rene Guyons fraudulent book, The Ethics
of Sexual Acts. Here, Guyon advocated raw sex abuse of children, often quoted as, Sex Before Eight or
its Too Late. Guyons book was published collaboratively with his colleague, Alfred Kinsey whose
tome Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was released a few months prior, which in turn was extensively
quoted by Guyon.
34

60. Recently Benjamin was morphed into The World Professional Association for Transgender
Health (WPATH). It self-identifies as formerly known as the (Harry Benjamin International Gender
Dysphoria Association, HBIGDA). Yet, since Benjamin remains on record supporting the pedophile
movement, and Sex Before Eight or Its Too Late, the organization formerly bearing his name remains
allied with Benjamin in closet pedophilic deviance
61. With ideological and professional forbears such as this, Dr. Davies has no credibility in her
remonstrance against SOCE therapy.
Declaration of Bayer
62. Mr. Bayer includes nothing of substance in his Declaration, but states that he is "fully
familiar with the facts set forth herein." Bayer Decl., Para. 1. He makes mention of witness slips
from the "NJ Assembly Women & Children Committee Hearing on A3371" attached to his
declaration, along with letters from members of the public. Bayer Decl., Paras. 2-6.
63. The New Jersey Assembly Women & Children Committee Hearing on A3371, as well as
the New Jersey legislature's ultimate passage of A3371 are not the first time the State of New
Jersey has acted in opposition to the interests of minors and women, in the form of weakening

34
Also see Leah Cahan Schaefer & Connie Christine Wheeler, Harry Benjamins First Ten Cases (1938-1953): A Clinical
Historical Note, 24 Archives of Sexual Behavior 83 (1995).

child protection laws. Post-1950, New Jersey has favored child sex offenders over her child sex
victims. Based upon Kinsey's fraudulent data then (as the basis for the legislative bias toward
predators beginning in 1949 via The New Jersey Commission on the Habitual Sex Offender, as
well as being the basis for the Model Penal Code). See Exhibit B, The ALEC Report, Pg. 9. The
passage of A3371 is one step further, in that not only will the State of New Jersey decline to
protect with stiff penalties the safety of women and children, it will now prohibit the restoration
of children who have been violated by sexual predators, when those children experience
unwanted same-sex attractions as a result of that abuse.
Declaration of Herek

64. With his statement that "sexual orientation ranges along a continuum from exclusively
heterosexual to exclusively homosexual" (Herek Decl., Para. 8.), the hoary "Kinsey scale" makes
an appearance. We are to take at face value the claim that "everyone has a bit of homosexuality,"
a claim brought to us by the same man that brought us "infant orgasms" - reporting child sexual
torturesas infant and child orgasms in his Tables, and on pages 160 and 161 of Male in
which he testified that 196 boy infants and children, under age 12, had 6 types of orgasms,
including terror, screaming, and fainting. See Exhibit C.
65. Further, in Paragraph 11, Herek falsely states that the mid-1950s view of homosexuality
as mental illness reflected "untested assumptions based on then-prevalent social norms as well as
clinical impressions drawn from unrepresentative samples of patients seeking therapy and
individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system." "Once researchers
began using the scientific method with samples of non-patient, nonincarcerated individuals to
empirically test the belief that homosexuality is an illness, evidence accumulated that many
homosexuals were psychologically healthy and that homosexuals as a group did not differ

substantially from comparable heterosexuals in their levels of psychological functioning." Herek
Decl., Para. 11. In actuality, Kinsey was the researcher who used "unrepresentative samples of ...
individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system" precisely to challenge
prevailing assumptions with false and fabricated data. See Exhibit B.
66. Herek repeats the mistruth of "empirical evidence" that homosexuality is normal, and
cites to "changing views of sexuality and gender in the larger culture" as rationales for the 1973
APA political decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM. Herek Decl., Para. 12. In
actuality, disruptive, harassing, violent protests by homosexual activists interrupting the civil
discourse of the APA at its annual meetings were prime motivating factors for its removal, not
"empirical evidence." The APA capitulated.
35

67. Herek states the APA's agnostic view of the nature and causes of homosexuality: that the
"factors that cause an individual to become heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual are not
currently well understood." Herek Decl., Para. 14. There is a reason for this: Dr. John Gagnon, as
described above (and cited with approval by Drescher), tasked sex researchers with specifically
avoiding scientific inquiry into the pathology of homosexuality, stating:
[Do not collect data which would] locate the origins of [homosexual] desires ...
Attempts to placate the oppressors will only invite further persecution. The source of
freedom in everyday life for gay men and lesbians is continued vigilance and practical
political action.
36

68. More modernly, one of Gagnon's ideological descendants on the APAs Lesbian, Gay
and Bisexual Concerns Office, Clinton Anderson, stated: We cannot take into account what are
fundamentally negative religious perceptions of homosexualitythey dont fit into our world
view (Carey, 2007).

35
Declaration of Jack Drescher CV, "Queer Diagnoses: Parallels and Contrasts in the History of Homosexuality,
Gender Variance, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual," 2009.
36
Gagnon, John, The Journal of Sex Research. February 1987, p. 124.

69. Herek discusses "stigma" in the sense that it is "socially constructed, [and] it can change
over time as social norms and mores change." Herek Decl., Para. 16. Herek further states that
sexual stigma is "shared knowledge about the negative regard, inferior status, and relative
powerlessness that society collectively accords to nonheterosexual behaviors, attractions, identity,
relationships, and communities." Herek Decl., Para. 17. In his analysis of "stigma," Herek fails to
mention the documented rates of abuse, disease, suicide, and other deleterious effects not
stemming from "societal disapproval," but from the behaviors inherent in certain homosexual
practices and behaviors. Laws and societal mores discouraging risky, unhealthy, and harmful
behaviors are a good thing, and are woven throughout our culture. See Exhibit B.
70. Assuming, arguendo, that "sexual stigma is a source of stress" and manifests itself
through "heightened psychological distress among...adolescents" (Herek Decl., Para. 19), Herek
(and A3371) ignore perfectly legitimate methods of resolving that distress in a manner consistent
with a minor's religious beliefs. If anything, Herek's statements on "stigma-as-stress" shows that
the distress these individuals may feel is not related entirely (or at all) toward SOCE, and
moreover, A3371 mandates only one form of counseling, and one that may in fact create more
stress by being in opposition to a minor's sincerely (and strongly-held) rational, moral, and
religious beliefs.
71. In attacking SOCE, Herek discusses the inherent unreliability of self-reports on sexual
attraction, as well as the infeasibility of "[o]btaining reliable reports from an objective, third-
party observer" (Herek Decl., Para. 32, FN 33), all of which apply to Kinsey's methods and
subsequent work product. Kinsey was anything but an "objective...observer," but was a closet
sexual psychopath, hence all laws and public policies now reflect his sexual pathologies. As a
pornographically addicted, sadomasochist, bi/homosexual pedophile Kinsey could not (and did

not) produce legitimate data on "normal" human sexual behavior. Kinsey had a personal need to
change sex laws in the 1950s into the laws he needed. As the law was, it criminalized his sexual
behaviors. Thus, Kinsey assembled a like-minded cohort to produce his desired results,
fabricating and discarding undesired data. He "forced" answers from subjects. He took sex
histories from persons wildly aberrant: homosexuals, sadomasochists, petty and major
criminals, prostitutes, pimps, pedophiles, draft dodgers, drunkards, and prisoners. He used this
collection of sexual deviants to fabricate conclusions about the mores of normal society. Most
important, Kinseys research protocol involved the criminal sexual torture of infants and
children to establish children as sexual from birth. (See Exhibit C, Table 34 in Appendix A).
72. Herek discusses negative reports about SOCE derived from "questionnaire studies,
clinical case studies, and anecdotal reports rather than controlled experiments" which "are
important because they raise serious questions about whether SOCE may be harmful to many
who undergo it." Herek Decl., Para. 40. Judged by this standard, documented proof of scientific
fraud and crimes against children by Alfred Kinsey "raise serious questions" about the entire
construct of the field of sexology, and therefore, A3371 insofar as it is based upon the testimony
of Herek and the other so-called experts.
73. Herek concludes by returning to the Kinsey-scale-based assertion that "homosexuality is
a normal expression of human sexuality" and attributes distress in individuals' lives to "stigma"
(Herek Decl., Para. 45).
Declaration of Haldeman
74. In Paragraph 8, Haldeman makes a moral judgment cloaked in the language of "science"
that the "belief that homosexual orientation is undesirable" is "unscientific." Haldeman Decl.,
Para. 8. Science cannot answer moral questions. It can tell us what "is," but not what "ought to

be." It can inform our moral decisions, but it cannot make them for us, and where it is faulty
"science," it does society a great disservice. See Reisman, Stolen Innocence. Regardless of
Haldeman's faulty moral judgment here, there is ample evidence to the undesirability of a
homosexual orientation. Note the 2011 CDC study HIV Surveillance in Adolescents and Young
Adults showing that greater than 94% of newly-reported HIV infections in youths ages 13-19
occur from male-to-male sexual activity.
75. Haldeman refers to "LGB youth," under a Kinsey-based diagnostic standard, rather than
"sexually confused" youth, under a rational standard. Haldeman Decl., Para. 11. Kinseyan
scholars have struggled to find a genetic or innate cause of homosexuality, only to find none.
76. Haldeman states that the "harms inflicted on minors ["children"] who are exposed to
SOCE therapies may be exacerbated by the fact that an individuals brain tissue in the pre-frontal
cortex is still developing and changing rapidly during early adolescence and teenage years. These
cellular changes in brain tissue leave the mid-brain (repository of emotional responses) much
more vulnerable to the potentially traumatic effects of SOCE." Haldeman Decl., Para. 13.
Haldeman is correct that the undeveloped, emerging, youthful brain has special needs, but
arrives at the wrong conclusion. Pioneering neurologist A.R. Luria defined the three components
of a healthy brain as 1) to be alert, awake, aware of reality; 2) to collect and store environmental
data and, 3) to monitor and correct our conduct for health and well-being. The realization that
the Teenage brain [is] a work in progress underscores how the three tasks of the human brain
are compromised by addiction lures for drugs, alcohol, pornography and other sexually explicit
content in visual and print media, not to mention actual, physical life experiences. Since youthful
brain restructuring is automatic, male sexual behavior (heterosexual or homosexual) is a function
of the restructured brain architecture engendered by key stimuli. See Reisman, Restructuring the

Immature Brain, Report for the The Institute for Media Education & California Protective
Parents, Assoc., 2008.
77. In opposition to the claims of Haldeman that minors are "particularly susceptible" to
familial and faith "coercion," minors are just as susceptible to the propagandist nature of LGBT
materials and imagery with which they are bombarded in schools, media, and other contacts.
Turning his statement 180 degrees, "minors may also have difficulty separating what they [think]
they want from what [the homosexual community]" tells them they should want, and an "[LGBT
lifestyle] may appear to some of these minors to provide a means to gain approval and to
conform their identities and behaviors to [homosexual community] expectations and hopes. But
minors often do not understand the risks, and may not understand that [resolving root causes
through SOCE therapy] could help them feel better and resolve conflicts between their sexual
orientation, their family expectations, and, where applicable, their own religious values without
risking severe harm [inherent in an LGBT lifestyle]. Haldeman Decl., Para. 14. Haldeman's
claim that family and faith is to blame for conflict in teens is disingenuous in the face of a
concerted onslaught of New Jersey schools offering grooming material in sex-ed classes; "safe
spaces" affirming homosexuality; LGBT propaganda books, posters and media; and pro-
homosexual counseling.
37
In combination with these, LGBT centers in New Jersey offering
approval, a substitute home life, sense of community and adult role models, all seeking to
distance confused teens from parents, faith, and other traditional sources of support - it is thus
unsurprising to find youth confused about their sexual identities, and thereby, experiencing
stress.. See HIV Surveillance in Adolescents and Young Adults CDC study regarding greater

37
See p. 17, N.J. Family Policy Council, Index of Leading Cultural Indicators (Vol. 3 2002), available at
http://www.njfpc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/NJindex01-02_Final.pdf.


than 94% of newly-reported HIV infections in youths ages 13-19 occur from male-to-male
sexual activity. See also FBI Crimes Against Children Unit testimony of Michael Heimback
before United States Senate Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security
discussion of child sex "grooming" activity.
38

78. Haldeman states that "A competent therapist treating a client with strong religious beliefs
assists the client in understanding the source and emotional consequences of any conflicts
between experience and belief, and in negotiating a healthy life course in light of accurate
knowledge...". Haldeman Decl., Para. 24. Indeed, accurate knowledge is necessary in order to
help minors and adults negotiate a "healthy life course." The accuracy of Haldeman's assertions
about the nature of homosexuality is at issue. For the record, there is a massive conflict of
interest between Haldeman's investment in the validation of his own "out" homosexual lifestyle
(which also goes for Drescher), and his ability to be objective and honest with children who are
struggling with their sexual confusion.. In contrast with Haldeman's assertion that "minors are
often forced into SOCE by their parents who refuse to accept the fact that their child may be
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender" (Haldeman Decl., Para. 26.) LGBT advocates and their
allies are inducting minors into homosexuality on a massive scale by exposure to sexually
explicit imagery and faulty data through a variety of mediums, all of which turns upon the work
of Alfred Kinsey. Indeed, the individual (and this court) must be "allowed to make truly
informed decisions about...life" based on the totality of the facts. Haldeman Decl., Para. 26.
Conclusion
79. Alfred C. Kinsey (the father of the sexual revolution, and of the human sexuality and sex
education fields globally) was directly responsible for the mass sexual torture of between 317 and 2,035

38
http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/supreme-courts-child-pornography-decision,

children for his books, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human
Female (1953). Please note that my book Sexual Sabotage includes reproductions of Kinseys original
five child torture Tables 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, beginning on page 25.
80. I republished the Kinsey child Tables from his own books, where he reported these torturesas
infant and child orgasms and pages 160 and 161 on which he testified that 196 boy infants and children,
under age 12 had 6 types of orgasms, including terror, screaming, and fainting.
81. Kinsey is documented now as a pornography addict who forced his wife and his team
to participate in his pornographic films made on campus and in his attic. He is also documented
as engaging in masturbatory self-torture so punishing that it did perhaps fatal damage to his
sexual organs. It is documented that he abandoned his wife for sex with multiples of males of
unknown ages; that his team was expected to practice adultery and homosexuality, that he hired
only those researchers who shared similar perversions, and most important, that he deliberately
employed pedophiles, actually pederasts, including members of the nascent NAMBLA
organization, to help gather child sex orgasms, that is, to, under his orders, rape and catalogue
children, as young as 2 months of age, using stop watches to record their screams, cries and
convulsions. Kinsey defined these responses as child orgasms. It is also proven, that he
himself collected ejaculate from hundreds of young boys, putting him directly at the scene of
these violent crimes. The attached Table 34 bears silent witness of the sexual torture of children
by the Kinsey team.
82. A compromised foundation compromises the edifice constructed thereon. A poisoned
fount poisons the societal (and scientific) stream of consciousness, leading to toxic studies and
toxic policy decisions. Kinsey created fraudulent homosexual data from his torture of children
and his interviews of non-representative, aberrant samples of American society. Kinsey's data are
the ideological and psychological ancestor of A3371. Like its source, A3371 seeks to facilitate

the crimes of a new generation of sexual psychopaths who increasingly abuse children. Without
Alfred Kinsey and his legions of depraved child-sex advocates, Bayer, Davies, Drescher,
Haldeman, and Herek are no experts.
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States and New Jersey that
the foregoing statements are true and correct.
Executed this __20th__ day of September, 2013

___/s/ Judith Reisman__
Judith Gerlernter Reisman, PhD

EXHIBIT A

Curriculum Vitae
Brief Vitae of Judith A. Reisman, PhD
AUTHOR: BOOK PUBLICATIONS
Sexual Sabotage, WND Books, Washington DC, 2010
Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, The Institute for Media Education, Crestwood, KY, 1998,
2000, 2003, 2011
Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation, with Charles B.
Johnson, Ph.D., The Institute For Media Education, Arlington Virginia, 1995
Soft Porn Plays Hardball, Huntington House, Lafayette, LA, 1991
Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Judith Reisman et al., Huntington House, Lafayette, LA, 1990
Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler
US Dep. Justice Grant No. 84-JN-AX-K007, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990
DOJ website citation (link opens new window)

EDUCATION
Ph.D. 1980 in Communications, Case Western Reserve University M.A. 1976 in
Communications, Case Western Reserve University

ACADEMIC POSITIONS
Visiting Professor of Law, Liberty University School of Law, 2011
Adjunct faculty, George Mason University, 1990
Research Full Professor, The American University, 1983-85
Asst./Assoc. Prof., (Martze) University of Haifa, Israel, 1981-83

PARTIAL LIST OF INCLUSIONS/CITATIONS TO RESEARCH AND FINDINGS IN
BOOKS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS:
Savage, M., (2005) Liberalism is a Mental Disorder, Nashville, Tennessee, Nelson
Current. Savage's criticism of Kinsey's use of fraudulent data and sex crimes against
children to launch the sexual revolution
Kupelian, D., (2005) The Marketing of EVIL, Nashville, Tennessee, WND Books, The
citation of Reisman's findings of Kinsey's fraudulent data and sex crimes against
children launched a bizarre and aborted faculty attack on Ohio State University
Reference librarian, Scott Savage, April-May 2006--as of this writting Mr..
Savage is contemplating defamation litigation
Brinkman, S., (2004) The Kinsey Corruption: An Expose, Catholic Standard and Times,
Ascension Press, West Chester PA (book based on Reisman's findings)
Wagner, T., (2003) Back to the Drawing Board, "The Kinsey Culture: Sex on Demand,
Abortion on Demand," South Bend, St. Augustine's Press (chapter)
Kastleman, M. (2001) Internet Pornography: The Drug of the New Millennium, Orem,
Jones, E. Michael (2000) Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control,
South Bend IN: St. Augustine's Press (citation)
Ericksen, J. and Steffen, S., Kiss and Tell: Surveying Sex in the Twentieth Century, Jones,
Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1999 (citation)


E. Michael (1993) Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior,
San Francisco, CA, Ignatius (citation)

Chalfant, J. (1999) Abandonment Theology: The Clergy and the Decline of American
Christianity, Winter Park, FL (citation)
Mack, D. (1997) The Assault on Parenthood Simon and Schuster, (citation)
Brennen, W. (1995) Dehumanizing the Vulnerable, Loyola University Press (citation)
Zillmann, D. (1994) Media, Children and The Family, NJ: Erlbaum (JAR article)
Ruggiero, V.R. (1994) Warning, Nonsense is Destroying America, Nashville: Nelson
(citation)
Wolinsky, M. (1993) Gays and the Military, Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ:
Judge Gasch's ruling and the Lancet cite to Dr. Reisman on Kinsey's fraud.
Hattermer, B. (1993) Don't Touch That Dial, Lafayette, LA: Huntington House (JAR
article)
Trento, S. (1992) The Power House, NYC: The New Press (citation)
Kincaid, C. (1992) The Playboy Foundation, Washington DC: Capital Research Center
(citation)
Bolton, R. (1992) Cultural Wars, NYC: The New Press (JAR article)
Osaka, F. (1989) Source Book of Pornography, MA: Lexington (citation)
Zimbardo, P. (1988) Psychology and Life, MA: Scott, Foreman (citation)
Mawyer, M. (1987) Silent Shame. Westchester, IL: Crossways (citation)
Burgess, A. (1986) Sexual Exploitation of Patients, NYC: Garland (JAR article)
McCuen, E. (1985) Pornography and Sexual Violence, WI: Gem (JAR article)
Lederer, Laura (1981) Take Back the Night, NYC: Bantam (JAR article/interview)
Skirball Museum (1974) A Walk Through the Past, CA: Hebrew Union College (JAR
epic poem)

GUEST LECTURER
Liberty University
Princeton University
Georgetown University
American University
University of Jerusalem
University of Haifa
Rutherford Institute
Texas Woman's University
Clarkson College
Notre Dame University
University of Kentucky
Pepperdine University
Council for National Policy
Human Life International
Johns Hopkins University Medical School
Tel Aviv University
Accuracy in Academic
Accuracy in Media
Concerned Women for America
Rutherford Institute
The Abstinence Clearinghouse
American Society of Criminology
North Carolina Psychiatric Association
Israeli Army Air Force Academy, Israel
International Assoc. of Police Women
Criminal Division/Executive US Attorney
NOVA, NCASA, CCAVE, NCTV, NET...
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Vice and Police Organizations
Child Protection Organizations
United States Air Force Academy, Colorado
etc.

EXPERT WITNESS: COURT, MILITARY, CIVIC HEARINGS
Expert Witness: Senate Hearing on "The Science Behind Pornography Addiction"
Science, Technology and Space Committee, November 18, 2004
Invited Paper: HR 3300: The Military Honor & Decency Act (Pornography Law) May
1996
Invited Paper: South Africa Film and Publications Bill of 1995 (Pornography Law) 1995
Briefed: Selected Lansing Michigan Legislators (Pornography Law) May 1994
Briefed: Kirkland & Ellis (Re: Oral Argument, United States v. Knox) April 1994
Briefed: Australian Parliament Standing Committee on Social Issues (Media Effects)
1992, 1994
Invited Paper: Ontario Human rights Commission (Pornography Effects) 1993
Invited Paper: Senate Committee on Armed Services (Homosexuality) July 1993
Briefed: Army Chief of Staff Gordon Sullivan, Senator Malcolm Wallop (Homosexuality
in the Military) December 1993 Invited Paper,
Testimony: Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces
1992
Briefed: Inspector General Roland Griffith (Homosexuality) December 1993
Expert Research Younger et al., v. Stroh (Federal Court Sex Harassment) 1992
Testified: Australian Parliament, Senate Select Committee (X & R Rated Effects) April
1992
Invited Paper: Office of US Surgeon General (Mass Media Harms) March 1992
Testified: State of Georgia Senate Ed Committee (Kinsey-Sex Ed Curriculum) February
1992
Testified: Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office: OH (Mapplethorpe Trial) August &
October 1990
Testified: City Council; Newport News, VA (Nude Dancing & Public Order) June 1986
Invited Paper: US Attorney General Commission on Pornography: NYC (Effects)
January 1986
Testified: US Attorney General Commission on Pornography; Miami (Effects) November
1985
Invited Paper: US Attorney general Task Force, Domestic Violence: DC (Effects) August
1985
Testified: Michigan State Senate Juvenile Justice, Corrections: MI (Effects) October
1980

SELECTED GRANTS/POSITIONS
Bureau of Justice Assistance, US Department of Justice: Grant Reviewer, "Reducing
Community Gun Violence" 2002
Bureau of Justice Assistance, US Department of Justice: Grant Reviewer, Evaluation of
Child Protection Proposals, 1991
HHS: Administrator for Children, Youth, and Families: Grant Reviewer 1991
Eastern Division Vice Investigators Association: Inservice Trainer 1987-89
HHS Dept. of Substance Abuse Prevention: Research Paper 1989
Skaggs Foundation: Visual Literacy Training Grant 1987-89
Department of Education: "Drug Free Schools" Grant Reviewer 1987
Department of Education: "Drug Free Videos" Grant Reviewer 1985
Georgetown Pediatrics Department: Inservice Training Seminars Grand Rounds 1984
FBI Academy: Erotica/Pornography Effects: Inservice Training Seminar/Video 1983
OJJDP Missing Children - Serial Murder Task Force: Inservice Trainer 1983-85
DOJ Office of Juvenile Justice: Principal Investigator, Pornography, Media Research
1983-94
Israel Science Ministry Department of Sex Education: Kinsey and Inservice trainer,
Media 1980-83
Scholastics Magazine, NYC: Art & Education Writer, Producer 1970-80
Milwaukee Public Museum: Art/Anthropology Television Writer, Producer 1970s
Cleveland Museum of Art: Art/Head Start, Education Videos/Captain Kangaroo 1970s
Los Angeles Skirball Museum: History/Archeology Educational Videos 1966-81
Captain Kangaroo CBSTV: Segment Producer, Performance Artist 1976-1982

PAST/PRESENT ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER
Science Adviser, California Protective Parents Association
Science Adviser, Education Task Force, SubCommittee on Science Fraud in the Classroom, for
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
Founder, Institute of Media Education and the Family, Israel
Bereaved Parents Association (Juvenile autoerotic deaths), AZ
Paul & Lisa, Inc. (Child prostitute rescue organization), CT
Accuracy in Academia, Washington, D.C.

SELECTED JOURNAL ARTICLES
Regent University Law Review 2002
International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, (Netherlands) 1992 (cite)
The Journal of Human Sexuality (Lewis & Stanley) 1996
Law & Justice: The Christian Law Review (UK) 1995
Collected Papers from the National Association for Research & Therapy of
Homosexuality Conference (NARTH) July 1995
Ethnology and Sociobiology (USA) 1984
New Universities Quarterly: Culture, Education, and Society (UK) 1981
Journal of Educational Thought and Practice in Collective Settlements (Israel) 1983
New York University Review of Law and Social Change (USA) 1978-79
Women Speaking (UK) July-September 1978
"A Walk Through the Past," Los Angeles Skirball Museum, (Hebrew Union College)
1974

PAST/PRESENT SELECTED MEMBERSHIPS
Distinguished Senior Fellow, The Inter-American Institute
Women in Neuroscience
The American Statistical Association
The Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health
Western Society of Criminology
National Association of Scholars
National Council on Family Relations
American Public Health Association
The New York Academy of Sciences
The International Communication Associations
The National Black Child Development Institute Research
Council on Ethnopsychology
The Society for the Scientific Study of Sex
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
The World Association of Infant Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (Fellow)

MEDIA/PRESS CITATIONS AND APPEARANCES
Ted Baehr Movieguide
The American Spectator
The Weekly Standard
Fidelity - The Australian
The London Times
TIME
New Dimensions
The Los Angeles Times
Reader's Digest, April 1997
The Lancet (British Medical Journal)
International German Medical tribune - Science
The Scientist
Archives of Sexual Behavior
The (British Physicians) Quarterly
Newsweek
700 Club, CBN NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS,
The Washington Post
The National Review, May 19, 1997 "Cover Story"
German Arts Television
Dutch Television - Faith Daniels (NBC)
Entertainment Tonight
O'Reilly - Jenny Jones
BBC, Great Britain
The Washington Times
Larry King Live
Donahue
The Today Show
People are Talking
Sally Jesse Raphael
Crier & Crier
Crossfire, CNN
The Princeton Peninsula
The New York Times
D. James Kennedy

SELECTED MEDIA CO-AWARDS
Learning Magazine, Best Filmstrip of Year, w/ Scholastics 1981-82
US Industrial Film Festival Gold Camera w/ Scholastics 1982
Dukane Award Outstanding Creative Sound Films w/ Scholastics 1982
US Industrial Film Festival Silver Camera w/ Scholastics 1982
ACT Award Children Music w/CBSTV Captain Kangaroo 1976-79
1st Place Local PSA/TV series w/ Jewish Family Service Assoc. 1974

SELECTED PAST/PRESENT HONORS
"Guardian of the Light Award" The Lighted Candle Society, 2006
"Research Award" The Abstinece Clearinghouse, 2005
"Protector of Children" Citizens for Families, 2005
Nomination by the US Dpt of Defense Inspector General, 2003 (link opens new window)
Interview at Awards ceremony with BrotherWatch, 2003 (link opens new window)
"Save Our Children Scientist Of The Year For 1993," The Save Our Children National Alliance
Who's Who in Science and Engineering
The World Who's Who of Women
Who's Who of American Women
International Who's Who in Education
International Who's Who in Sexology
Two Thousand Notable Americans
International Book of Honor

WORLDWIDE COURTS AND LEGISLATURES PRESENCE
Past Consultant: California Judicial Investigative Task Force, American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) on Sex Science Fraud (see also: THE ALEC REPORT)
US Senate, Washington DC: US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation, The Science Behind Pornography Addiction - November 18, 2004
Description: Dr. Reisman provided expert testimony examining brain science related to
pornography addiction and the effects of such addiction on families and communities.
INTERNATIONALLY
THE NETHERLANDS, October 1994: Amsterdam District Court Judge, Mr. U.W. Bentinck,
ruled against Playboy's demands for retractions and reparations following Dr. Reisman's
appearance in a Dutch public tv broadcast, in which results from Reisman's DOJ study Images of
Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler were discussed.
SOUTH AFRICA, October 2003: The South African Constitutional Court relied upon Dr.
Reisman's research on the impact of pornography on brain, mind, memory in its decision to halt
legal leeway for the distribution of child pornography in South Africa.
SOUTH AFRICA, 1995: The Office of the Attorney General thanks Dr. Reisman for "your
knowledge and your expertise.... your assistance in saving this nation from a potential disaster....
we have achieved a major victory on the pornography front.... which would not have been
possible without the aid of your expert knowledge, books, videos and articles."Dr. Reisman's
testimony on the ways graphic, antisocial imagery reconfigures brain, mind and memory helped
pass The Film and Publications Bill of 1995, by an overwhelming majority of 300 votes,
prohibiting child pornography in any form (written, visual, cartoon, "artistic" or pseudo), and
prohibiting current types of "adult" pornography.
AUSTRALIA, Parliament 1994 and 1992: Following her April 6, 1992 invited testimony and
report on pornography and the harm factor to the Senate Select Committee on Community
Standards, Parliament banned "X" Rated materials from pay cable TV, while her March 1994
research paper aided Parliament's decision, based on harm, to similarly ban "R" Rated materials
from pay cable TV.
CANADA, Supreme Court 1992: Dr. Reisman provided briefing materials on pornography and
harm, aiding the Canadian Supreme Court's unanimous decision February 27, 1992 to ban all
pornography as "obscene" as it undermines equality by degrading, subjugating and
dehumanizing women. Subsequently, in 1993, Dr. Reisman was tasked by the Ontario Human
Rights Commission to produce a research paper, "Pornography in Neighborhood Convenience
Stores: Neurochemical Effects on Women," for a pornography case challenging the new law--
results pending
NEW ZEALAND, Tribunal 1991 and 1989: Dr. Reisman's research was delivered by-proxy
via Dr. John Court to the New Zealand Pornography Commission investigations in 1989. She
was again asked for, and delivered, written testimony to the New Zealand Indecency Tribunal in
1991.
ISRAEL, Knesset 1982: Dr. Reisman founded a media monitoring, non-profit foundation in
Israel, funded by private and public sources that have presented findings on Israeli media to the
Knesset and throughout Israel. At minimum, major corrections and improvements were made in
controlling advertisements, largely due to Dr. Reisman's data collection, cadre training, and
public dissemination of information.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
MASSACHUSETTS, 1989: Oakes v. Massachusetts, 491 U.S. 576 (1989). Massachusetts
Attorney General, James Shannon cited Dr. Reisman's DOJ, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention study in this successful brief and in oral appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Shannon
wrote (1/8/90):
I contacted Dr. Reisman in connection with an important child pornography case,
Massachusetts v. Oakes...that I argued in the United States Supreme Court in January
1989...I had to convince the court that both nude and sexually explicit photographs of
children were exploitive and harmful. To make the point, I quoted Dr. Reisman's study,
"Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler
Magazines," in which she showed that sexually exploitive photographs of children
condone and promote a distorted view of sexuality, often by pairing...sexuality and
violence, or depicting children as desiring sexual activity with adults.
OHIO, 1989: Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990). Amici cited "Neurochemical Evidence
Shows That People React Differently To Pictures Than They Do To Words Raising New First
Amendment Considerations" and thanks "Dr. Judith Reisman for her valuable development of
this concept" (:23) and, "J. Reisman's New York Review of Law and Social Change," (1979)
where she addressed media, science and civil rights.
On behalf of the Amici in Osborne v. Ohio.... thanks for your invaluable assistance rendered to
us in researching and writing this brief.Your ideas on how the visual images effect people
substantially more than the written word is indeed a new concept and could have many
significant ramifications in the area of the First Amendment.If in fact the court and legislatures
do believe that visual images, specifically of sexual, sexually violent and violent material, will
have a greater impact on people in general and children in particular, there may be justification
for more strict legislation in these areas than would apply to the written material.Moreover,
under a First Amendment analysis, since the harm is greater, there would be more of a
compelling state interest to have stricter laws. (H. Robert Showers, 10/12/89).
USA LOWER COURTS
Crawford v. Lungren, 96 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 1996). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit upheld the right of California's news rack laws to protect minors in support of Amici
arguments by the National Law Center for Children and Families. Amici cited to Reisman's
Canadian paper,"Pornography in Neighborhood Convenience Stores: Neurochemical Effects on
Women," that "Images reach the brain more quickly than print" (:15).
Steffan v. Cheney, 780 F.Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1991), affd by Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d 677 (D.C.
Cir. 1994). The U.S. States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The lower
court in 1991, under Judge Oliver Gash, cited Reisman's book in rejecting Steffan's military
reinstatement. To answer Steffan's appeal, in 1994, Colonel Ronald Ray Esq., Ret., and Reisman
filed an Amicus brief on behalf of the Naval Aviation Foundation in support of the Department
of Defense ruling, that homosexuality and sexual conduct are inseparable. General P.X. Kelley,
former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Commandant of The Marine Corps, wrote
Reisman's "groundbreaking work in Kinsey, Sex & Fraud," (October 5, 1994) was needed in the
Steffan case. We won.
United States v. Knox, 32 F.3d 733 (3d Cir. 1994). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
District, ruled in support of arguments presented in the Institute for Media Education Amicus
and Arnold & Porter written with Colonel Ron Ray and Randall Shaheen, citing Reisman's
research on images and for OJJDP, to protect children from use in child pornography.
TEXAS, 1993: Despite obstructions, the Court's successful use of Dr. Reisman's findings
continues. A Texas prosecutor wrote the following:
As a prosecuting attorney, I have tried approximately 35 obscenity jury trials in which the
defense has called a sociologist as an expert witness on community standards. Your book,
Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, has proven invaluable on cross-examination. This sociologist studied at
the Kinsey Institute and bases a lot of expert opinions on his studies at that institute. To be able
to point out to the jury the fraud that Alfred Kinsey and his institute have perpetrated is a very
effective tool... I encourage you to continue your work in this area to point out to the public the
frauds sociology and psychology have given us (March 8, 1993).
Ohio v. Contemporary Arts Center, 735 F. Supp. 743 (S.D. Ohio 1990) Mapplethorpe art trial;
obscenity. Judge of the Hamilton County Municipal Court entered upon the premises of CAC
and videotaped each photograph on display. The presiding judge rules in agreement with Dr.
Reisman's expert testimony re: what was Mapplethorpe's artistic "whole" to be viewed by the
jury. Judge David J. Albanese cites directly from Reisman's definition of what "an image" is and
how the image works on viewers.
"The Court finds that each photograph has a separate identity; each photograph has a visual
and unique image permanently recorded."
-- The Washington Post, September 7, 1990, p. B5
Frank Prouty, the State prosecutor writes: As you know, the State filed a Motion in Limine
regarding what constituted the "whole" as that issue related to the Mapplethorpe exhibit. Your
testimony was critical to the Motion, and your testimony ensured a favorable ruling for the
State... The issues and interpretation you presented concerning the child photographs and the
remaining photographs substantiated the prosecution's view... The perspective you established
was both concise and persuasive, and should be considered in any interpretation of pornography
and its affect in both children and adults (March 4, 1991).
CALIFORNIA, 1989: Ventura County Superior Court cites Reisman's research to convict child
pornography Hustler cartoonist, Dwaine Tinsley. Mr. Hardy indicated that your report [Dr.
Reisman's "Images of Children, Crime and Violence"] was extremely helpful throughout the
prosecution of the Tinsley case. Mr. Hardy used the report as a reference source for putting
together his closing arguments, and for his cross examination... Mr. Hardy considers your report
to be a great piece of work, and has recommended the report ... to the National Association of
District Attorneys ... your report ... was a great help in the prosecution of this case (March 28,
1989).
Dr. Reisman has been successfully consulted on sexual harassment in the Minnesota workplace;
on a mother's rights to child custody from an AIDS father in Kentucky; in testimony before the
Attorney General's Commission on pornography; on homosexual versus parents rights in a
Connecticut classroom on fraudulent sex education in Falmouth schools. She is currently
consultant for a first amendment versus parental rights case involving one government school, in
a second school versus parents' case involving subversion of parents to provide contraception to
minors and a third case involving sexual harassment in the workplace.
LEGISLATION
WASHINGTON, D.C., December 1995: HR 2749, The Child Protection and Ethics in
Education Act, is introduced.A Bill to determine if Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the
Human Male and/or Sexual Behavior in the Human Female are the result of any fraud or
criminal wrongdoing: 41 co-sponsors; carried over to 1997-1998 legislature to investigate the
Kinsey data.This Bill is the culmination of Dr. Reisman's 20-years of research and advocacy for
children.A Senate hearing waits in the wings.
MINNESOTA, 1993: After a last-minute briefing and presentation of pedophile exhibits by Dr.
Reisman to Minnesota legislators, "affectional orientation" language, which allows children to be
in legal sexual relationships with adults, is removed from two pending Minnesota laws.
GEORGIA, 1992: Heeding Dr. Reisman's exhibits and expert testimony on February 13, 1992,
the State of Georgia House Education Subcommittee terminates Georgia's then mandated sex
education curriculum due to its false, Kinseyan database.The educator who organized the
legislative event credits Reisman's data, additionally, with the overwhelming legislative defeat of
the homosexual/sex education lobby, by a house vote of 150-1 and a Senate vote of 48-6.The
legislature prohibits teaching youths illegal behavior such as sodomy, adultery, and
fornication.(C. Weatherly, Education Analysis & Research Systems, June 11, 1992).
WASHINGTON, D.C., 1991: Congressman William E. Danneymeyer cites Dr. Reisman's
Kinsey fraud findings in a floor debate, which helped sway cancellation of a proposed $18
million dollar teen-sex survey (TIME, August 5, 1991: 27), viewed by the national sex-education
monopoly as a major defeat in their efforts to modify American youth.
VIRGINIA, 1986: Dr. Peter Anderson wrote:"The City Council voted 7-0 in favor of banning
topless dancing ... due to Dr. Reisman's knowledge of the material and her ability to present it in
such a clear and concise manner.I encourage anyone to have Dr. Reisman address either their
citizens or community leaders if they need help in fighting pornography in the local community".
(June 1986).
MICHIGAN, circa 1980: Testimony to the Michigan State Senate Juvenile Justice Corrections,
to aid decision-making on pornography harms.
MISCELLANEOUS USA
ILLINOIS, 1994: As an expert on "Cultural Diversity," Dr. Reisman's presentation of evidence,
citing to the use of Kinsey's findings in the planned curriculum, successfully aided parents in
eliminating a $600,000 mandated Diversity program in Springfield, Illinois schools.
MISSOURI, 1988: Missouri Department of Corrections. A Corrections psychologist writes that
a group formed to study eliminating Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler, and all other pornography
from the prison system. A call to Missouri corrections finds all pornography but Playboy banned.
"Two males within the administrative structure, who reportedly saw no problem with
pornography within our system, were greatly swayed in favor of its removal once they read your
report...[One] often attempted to sway policy toward allowing pornography to pacify inmates. He
now is a member of our committee to halt and ban incoming pornography. Yours was the only
report he read." (10/26/88)
COVER STORY in The National Review, MAY 19, 1997 "Mortal Sins": "The sexual
revolution was based on a lie. Judith Reisman has spent thirty years uncovering the truth," by
Tom Bethell [and] featured in the Reader's Digest, (4/97), "Sex, Lies and the Kinsey Report."

Comments on Dr. Reisman and her work
Dr. Reisman's scholarly findings have had international legislative and scientific import in the
United States, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, while The German Medical Tribune
and the British medical journal, The Lancet demanded that the Kinsey Institute be investigated,
saying:
The Kinsey reports (one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later) claimed that
sexual activity began much earlier in life.... and displayed less horror of age differences and
same-sex relationships than anyone at the time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr. Porter again,
"Anything goes". In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues
demolish the foundations of the two reports ... Kinsey et al ... questioned an unrepresentative
proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of "normal" sexual behavior.
Presumably some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation
to orgasm in young children that can only have come from pedophiles--or so it must be hoped.
Kinsey.... has left his former co-workers some explaining to do. The Lancet, (Vol. 337: March 2,
1991, p. 547).
Dr. Laura J. Lederer, as Sr Advisor on Trafficking, Office for Global Affairs, U.S.
Department of State: "Dr. Judith Reisman [is] one of the world's most brilliant theorists on
child sexual exploitation." In the 1980s, Dr. Reisman conducted the first and largest content
analysis of Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler and exposed the child pornography images in them.
She has also done groundbreaking work on Albert Kinsey, proving that [his team] performed
sexual experiments on children and infants, and calling into question his entire body of work, a
body of work that some claim began the so-called sexual revolution. In some ways she is the
fore-mother of today's anti-trafficking work."
Cmdr. Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. author of Sex-Related Homicide and Death
Investigation: Practical and Clinical Perspectives and Practical Homicide Investigation:
Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques: "Dr. Judith Reisman's book Sexual Sabotage is
a bright beacon of light and truth shining through a world permeated with the smog of Kinsey
generated pathological sexual behavior. Sexual Sabotage is a very well-researched book
establishing how the morals and religious legacy of Judeo-Christianity were hijacked by the
pseudo science of Alfred Kinsey, who spawned a sex science cult to normalize his own sexual
perversions." Dr. Reisman co-authored Chapter One, "Human Sexuality and Sexual Deviance:
Research and Reality" for the Second Edition of Geberth's foundational work, Sex-Related
Homicide and Death Investigation.
J. Robert Flores, Esq., Former Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, United States Department of Justice: "Judith Reisman has had the courage as a
researcher to do the most important thing, keep an open mind and allow the data and the research
to influence and guide her work. Her work shines an important light on topics that seem to
receive attention from only one direction in the academic community. Policy makers,
foundations, and research institutions should carefully consider the issues she raises so that social
re-engineering and personal agendas are not funded in the future and given the shine that comes
from being associated with major donors, institutions, and foundations."
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of On Killing and On Combat: "Dr. Judith Reisman is a
national treasure. Her latest book, Sexual Sabotage, strikes a blow and sounds the clarion call
for a return to decency and goodness in our civilization. With important new information, and
incisive writing and logic, she expands and expounds on her past work to identify the full
spectrum of "a treasonous moneyed cult of sexual deviants" who led us down the path to decay
and destruction. And she charts a course for us to cast off the sexual tyranny and perversion of a
"closeted clan of impotent, sexual psychopaths" to return from the dark and tragic place to which
we have traveled, and to regain a culture of virtue, decency and honor."
Shelley Lubben, B.Th., Executive Director, Pink Cross Foundation: "Dr. Reisman's
extraordinary work taught me how and why I was trafficked in prostitution and pornography, and
Jesus Christ showed me the way out and how to help others find that same freedom."
Connie Valentine, M.S., Policy Director, California Protective Parents Association: "As
Scientific Advisor for California Protective Parents Association, the presentation of Dr. Judith
Reisman's Kinsey and Playboy research has enabled CPPA to win hearts, minds and votes in
legislative and family court battles. The historical data in Sexual Sabotage tracking down our
current pedophile, child pornography, and child sex trafficking pandemic should be known by
all; in academe, law enforcement, legislators and the general public. We at the CPPA expect that
Sexual Sabotage will be the impetus for a federal investigation of the Kinsey crimes."
Donna M. Hughes, PhD, Professor, University of Rhode Island: "Judith Reisman is the most
fearless scholar I know. For decades, she has relentlessly researched the history of research and
ideas on sexuality. She has documented the unsavory political motivations behind the most
respected academics of their time. Her scholarship shows us the root of much of the sexual
violence and sex trafficking we see today."
MOVIEGUIDE Founder, Ted Baehr, Esq., PhD.: "Whatever you do, please read everything
Judith Reisman, PhD writes. She offers the diagnosis and the cure to the rampant sexual illness
that is consuming our culture. She has exposed the vile source of the cultural disease and in
doing so has set forth the remedy. There is no one more important to read. Her new book Sexual
Sabotage is highly recommended."
Matthew Barber, Associate Dean for the Center for Career and Professional Development
at Liberty University School of Law: "Dr. Reisman has been a lifelong champion for women
and children. She has done more to expose the crimes and frauds perpetuated by Alfred Kinsey
than anyone else. She is to be commended for her life's work."
Bruce A. Taylor, President & Chief Counsel, National Law Center for Children and
Families: "We should probably call her Detective Reisman for finding the hidden clue to
Kinsey's crimes against children and families. She alone noticed that babies were molested in the
name of Kinsey's macabre science and her book is the victims' grand jury indictment of perhaps
the most destructive sexual revolutionary since Caligula. Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences is a
blueprint for justice for victims of sexual exploitation and abuse. In the face of Kinsey's
handbook for perpetrators, Dr. Reisman is the victims' amicus curiae." (April, 2000)
John L. Harmer, ESQ, Former California GOP Whip and Lieutenant Governor under
Ronald Reagan: "There is no one in the entire world, let alone the United States, better qualified
to present this essential message than Dr. Judith Reisman. If this book does not awaken the
people of America to the reality that this is an issue of national survival, then our fate will be
terrible. I appeal to all who are concerned for the safety of their family, their community, and
their nation to not just read this book, but to study this book."
Tim Tate, Amnesty International Award-winning Producer-Director of "Kinsey's
Paedophiles," Yorkshire TV, Great Britain: "When I first came across Judith Reisman's work
my view of Alfred Kinsey was unquestioningly benign... In the course of producing my
documentary - 'Kinsey's Paedophiles' - it became clear that every substantive allegation Reisman
made was not only true but thoroughly sourced with documentary evidence - despite the Kinsey
Institute's reluctance to open its files. My film built on the foundations laid by Dr. Reisman.
Those foundations - and the additional evidence we uncovered about Kinsey's involvement with
paedophiles who were actively abusing children - make it imperative that his successors at the
Kinsey Institute today allow a rigorous and independent investigation of this dark corner of
human study." (April, 2000)
Robert Sweet, former U.S. Depart. of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Administrator: "Dr. Reisman is a scientist of outstanding exactitude and courage...the massive,
affluent sex industry [has been unable] to show her findings to be incorrect or methodologically
flawed--in even the smallest detail" (August 25, 1994)
Bill Moyers, CBS News: "Dear Professor Reisman: Having read your article in the Washington
Post, I wanted to say that I, for one, believe your research project to be quite important. Our
society faces no more important dilemma, in fact, and I say this as a father, journalist and citizen.
In my role as a journalist, however, I would like to.... explore how your conclusions can be
reported on the air in a responsible way" (June 19, 1985)
Hon. Dr. Marlene Goldsmith, M.L.C. Legislative Council, Australia: "Thank you for your
powerful presentation on Tuesday. There were at least seven Members of Parliament present,
and I have had very favorable responses from most of them.... For those of us fighting this battle
in the trenches, your visit has been an inspiration. Thank you for all you are doing to make the
world a safer place for its children" (November 16, 1992)
The Hon. Dennis Stevenson MLA, Australia: "[Thanks].... in Canberra during your recent
Australian tour.... for the in-depth briefing that you gave Parliamentarians.... [and] your
presentation to the National Press Club Luncheon.... Parliamentarians.... were surprised to learn
that Kinsey's findings have misled many legislators.... [as so much about] human sexuality in the
western world derives from Kinsey" (December 11, 1992)
John Rabun, Deputy Director, Nat. Center for Missing & Exploited Children: Reisman's
"study must be read by all those concerned with the ways pornography and violence in the media
affect the incidence of child sexual exploitation and abuse" (3/24/88).
Dr. Laura Schlessinger: "Dr. Reisman has produced a scholarly and devastating study revealing
the ugly and frighteningly dangerous pseudo-scientific assault on our children's innocence."
(2003)
Susan Trento, Investigative Reporter, Author of The Power House: exposed Playboy's
buying of legislative influence in Washington D.C. to discredit Reisman, whose cataloging of
"children, crime and violence in pictures and cartoons found in Playboy, Penthouse, and
Hustler...made the publishers of these and other magazines very nervous" (1992:194)
The LA Times: Reisman, "delivers a potentially damaging blow...comparing] two
[Mapplethorpe] photographs...to child pornography and [saying] none are fit to hang in an art
museum." (10/5/90) In 1991, Playboy, (whispering counsel to the Mapplethorpe defense)
reported: "I would have taken a .357 Magnum, walked up to her and said, 'Judith, you're history'"
(2/91). Hugh Hefner pens a "letter to the editor" in Canada, 1996, to condemn Reisman's work.
Playboy: "Reisman...is lying with statistics...Playboy never has, never will" sexualize children.
(12/85). She "puts men's magazines on the endangered species list," (10/88)...is "propagating a
new witch-hunt mentality." (2/89)
Tim Philpot, Lawyer/Kentucky Congressman: "We retained the services of Judith Reisman as
an expert witness on the issue of the health, welfare and safety of the four minor children.... Dr.
Reisman's testimony was extremely helpful.... on the behavioral issues relating to the potential
abuse of the children by either the father or his friends" (September 5, 1996)
Pamela Hobbs: "My father, Dr. A. H. Hobbs.... believed your research was excellent." --
University of Pennsylvania sociologist and philosopher, Dr. Albert Hobbs, provided the
scholarship that led the Rockefeller Foundation to abandon Kinsey's grant funds, instead funding
the American Law Institute to implement Kinsey's fraudulent sex data into The Model Penal
Code in order to eliminate or reduce most sex crime penalties. (September 25, 1994)
Law Enforcement Training Conference on Child Sexual Exploitation and Obscenity,
Memphis, Tennessee, on Dr. Reisman as Guest speaker particularly enjoyed the views of Dr.
Judith Reisman and wished she had been able to spend more time with us. Her comments were
right on target ... This seminar changed my total outlook/viewpoint on these type cases. Dr.
Reisman could start a revolution. She's great ... I would have liked to have heard her speak more.
She turned some lights on in my mind. (10/4-5, 1993)
Jerre Thompson, President of Southland 7-11 Corp., Letter to the Attorney General's
Commission on Pornography: [It] became apparent to us--especially from the generally
unrebutted testimony before your Commission-- that respected experts who have studied this
issue very carefully are of the opinion that apparently a very small segment of our society
employs various tools, including adult magazines, to assist in abuses of children and others. This
was strongly pointed out in Judith Reisman's report before the Commission at its [Miami,
Florida] hearing on child pornography. (April 10, 1986)
Sam Houston State University Criminal Justice Center, Texas, announced: "Local
Professional Named to Missing Children-Serial Murderer Task Force: Judith A. Reisman,
Professor at American University in Washington, D.C., has been named to a National task force
(funded by two agencies of the U.S. Department of Justice), given the job of developing the
master plan for a nationwide system to trace missing or abducted children and adults, serial
murderers and conduct research.... the other (session is) at the FBI Academy, Quantico." (August
15, 1983)

Dr. Reismans White Papers

Backgrounder on Marketing of American Sex Reeducation
By Judith Gelernter Reisman, Ph.D. and Margaret Bocek
October 1989

The US Catholic Church's Ruinous Reliance on Discredited "Sex Science" Reliance of the U.S.
Catholic Church on the Discredited Field of "Human Sexuality" and on Sexology Advisors
Whose "Scientific" and Moral Foundation Deviates Radically From That of the Church
By Judith A. Reisman, PhD
Institute for Media Education, 2002

Child pornographer, Larry Flynt, et al: a clear and present danger to children
By Judith Reisman
October 31, 2010

History & Science: Erototoxic Images Drive Sex Trafficking Demand
By Judith Reisman
October 3, 2010

Sex Abused: Kinsey's Lies Shaped American Law, So Now What?
By Judith Reisman
Salvo Magazine, Issue 12, Spring 2010
The Briefing Book
Partner solicitation language as a reflection of male sexual orientation
By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. & Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D. The Institute for Media Education

Sexual Exploitation by Health Professionals in Cartoons of a [Playboy] Popular Magazine
By Judith A. Reisman, Deborah F. Reisman, and Barry S. Elman
Sexual Exploitation of Patients by Health Professionals
Edited by Ann W. Burgess, R.N., D.N.Sc., and Carol R. Hartman, R.N., D.N.Sc.

Beverly LaHaye Responds to Answers from Dr. John Bancroft, Director of the Kinsey Institute
January 26, 1998

Research Summary on Effects of Violent Videos on Children and Effects of Consensual
Intercourse on Children
By Judith Reisman
January 1990

Secondary Negative Effects on Employees of the Pornographic Industry
Lubben and Reisman
March 6, 2010

THE SCIENTIST AS CONTRIBUTING AGENT TO CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
A PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ETHICS VIOLATIONS
Paper presented to the 5th World Congress of Sexology
Jerusalem, Israel
By Judith Reisman
June 1981

Hello Bunny!: Playboy Utilizes Spencer's Gifts & Kiddie Designs at Your Local Shopping Mall
By Judith Reisman
Salvo Magazine, Issue 11, Winter 2009

Restoring Legal Protections for Women And Children: A Historical Analysis of The States
Criminal Codes
Reisman and Jeffrey
The State Factor
April 2004

Playboy Enterprises Executives Groom1 Youth for Playboy/Pornography Lifestyle Addiction,
Men for Child Sexual Abuse, Fathers for Incest
By Judith Reisman
October 22, 2009

AMERICA'S CHILDREN: KEY NATIONAL INDICATORS OF WELL-BEING, 2003,
FLAWED METHODOLOGYAND BAD DATA MISEDUCATING POLITY AND PUBLIC
POLICY ON THE STATE OF WELL-BEING OF AMERICAN CHILDREN
By Judith Reisman
October 22, 2009

Kinsey Consequences: Its Rotten Research-ers
By Judith Reisman
October 20, 2009

GATT and the Flesh Trade
Circa 1994

Picture Poison Viewing Pornography for a Living Can Be Deadly
Salvo, Autumn 2009 Issue 10
By Judith Reisman

Pornography: A Sociobiological Attempt at Understanding
By Joseph Shepher,
Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of California, Los Angeles
and Judith Reisman,
The American University, Washington, D.C.
Ethology and Sociobiology Vol. 6, Issue 2, Pages 103-114, 1985

Freedom of Speech as Mythology
"Quill Pen and Parchment Thinking" in an Electronic Environment
By Judith Reisman
New York University, Review of Law and Social Change, Volume VIII, Number 2, Pages 271-
279, 1978-1979

Kinseys Sex in the Pulpit
By Judith Reisman
Worldview Times
April 1, 2009

WHY WAS THE 1983 MISSING CHILDREN, SERIAL MURDER TASK FORCE
FBI/DOJ/PORNOGRAPHY LINKAGE PROGRAM SPIKED?
By Judith Reisman
January 26, 2009

The Hidden Source of the Sexual Abuse Scandal or When Wolves Train the Shepherds . . .
By Judith Reisman
Social Justice Review
February 17, 2009

The Al Franken Interview In Playboy, January 2004
A preliminary draft analysis
By Judith Reisman
The Institute for Media Education
California Protective Parents Association
February 4, 2009

Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler - Summary
By Judith Reisman
drjudithreisman.com
February 4, 2009

California Cripples Womens Childrens and Family Rights
Science Based Law Reform 1923 - 2000
The Kinsey Reports: 1948 to Today
A Work in Progress
J.A. REISMAN, PH.D.
THE INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA EDUCATION
&
L.L. Jeffrey, Ed.d
2002

OJJDP Flawed Decline in Child Sexual Abuse
By Judith Reisman
July 29, 2006
STD Vaccinations Aid Global Child Sex Traffic?
Does Mandating Pediatric Hep B [and HPV] Vaccinations
Aid The Global Child Sex Traffic?
By Judith Reisman
July 10, 2006

Utah Prosecutors Sex Crimes Investigators Speech Where Have We Been? Where Are We
Going?
The Kinsey Reports, Sex Experts, Pornography & Law
Speech Presented by
Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.,
To Utah Council for Crime Prevention Prosecutors Sex Crimes Investigators & Detectives
November 2, 2005

PARTNER SOLICITATION LANGUAGE
as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation
Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. & Charles B. Johnson, Ph.D.
July 27, 1995

"KINSEY'S PAEDOPHILES" EXCERPTS FROM YORKSHIRE TELEVISION TRANSCRIPT OF
INTERVIEW WITH DR CLARENCE TRIPP (May 5, 6, 1998)
By Judith Reisman

THE REISMAN & JOHNSON REPORT
Excerpts Applied To
I: HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE
&
II: HOMOSEXUAL HATE CRIMES
By Judith Reisman
August 1999

CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE HEARING
RE: AB 1785 (Villaraigosa)
TATE BOARD OF EDUCATION "HATE CRIME" LEGISLATION
By Judith Reisman
August 2000

HOW JUNK SCIENCE ABOLISHED LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR WOMEN, CHILDREN &
THE FAMILY
The Kinsey Reports: Crimes & Consequences 1948-Today
Speech By Judith Reisman
October 13, 2001

How the FBI and DOJ Minimize Child Sexual Abuse Reporting
by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.
July 2002

CRAFTING BI/HOMOSEXUAL YOUTH
By Judith Reisman
Regent University Law Review Volume 14: 283

A PANSEXUAL WORLDVIEW DOMINATES THE RECENT CHILD " WELL -BEING 2003"
REPORT
By Judith Reisman
Articles by Judith Reisman

Military sodomite abuse: The untold story: Judith Reisman estimates true number of males sexually
assaulted yearly
By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D., and Thomas R. Hampson
WorldNetDaily and WatchdogWire, May 15, 2013

How the 'gay' child-sex-abuse cover-up kills young men: Judith Reisman reviews science that contravenes
'born that way' canard
By Judith Reisman
WorldNetDaily, May 5, 2013

Groomed for Sodomy: What's Taught to Young Students Today Used to Be Illegal
By Judith Reisman

Sexually Transmitted Insanity: How Our Public Schools Came to Promote a Social Disease
By Judith Reisman

Minor Attractions: Pedophiles Johns Hopkins
By Judith Reisman
Salvo Magazine, Issue 22, Autumn 2012

It's Academic: Kinsey's Love Affair with Pedophilia Three Generations Later
By Judith Reisman

Coming Attractions: Is Pedophilia the Next Sexual Perversion to Become Normalized?
By Judith Reisman

'Gay' gypsy moths and porn addiction: Exclusive: Judith Reisman covers latest science on pheromones,
mating confusion
By Judith Reisman
WorldNetDaily, April 15, 2013

Penn State's ironic 'child sex abuse' conference: Exclusive: Judith Reisman counters 'sexperts' who claim
number of assaults are waning
By Judith Reisman
WorldNetDaily, November 16, 2012

Obama's injustice department: Judith Reisman drubs Arlen Specter for OK'ing porn attorney David
Ogden
By Judith Reisman
WorldNetDaily, February 28, 2009

Sexual Anarchy: The Kinsey Legacy
By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. and Mary E. McAlister, Esq.
AFA of Pennsylvania, August 24, 2011

They're mainstreaming pedophilia: Judith Reisman attends confab pushing orientation 'Minor-Attracted
Persons'
By Judith Reisman
WorldNetDaily, August 22, 2011

One Nation Under Drugs: How California & the Rest of Us Can Become More Like Yemen
By Judith Reisman
Salvo Magazine, Issue 17, Summer 2011

MARIA AINT MARIA, DITTO AUNT LUCIA: "Maria's" a Big Pharma and predator shill.
NewsWithViews.com, May 16, 2011

Tales from the Closet: A New Book Celebrates Another Sexual Outlaw & Kinsey Collaborator
By Judith Reisman

Restructuring the Immature Brain
By Judith Reisman
The Institute for Media Education & California Protective Parents Association (DRAFT 2008)

Classroom prostitution for fun and profit?
By Judith Reisman
WorldNetDaily, March 12, 2011

Prosecute 'Planned Promiscuity'!: Exclusive: Judith Reisman wants legal action taken for crimes against
children
By Judith Reisman

Institutions and underworld academics
By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.

Anthropological Tourists: Mead & the Young Sex Mavens
By Judith Reisman

'Homosexists': Exclusive: Judith Reisman explains definition of newly coined term
By Judith Reisman
WorldNetDaily, November 5, 2010

Take 'pride' in a death sentence?
Exclusive: Judith Reisman challenges Obama for urging teens to embrace homosexism
By Judith Reisman
WorldNetDaily, October 27, 2010

Big Porno and California's pot prop
Exclusive: Judith Reisman shows link between Playboy, children, glorification of drugs
By Judith Reisman

Kinsey minions continue child sex abuse
Exclusive: Judith Reisman exposes horrific 'scientific' studies of kids' sexuality
By Judith Reisman

Sex Abused: Kinsey's Lies Shaped American Law, So Now What?
By Judith Reisman

Picture Poison: Viewing Pornography for a Living Can Be Deadly
By Judith Reisman

Rape Rates: Kinsey's Junk Science & Other Unreported Sex Crimes
By Judith Reisman

The Meddle of Dishonor: Why Isn't Congress Hysterical About Adult Porn & Kids?
By Judith Reisman
Salvo Magazine, Issue 9, Summer 2009

Sextracurricular Activity: How Sexology Became an "Academic" Field and the Evil It Has Wrought
By Judith Reisman

Two Teens v. Society: A Suit on Behalf of All Teens Accused of "Sexting" (A Modern Fable)
By Judith Reisman

Muslim female slavery and porn in Baghdad
Exclusive: Judith Reisman spotlights how rise of smut further degrades Arab women

Sodomy Decision Based On Fraudulent 'Science'
By Judith Reisman
Human Events Online
August 13, 2010

Massachusetts Schools are Giving First Grade Children Condoms, Why Exactly?
By Judith Reisman, PhD
(source: News Blaze)
July 27, 2010

The Pedophile Call for "A Child's Sexual Bill of Rights"
By Judith Reisman
July 25, 2010

Sexual Exploitation by Health Professionals in Cartoons of a [Playboy] Popular Magazine
Judith A. Reisman, Deborah F. Reisman, and Barry S. Elman
Sexual Exploitation of Patients by Health Professionals
Edited by Ann W. Burgess, R.N., D.N.Sc., and Carol R. Hartman, R.N., D.N.Sc.

Great Escapes: Resistance Is Not Futile..., The Story of Shelley Lubben, Former Porn Star
By Judith Reisman

MEMO ON IASHS CERTIFICATION FOREROTIC MASSEUSE SERVICES IN SANFRANCISCO
Judith A Reisman, PhD, Former Principal Investigator, Images of
Children, Crime & Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler,
1989, US Dpt of Justice, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Pornography, Rape & Murder Sample
How the FBI and DOJ Minimize Child Sex Abuse Reporting
Addendum
Judith Reisman, Ph.D.

British sex and the modern-day 'slave trade'
Exclusive: Judith Reisman notes irony of new U.K. rule restricting 'escort' ads
World Net Daily
February 23, 2010

Hello Bunny!: Playboy Utilizes Spencer's Gifts & Kiddie Designs at Your Local Shopping Mall
By Judith Reisman

Openly Gay Australian High Court Judge Thanks Kinsey
Judith Reisman

Picture Poison: Viewing Pornography for a Living Can Be Deadly
By Judith Reisman
Salvo Magazine, Issue 10 Autumn 2009

Kinsey Consequences: Its Rotten Research-ers
By Judith Reisman

GATT and the Flesh Trade
Circa 1994

FRENCH PEDOPHILELEADERSHIP
By Dr. Judith Reisman
October 12, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Playboy targets kids by stripping Marge Simpson
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
Posted: October 14, 2009

She Could Have Died, Roman
by Judith Reisman
Human Events
10/05/2009

DEMAND THE ARREST OF KEVIN JENNINGS
By Dr. Judith Reisman
October 3, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

Kinsey's Sex in the Pulpit
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
April 1, 2009

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH: Bad science vs.beautiful babies
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
September 22, 2008

Are Campus Pornography Courses Sexual Abuse?
By Judith Reisman
Human Events
June 1, 2003

The Importance of the Child Online Protection Act
By Judith Reisman
Human Events
February 5, 2004

Exposing Pornography's Addictive, Destructive Effects Let's Permanently Enforce President Bush's
Proclamation
By Judith Reisman
Human Events
December 16, 2003


From Greatest Generation to Porn Generation
By Judith Reisman
Human Events
June 27, 2005

Needed: Strong Fathers Who Will Be Their Daughter's Guides
By Judith Reisman
Human Events
October 10, 2006

Playboys Historical Hate Rape
By Judith Reisman
Human Events
June 24, 2009

Federal fraud: Porn addicts at NSF
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
October 02, 2009

'Free love' '60s? Not quite
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
September 04, 2009

T.V. Broadcast on School Violence
California Capitolweek #527 3/17/01
School Violence
September 22, 2009

Any real men left in Britain?
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
July 18, 2009

What sexual 'freedom' has wrought
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
May 15, 2009

"The first High Court [Australian] judge to declare his homosexuality, has paid emotional tribute to
Alfred Kinsey"
By Judith Reisman
Renew America
May 15, 2009

GLSEN and the Hitler Youth
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
April 1, 2009

Obama's porn lawyer a national security risk
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
February 20, 2009

The Kinsey/Planned Parenthood/big pornography morality heist
By Judith Reisman
Renew America
February 20, 2009

Kinsey's Hollywood: Women who bathe naked with boys
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
February 7, 2009

A FEW DOCUMENTS OF OUR 1983 ABORTED FBI/DOJ/PORNOGRAPHY LINKAGE PROGRAM:
THE MISSING CHILDREN, SERIAL MURDER TASK FORCE
By Judith Reisman
January 26, 2009

California Cripples Womens Childrens and Family Rights
Science Based Law Reform 1923 - 2000
The Kinsey Reports: 1948 to Today
A Work in Progress
Judith REISMAN
THE INSTITUTE FOR MEDIA EDUCATION
&
L.L. Jeffrey, Ed.d
RSVP America

The impotence pandemic
By Judith Reisman
WorldNetDaily
September 27, 2007

The tragedy of freeing sex offenders
By Judith Reisman
WorldNetDaily
September 15, 2007

Reducing rape with an eraser
By Judith Reisman
Reisman Articles
September 12, 2006

STD Vaccinations Aid Global Child Sex Traffic?: Does Mandating Pediatric Hep B [and HPV]
Vaccinations Aid The Global Child Sex Traffic?
By Judith Reisman
Social Justice Review
July 10, 2006

FBI complies with law - 15 years late
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
March 27, 2006

Your local SOB sex traffic
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
January 13, 2006

"Pornography" TV's New Taboo Word
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
December 15, 2005

Pornographers bring funds to Republicans
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
May 27, 2005

Kinsey film lies, defames World War II Americans
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
February 11, 2005

Federal Panel Ignores Sex Abuse: 20-agency annual report on the well-being of children has been
manipulated by the "researchers" who created it so that traditional families and values are undermined.
By Judith Reisman
The New American
December 27, 2004

Frank Rich's plot against America
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
December 16, 2004

Liberally ignorant
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
December 1, 2004

Promoting Kinsey, Censoring Grandma
By Judith Reisman
The Right Perspective
November 1, 2004

Mothers & Sons: Christian Sex Educators Praising Kinseys Pedophiles?
By Judith Reisman
Reisman Articles
June 15, 2004

The Importance of the Child Online Protection Act
By Judith Reisman
Human Events
February 5, 2004

Sex Science--Who Profits?
By Judith Reisman
Reisman Articles
December 31, 2003

"Safe Child" School Programs Pose Dangers: A RICO Suit In The Making...
By Judith Reisman
The Wanderer
December 18, 2003

Congress Should Probe and Defund the Kinseyites
By Judith Reisman
Human Events
October 21, 2003

The Dubious Origins of Gay Studies
By Judith Reisman
Human Events
September 3, 2003

Sodomy Decision Based On Fraudulent Science
By Judith Reisman
Human Events
August 19, 2003

Lawmakers Should Defund Crank University Programs
By Judith Reisman
Reisman Articles
July 23, 2003

Kinsey's kooky shrinks
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
July 14, 2003

Beatifying the Kinsey Institute
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
April 11, 2003

The Kinsey-Polanski story
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
January 31, 2003

Child atrocities in the Church
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
January 10, 2003

'Kapo' Polanski's Holocaust profits
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
January 10, 2003

Kinsey: Porn star
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
October 26, 2002

Liberal hate speech
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
October 25, 2002

Strange bedfellows
By Judith Reisman
The Washington Times
August 21, 2002

Stimulating images, damaged minds
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
June 8, 2002

Israel and the Telethon
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
September 28, 2001

The hazardous condom
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
September 4, 2001

Raped in class
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
August 17, 2001

Land of the rising porn
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
July 18, 2001

Satcher's 'Call Girl to Action'
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
July 4, 2001

NEA goose steps into Johnny's bedroom
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
June 5, 2001

Ignoring child victims, part II
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
March 27, 2001

FBI reduces violence by ignoring child victims
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
March 26, 2001

Taking the ABA off-screen
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
March 22, 2001

Dr. Laura vs. the bullies
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
December 20, 2000

Cracking the 'chicken' code
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
November 17, 2000

254 'boy words'
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
November 14, 2000

Playing 'The Pedophile Professor'
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
October 25, 2000

Kaiser Foundation's sexual propaganda
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
October 14, 2000

Big Porn: A Dem's best friend
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
August 15, 2000

Relying on morality
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
June 26, 2000

The darker data
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
June 3, 2000

California legislature goes sane!
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
April 8, 2000

The NYT hustles for Roman Polanski
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
February 11, 2000

Murdoch muck and kinky Kinsey
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
January 17, 2000

Boys who have never fired a gun
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
December 15, 1999

Porno, part of a well-rounded education
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
September 10, 1999

Bush on the 'rubber chicken circuit'
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
June 17, 1999

APA pedophilia on the march
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
June 1, 1999

Toxic media breeds toxic kids
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
April 26, 1999

Child custody for sex offenders
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
April 20, 1999

The APAs: 'Academic Pedophile Advocates'
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
March 26, 1999

Who does 'child-protective services' protect?
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
March 23, 1999

Media-initiated killers?
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
March 17, 1999

Child abuse and child custody
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
March 9, 1999

Institutions and underworld academics
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
March 5, 1999

Hepatitis B Vaccination of Infants And Children: A GOVERNMENT MANDATED "PEDOPHILE"
HEALTH PROGRAM?
By Judith Reisman
March 1, 1999

Sex revolution triggers national impotence
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
February 12, 1999

Have you ever really seen Hustler?
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
January 13, 1999

Community standards and the Clinton scandal
By Judith Reisman
World Net Daily
January 13, 1999

EXHIBIT B

The State FactorRestoring Legal Protections for Women and Children April 2004
Introduction

It is my pleasure as former National Chair of
ALEC, to introduce this State Factor, Restoring
Legal Protections for Women and Children: A
Historical Analysis of the States Criminal
Codes, proposed during my chairmanship and
then approved December 11, 2003 for
publication by the ALEC Education Task Force.
The Education Subcommittee on Junk Science in
the Classroom, ably chaired by Kansas Senator
Kay OConnor, commissioned this research
because of widespread use of junk science
misdirecting legislatures, courts and education.
The evidence presented in this State Factor
reveals compelling evidence of illegal and
criminal acts masquerading as science taken
from Kinseys confessions in his own Reports
(1948-1953). Dr. Alfred Kinsey was a sexual
revolutionary and his Kinsey Reports are junk
science. Professor of Constitutional law Dr.
Charles Rice of Notre Dame concluded that
Alfred Kinseys research was:
contrived, ideologically driven and
misleading. Any judge, legislator or other
public official who gives credence to that
research is guilty of malpractice and
dereliction of duty.
Since World War II Kinseys fraudulent data
informed and directed the American Law Institutes
Model Penal Code in eliminating and weakening 52
sex laws that once protected marriage. If indeed, as
Justice Brandeis once said, law points the way, the
changes to public policies and law naturally followed
the Kinsey junk science sexuality model. The
ALIs penal law reforms recommended to
legislators and lawyers were largely adopted
between 1960 1980 and permitted Kinseys
abnormal sexual conduct to be taught to American
children via sex education. Since then public
health costs from sexual disease and dysfunction
have skyrocketed indeed all measures of socio
sexual disorder have soared from the 1960s, when
protective laws began to be weakened and/or
eliminated.
As Kinsey intended, contemplated in the current
debate are calls for discrimination laws to protect
the full range of sexual activities including
transvestitism, transgenderism, polygamy, bestiality
and the like and, in education, whether to teach our
children all alternate sexual acts as normal - or to
teach Chastity and Abstinence until marriage.
This State Factor is a valuable reference and
resource for your work in government, because it
provides you with history and current information
of the utmost importance for any informed
understanding of many public issues crucial to the
protection of Americas families and young people.
Understanding how junk sex science has deformed
our thinking and laws is vital as legislators point
the way. Restoration of reliable and honest
standards in our state laws will ensure more
healthful and economically sound outcomes for
generations to come. Only if enough legislators call
attention to Kinseys questionable findings, can we
start to reverse the misguided assault on American
law and way of life through investigation, inquiries
AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

Jeffersonian Principles in Action

Restoring Legal Protections for Women And Children:
A Historical Analysis of The States Criminal Codes

By Dr. Linda Jeffrey April 2004

1129 20
th
Street, NW, Suite 500 * Washington, DC 20036 *phone: 202-466-3800 * fax: 202-466-3801 * www.ALEC.org
2
and repeal of laws and public policies based on junk
science.
- California State Senator Ray Haynes

SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF PAPER

This paper presents the first-hand account of
history from participants and scholars since 1948 of
how junk science was introduced into public
policies and state law, and suggests the need for
serious and official review, recall, and elimination
of all scientific fraud from public policies
including education and state law. The junk
science adopted by most state legislatures was
based on Indiana Universitys Kinsey Reports
(1948,1953). The study presents a history and
review of changes in public education, philosophy
and program goals since 1950, and the concurrent
comprehensive science-based criminal law reform
known as the American Law Institute's (ALI's)
Model Penal Code (MPC). This will inform public
officials and state lawmakers about how many
radical changes were made without informed
consent, and as a result, specific protections were
lost for American women and children based on
widespread legislative and judicial reliance upon the
Kinsey Reports and the Model Penal Code.
Evidence to make this case comes from the
most compelling comments and admissions
made by Kinsey himself and from those directly
associated with the research and its use.

THE JUNK SEX SCIENCE

Alfred Kinsey was a moral revolutionary in
scientists clothing. The science was bad,
even bogus; the man himself may now be
forgotten; but the revolution came to stay,
with a vengeance. Kinseys message
fornicate early, fornicate often, fornicate in
every possible waybecame the mantra of a
sex-ridden age, our age, now desperate for a
reformation of its own.
1

Most professionals, public officials, and Americans are
unaware that the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s was
ignited by publication of Sexual Behavior in the Human
Male that appeared in January 1948 and Sexual Behavior
in the Human Female that followed in August 1953.
Each volume received extraordinary media
coverage. The media coverage was coordinated
with Dr. Kinsey and Kinsey-approved articles
began appearing across the country prior to the
January 5, 1948 public release of the first Male
Report.
The Kinsey Reports were meant to cause
change according to Kinsey Institute author John
Gagnon.
2
In 1997, sympathetic Kinsey biographer
James Jones revealed that Kinseys mission was to
end the sexual repression of our English-American
common law traditions.
3
In fact, Kinseys
methodology for changing societys sexual life
was modeled after his studies of gall wasps. Kinsey
said: The techniques of this research [were] born
out of the senior authors longtime experience with
a problem in insect taxonomy. The transfer from
insect [gall wasps] to human material is not
illogical, and could be applied to any population
(Male volume, p. 9).
Americas trusted public institutions and professions
adopted The Kinsey Reports radical findings, which
included the stunning conclusion that 95% of normal
American men, many World War II veterans of the
greatest generation, would be classified as sex
offenders under the 1948 common law state criminal
codes.
4
Alfred Kinsey and his Indiana University
colleagues considered state laws protecting Persons
and Morality unenforceable and campaigned for
science-based legal reform to keep up with Mans
evolution.
Dr. Judith Reismans research into the scientific
basis of Indiana Universitys Kinsey Reports, has
dispositively revealed, from the Kinsey authors
themselves, the Kinsey data are fraudulent.
5
The
internationally respected British Medical Journal, The
Lancet, reviewed Dr. Reismans first book, Kinsey,
Sex and Fraud (1990) recognizing:
Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues
demolish the foundations of the two
reportsThe important allegations from the
scientific viewpoint are imperfections in the
sample and unethical, possibly criminal,
observations on childrenThe book goes
beyond that, however, for Kinsey, et. al,
questioned an unrepresentative proportion of
prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey
of normal sexual behaviourKinsey, an
1129 20
th
3
otherwise harmless student of the gall wasp, has
left his former co-workers some explaining to do.
6

For 50 years the exalted and widely accepted
validity of The Kinsey Reports derived primarily
from the large sample claimed, possibly 18,000
subjects. However, Kinsey very unscientifically
gleaned only a quarter of the cases in his two
reports, without notice.
7

Female volume co-author and former Kinsey
Institute Director Paul Gebhard reported:
In the early stages of the research, when much
interviewing was being done at Indiana
correctional institutions, Dr. Kinsey did not
view the inmates as a discrete group that
should be differentiated from people outside;
instead, he looked upon the institutions as
reservoirs of potential interviewees, literally
captive subjects. This viewpoint resulted in
there being no differentiation in our 1948
volume between persons with and without
prison experience Kinsey never [kept] a
record of refusal rates--the proportion of those
who were asked for in interview but who
refused.
8

Kinsey hagiographer Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy
revealed that Kinsey never hired a statistician.
Frank Edmondson, a young astronomer who had
had some rather superficial statistical training was
Kinsey's statistician. Said Edmondson, Kinsey
'wasn't a mathematician,' in fact Kinsey often got
muddled between mean (average) and median,
elementary statistical concepts.
9
Male volume co-
author Clyde Martin was no scholar, but served as
a statistician without such knowledge.
10
Dr. Alan
Gregg, director of the Medical Science Division, the
Rockefeller Foundation funded Kinseys research.
Rockefellers Science Director, Warren Weave,
recorded Greggs concerns regarding serious flaws
in Kinseys published data on May 7, 1951:
[T]here has never been, in this group, any
trained mathematical statistician who comes
within gunshot of having the competence,
training, and experience which are required.
In Dr. Kinseys own listing of his staff
(Progress Report, April 1, 1950) he says that
Mr. Clyde E. Martin continues in charge of
the statistical handling our data (sic). His
scientific stature has not as yet caused him
even to be listed in American Men of
Science, the latest 11.5
contains about 50,000 names. Dr.
Kinsey must approve highly of him,
for in 1951, he raised his salary by 36
per cent. In his own diary record of a
visit to Kinsey in July 1950, Dr. Gregg
said, under the heading of personnel:
Past and present needs remain
unsatisfied in point of... statistics.
This fault - this admittedly absolutely
basic fault - existed in the project in
1942, it has existed ever since, there is
no promise whatsoever that it will
cease to exist - and we do nothing
about it.
11

Within months after the Male Volume was
published, Dr. Kinsey was invited to testify before
a judicial committee of the California legislature,
regarding problems with existing sex offense
law. First, he claimed that his decade of research
reflected normal sexuality to be found in the
entire American male population: [Our research]
has the advantage of having a background of the
picture typical in the population as a whole
12

After Kinseys death and in 1979, Kinsey co-
author and Kinsey Institute Director Paul Gebhard
undertook to clean up the data, but by that time
most state penal code revisions were
concluding. Gebhard revealed that of the 18,000
interviews once widely considered so
scientifically impressive, 5,300 white males
accounted for the research base in the Male
Volume; of that 5,300, 2,446 were designated as
convicts, 1,003 homosexuals, 50 transvestites, 117
mentally ill, 342 Other, 650 sexually abused
boys. This yielded 4,628 n=Aberrant and 873
n=Normal Male subjects.
13

Kinsey also failed to allow for volunteer
error, according to Dr. Abraham Maslow:
[V]olunteers will always have a
preponderance of [aggressive] high
dominance people and therefore will
show a falsely high percentage of non-
virginity, masturbation, promiscuity,
homosexuality, etc. in the
population.
14

Finally, zoologist Alfred C. Kinsey was not
the conventional, middle-American family man
and academic as marketed by Indiana
1129 20
th
4
University and the mass media. In 1997, Kinsey
biographer James H. Jones revealed,
The man I came to know bore no resemblance to
the canonical Kinsey. Anything but
disinterested, he approached his work with
missionary fervorHe wanted to undermine
traditional morality, to soften the rules of
restraintKinsey was a crypto-reformer who
spent his every waking hour attempting to
change the sexual mores and sex offender laws
of the United StatesIn Kinseys case, the
personal was always political.
15

Later Jones commented on how Kinseys own
carefully manufactured persona hid his missionary
fervorto undermine traditional morality and his
own sexual predilections. The truth would have
damaged his credibility and stopped his mission to
change the sex offender laws of the United States:
There is no way that the American public in
the 1940s and the 1950s would have
sanctioned any form of behavior that violated
middle class morality on the part of the
scientist who was telling the public that he
was disinterested and giving them the simple
truth. Any disclosure of any feature of this
private life that violated middle class morality
would have been catastrophic for his career.
For Kinsey, life in the closet came complete
with a wife, children, a public imagethat
again he preserved at all costs. Kinseys
reputation still in large measure rests upon an
image of him that he cultivated during his
lifetime the official mystique.
16

Effectively keeping the sex lives of Kinsey and his
men hidden, Jones is right that, to date, this effort
"came to nothing." However, now Jones admits that
Kinsey,
was not quite what he appeared to be--the genial
academic in baggy tweeds and bow tie, the simple
empiricist disinterestedly reporting his
data...Kinsey....was, in reality, a covert crusader
who was determined to use science to free American
society from what he saw as the crippling legacy of
Victorian repression. And he was a strong-willed
patriarch who created around himself a kind of
utopian community in which sexual experimentation
was encouraged. In his obsessive energies and
powers of persuasion, Kinsey resembled a late
twentieth-century cult leader...a self-created
visionary with a burning belief in his mission (and
ability) to change the world.
17

Finally Jones reports that, Kinsey
concentrated on negative eugenics, calling
for a program of sterilization that was at
once sweeping and terrifying. The
reduction of the birth rate of the lowest
classes must depend upon the sterilization of
perhaps a tenth of our population.
18

While Gore Vidal pronounced Kinsey the most
famous man in the world for a decade one broadcast
documentary, the Channel 4, British Yorkshire
Television documentary, Kinseys Paedophiles,
confirmed Dr. Judith Reismans findings including
Kinseys collaboration with active pedophiles, a
collaboration that resulted in the criminally derived
pedophile data that contained the infamous Table
34, on page 180 in Sexual Behavior in the Human
Male. Kinsey-favoring biographer James Jones
admitted in the Yorkshire interview what Kinseys
own seminal research reveals, that is, children, some
as young as 2 months of age, were used by nine
adult male subjects for Kinseys human
experiments:
19

Kinsey relied upon [King, a pedophile] for
the chapter on childhood sexuality in the
male volume ... Many of his victims were
infants and Kinsey in that chapter himself
gives pretty graphic descriptions of their
response to what he calls sexual
stimulation. If you read those words, what
hes talking about is kids who are
screaming. Kids who are protesting in
every way they can the fact that their
bodies or their persons are being
violated.
20

Until 1998, when the Yorkshire investigators
located the criminal trial records and news reports
in Berlin, only a few in Kinseys inner circle
knew about the Kinsey Institutes collaboration
with Dr. Fritz Von Balluseck. Von Balluseck was
a Nazi pedophile who contributed his child abuse
data (from roughly 1936-1956) to Kinseys
research database.
21
German news accounts
during the trial reported:
The Nazis knew and gave him the
opportunity to practice his abnormal
tendencies in occupied Poland on Polish
children, who had to choose between
Balluseck and the gas ovens. After the war,
1129 20
th
5
the children were dead, but Balluseck lived.
[National-Zeitung, May 15, 1957].
Balluseck... corresponded with the American
Kinsey Institute for some time, and had also got
books from them which dealt with child sexuality.
[Tagespiegel, October 1, 1957].
The connection with Kinsey, towards whom
hed showed off his crimes, had a disastrous
effect on [von Balluseck]... [I]n his diaries
hed stuck in the letters from the sex
researcher, Kinsey in which hed been
encouraged to continue his research.... He had
also started relationships to expand his
researches. One shivers to think of the lengths
he went to. [TSP, May 17, 1957]
Kinsey included these criminally-derived child
sexuality data in his Male volume, cloaked in
scientific respectability:
Better data on preadolescent climax come
from the histories of adult males who have had
sexual contacts with younger boys and who,
with their adult backgrounds, are able to
recognize and interpret the boys experiences .
. . 9 of our adult male subjects have observed
such orgasm . . .we have secured information
on 317 preadolescents who were either
observed in self masturbation, or who were
observed in contacts with other boys or other
adults.
22

KINSEYS JUNK SCIENCE ENTERS EDUCATION

Few people realize that the great library
collection of...the Kinsey Institute...was formed
very specifically with one major field omitted:
sex education. [I]t seemed appropriate, not
only to the Institute but to its major funding
source, the National Institute of Mental Health,
to leave this area for SIECUS to fill. Thus we
applied and were approved for a highly
important grant from the National Institute for
Mental Health that was designed to implement
a planned role for SIECUS to become the
primary data base for the area of education for
sexuality.
SIECUS Report, May-July 1982, p. 6.

The ALEC Education Task Force passed a unanimous
resolution declaring what has been ALECs policy for
years; that all teaching must honestly promote accuracy
of information including verifiable scientific
findings. Washington, Arizona and New Jersey
were among the states introducing legislation in
2001 demanding medically accurate information in
sex education. The new K-12 sex education is
grounded in the fraudulent scientific foundation of
the Kinsey Reports.
Since 1964, the Sex Education and Information
Council of the United States (SIECUS) has
provided sex education materials to public
schools. SIECUS, a private entity, received initial
seed money from the Playboy Foundation.
23
It
was founded via the Kinsey Institute at Indiana
University as its outreach. SIECUS is dependent
upon Indiana Universitys Kinsey Reports,
including the scientific tables documenting the
Kinsey protocol of ongoing molestation of infants
and children by pedophiles, including at least one
former Gestapo officer.
24
These criminal acts
provided the proof, Kinsey said, of sexual
desire and erotic capacity in infants and children.
Therefore, according to Kinsey, science
requires teaching kindergarten children about their
sexuality. In the April 14, 1980 issue of Time
Magazine, SIECUS was described as part of the
pro-incest lobby, and in 1996, SIECUS issued a
position statement advocating the use of sexually
explicit materials to teach school children:
When sensitively used in a manner appropriate
to the viewers age and developmental level,
sexually explicit visual, printed, or on-line
materials can be valuable educational personal
aids helping to reduce ignorance and confusion
and contributing to a wholesome concept of
sexuality.
25

Just as SIECUS was founded to promote Kinseyan
sex education to school children in 1964, the
American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors
and Therapists (AASECT) was created in 1967 to
train and accredit educators, health personnel and
other helping professionals in the area of human
sexuality based on the Kinsey findings. Patricia
Schiller was AASECTs first executive director.
Mrs. Schiller writes,
AASECT at its national and regional sex
workshops and institutes, includes sensitivity
sessions.Attitudes toward nudity,
adolescent pregnancy, masturbation,
1129 20
th
6
abortion, homosexuality, contraception, divorce,
group sex and extramarital sex relations are of
major significance in the effectiveness of the sex
education and counseling process. These are the
realities of human sexuality.
26

A new study refuting the claims of the Kaiser
Family Foundation and SIECUS reports that when
parents are presented with the actual statements of
comprehensive sex education curriculum, 61% are
opposed to having their children exposed to such
information. The curricula promoted by the Centers
for Disease Control tallied a whopping 75.3%
opposition from parents. The study was conducted by
Zogby International on a random sample of 1,245
adult parents of children aged 5 to 18. The Zogby
poll reports that former surveys by Alan Guttmacher
Institute, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and
Advocates for Youth have been seriously flawed by
vague, deceptive, and leading questions, with a
clearly biased agenda to convince parents that such
"expert" sex education is needed for their childrens
health and well being. Examples of outrageously
biased questioning by SIECUS and Planned
Parenthood are given in the February 13, 2003 Zogby
Study analysis entitled, Deception Uncovered.
27

Since Kinseyan findings within sex education
materials entered schools, rates of sexual disease and
dysfunction have increased. Condoms are now
ubiquitous and are widely promoted in schools by
public school and health authorities to prevent
pregnancy and sexual disease. Yet, according to the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) study on condom
effectiveness (June 2000), condoms do not prevent a
stunning 98% of STD transmissions.
28
Condoms
never protect against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)
which is spread by skin contact, not by fluids
29
and is
the cause of cervical cancer, which kills 5,000 women
per year in the United States. The prestigious British
medical journal, Lancet, suggests that increased
condom use will increase the number of AIDS
transmissions that result from condom failures.
30

There is a 24% pregnancy rate for teens who use
condoms.
As for condoms and AIDS, according to the
December 1999 Center for Disease Control reports,
heterosexual contact has accounted for a miniscule
4% of AIDS in males, and a total of 10% of all AIDS
cases in men, since reporting began in 1981. AIDS in
the U.S. remains overwhelmingly a homosexual
sodomy/drug user disease.
31

Dr. Meg Meeker
32
in her 2002 book, Epidemic:
How Teen Sex Is Killing Our Kids has estimated
the sexual revolution harvest:
! Nearly 1 in 5 adolescents is living with
an STD, p. 13.
! In the 1960s a shot of penicillin could cure
the two known STDs, syphilis and
gonorrhea. Today there are no simple
cures and, in most cases, no cures at all, p.
15, 31.
! The CDC considers the STD epidemic a
multiple epidemic of at least 25 separate
diseases (nearly 50 if you count the
various strains of virus groups.), p. 14.
! Over 80% of STD-infected teens are
unaware they have a STD; therefore they
dont get medical attention and may
continue to infect others. p. 35.
! False claims are asserted by sex educators
who under inform or mislead kids about
STDs and condoms that offer little or no
protection from disease. pp. 104-5.
! Pharmaceutical companies promote drugs
that control STD symptoms, encouraging
kids in the delusion they can be
promiscuous without any of the associated
problems.
! The anatomic and immunological
differences make the adolescent body
particularly the females - more
susceptible to STDs than the adult body.
pp. 175-6.
! The idea of maintaining sexual freedom
rather than preventing disease remains the
driving force and primary focus of
national sex education and the STD
epidemic continues to worsen as long as it
does. pp. 26-29
Sex education in public education was promoted to
teachers and parents in the early 1950s as sex
crime prevention. Guided directly by Kinsey,
who served on the Illinois commissions workgroup
to devise the Framework for Sex Offender Laws,
Illinois blamed poor parenting and lack of education
for high levels of sex crimes in the early 1950s.
These rates seem miniscule in comparison with
1129 20
th
7
those today. The Report of the Illinois Commission on
Sex Offenders stated:
Children oftimes are inadequately trained to
live in a free society. The inability of some
parents to rear children in a democratic
atmosphere and, at the same time, to observe
the conventions of society is a fact that needs
consideration. Too often indulgence on the
one hand or oppression on the other result in
emotional maladjustment that may lead to
sexual offense. Methods of educating adults,
who deal with children must be considered
also. Prevention through mental hygiene and
sex education for both adults and children may
prove to be effective.
33

Kinseyan legal reformers testified before
legislatures and in professional literature that sex
education would reduce violent sex crimes and
high rates of sex offender (rapists and child
molesters) recidivism.
34
And AASECT dealt with
educating adults, who deal with children. Carol
Cassell (currently the director of the Center for
Disease Controls Teen Pregnancy Prevention
Program) describes ASSECTs use of the Kinsey
Reports as the root of their professional authority:
Look how we've used the Kinsey data. We've
used it for everything from assessing the
stability of marriage to raising children to
trying to understand human growth and
development -- not just sexual but also
psychological growth and changes over time.
35

Taught by AASECT trained teachers, the SIECUS
sex education programs were guided by The Kinsey
Reports assertion that human beings are sexual
actors from birth.
36
At law, this meant that four or
five year old children could be considered
provocateurs.
37
Redefining children as sexual
beings resulted in lowered penalties for rape and
child molestation reflecting the new sciences claim
that there is no harm unless serious force is used.
In public education, after state laws were changed,
SIECUS expanded the talk about sexuality from a
total of thirteen minutes to sex education covering
thirteen school years with the theme that any and all
imaginable sexual behaviors, at any age, are simply
responding to a wide human need.
38

Between 1994 and 2000, SIECUS received over one
million tax dollars from the publicly funded Center for
Disease Control. The CDC materials promote sodomy as
normal and as equally fulfilling and desirable as
marital coitus. In the SIECUS 1991 Guidelines for
Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten-
12
th
Grade, a family is redefined as any grouping of
people who care for each other (Key Concept 2).
Kindergarten children are told that marriage is a
mere option some people choose (Some couples
who love each other live together in the same home
without getting married Topic 5, level 1).
The sex experts and the Kinseyan sex education
monopoly are well entrenched in higher education.
For example, Tennessee legislators passed Abstinence
legislation to promote Marriage. However, the
Lifetime Wellness Curriculum Framework produced
by the Tennessee Department of Education treats
Marriage as merely a parenting and economic option
chosen by some. School children are guided in
graphic games about oral and anal sodomy and about
death. Tax supported teaching programs are required
to be accurate in order to be funded. There is no
doubt, after reviewing pre-Kinsey levels of sexual
disease and dysfunction, the SIECUS sex education
programs post 1964 have seen STD rates skyrocket.
Abstinence programs calling for modesty and saving
sex until marriage guarantee taxpayers a major
reduction in costly post-Kinsey disease and
dysfunction.

KINSEYS JUNK SCIENCE ENTERS THE
LAW

The Professional Call for Science-based
Legal Reform

In a 1952 article in the Harvard Law Review
Columbia Law Professor Herbert Weschler advocated
for revision of ineffective, inhumane and thoroughly
unscientific state criminal laws that its author
claimed, were not based on the truth now available
through objective scientific pursuit.
39
Attorney
Morris Ernst, a few months after the appearance of
the 1948 Kinsey Report, published one of five books
that would be published advocating penal reform
based on the science of the Kinsey Reports, stating:
[V]irtually every page of the Kinsey Report
touches on some section of the legal code . .
. a reminder that the law, like our social
pattern, falls lamentably short of being
based on a knowledge of facts.
40

1129 20
th
8
Based upon what has been previously shown in this study
to be Kinseys biased and seriously flawed data, the
Sexual Offenses Article 207 of the 1955 Model Penal
Code was constructed. For example, Section 207.5, titled
Sodomy and Related Offenses, proposed that
consensual sodomy with an actor 10 years or older be
classified a misdemeanor. Appendix A to section 207.5 is
titled Frequency of Sexual Deviation, and of 21
quotations, 19 are taken from Kinseys book, Sexual
Behavior in the Human Male (1948).
ALI Reporter Morris Ploscowe parroted Kinseys
scientific findings:
These pre-marital, extra-marital,
homosexual and animal contacts, we are
told, are eventually indulged in by 95 per
cent of the population in violation of
statutory prohibitions. If these conclusions
are correct, then it is obvious that our sex
crime legislation is completely out of
touch with the realities of individual living
and is just as inherently unenforceable as
legislation that prohibits . . . an activity
that responds to a wide human need.
41

In addition to this book by Albert Deutsch
(Ed.), to which Ploscowe contributed, three of
the four other 1948 releases called for science-
based law reform based on the new science of
the Kinsey Reports. These three books presented
collections of essays by luminaries in education,
law, psychiatry, psychology, and medicine.
42

KINSEYS DATA PERMEATE ALL PRESENT
THINKING ON THIS SUBJECT.
43

The ALI began a campaign
44
to secure enactment of
its provisions as state law, beginning in Illinois
which adopted the Code in 1961. Frank Horack, Jr.,
acting Dean of Indiana University, writing in
support of the Kinsey Reports impact on law,
predicted:
The principal impact of the Kinsey Report will
be at the level of the administration of the law.
It will provide the statistical support which
police officers, prosecutors, judges, probation
officers and superintendents of penal
institutions need for judging individual cases .
. . Officials will read it. Defense counsel will
cite it. Even when it is not offered into
evidence, it will condition official action.
Psychiatrists, psychologists, penologists,
juvenile and probation officers all
participate in modern penal procedures -
they will use the data and their
professional advice will be heeded by
the judge. Here the Report will control
many decisions and dictate the
disposition and treatment of many
offenders.
45

Concurrent with the publication of Indiana
Universitys and the Kinsey Institutes Male and
Female volumes, a number of states conducted
fact-finding commissions to study sex crime
problems. Kinsey Report co-author Wardell
Pomeroy states that Kinsey personally worked on
the revision of sex laws with the Illinois, New
Jersey, New York, Delaware, Wyoming, and
Oregon commissions.
46
In December 1949, Kinsey
testified for an entire day before the California
Subcommittee on Sex Crimes. Kinsey told the
committee:
For the last 11 years we have had a
research project, as you know,
underway at the university on human
sexual behavior . . . we find that 95
percent of the [male] population has in
actuality engaged in sexual activities,
which are contrary to the law.
47

Kinsey presented the California legislature with
the wildly false claim, [Our research] has the
advantage of having a background of the picture
typical in the population as a whole
48

In 1951, the Illinois legislature funded a
commission to study the sex offender. Francis Allen
chaired the committee that drafted the report
submitted to the Illinois legislature. Under Section
II, Scientific Findings, Allen writes: No specific
reference to the Kinsey findings is made here since
these permeate all present thinking on this subject.
Allen also chaired the workgroup Framework for
Sex Offender Laws to which Alfred C. Kinsey and
Co-author Wardell Pomeroy served as consultants.
49

A similar commission was conducted in New
Jersey. The report was facilitated by Paul W.
Tappan, who later would be a Reporter for the ALI
Committee that drafted the Model Penal Code.
Section II of the New Jersey report is titled: Sex
Deviation: Its Extent and Treatment. It begins with
quotations from Kinseys Male volume. The New
1129 20
th
9
Jersey Commission expressed its gratitude to Dr. Kinsey
and Morris Ploscowe for their frequent and extended
consultations.
50

The New Jersey Commissions report stated:

[T]here can be no real doubt that a very large
number of the male population of New Jersey has
engaged in practices coming within the
enumerations of our present abnormal sex
offender law, on the basis of which they might be
committed to one of our state mental hospitals.
51

Louis B. Schwartz, author of the Sex Offense
section of the Model Penal Code, reviewed Kinseys
Male Volume in the University of Pennsylvania Law
Review in 1948. His article provided the new
language for the American bench and bar that was
used to normalize formerly proscribed sexual
conduct. Schwartz wrote:
To reveal that certain behavior patterns are
widespread, that they are a product of
environment, opportunity, age and other factors
over which the individual has little control, that
they are not objectively harmful except as a
result of societys efforts at repression (Kinsey,
pp. 385-86) to point out that similar behavior is
encountered among other animals than man, to
suggest that the law ought not to punish and that
psychiatrists might better devote themselves to
reassuring the sexual deviate rather than
attention to redirect behavior (Kinsey p. 660) -
all these add up to a denial that sexual
perversion is an evil.
52

Schwartz then pictures the distant day when
Americans cease to regard minority morals as a
legitimate object of social coercion, and
suggests a covert and undemocratic method for
elites to change state criminal codes:
Eventually, such distinctions ease themselves
into the written law, especially if it can be
done in the course of a general revision of the
penal code. This avoids the appearance of
outright repudiation of conservative moral
standards, by presenting the changes in a
context of merely technical improvements.
53

STATE LAW JOURNALS ADVOCATE FOR PENAL
REFORM USING KINSEY AS AUTHORITY

The ALI penal reform campaign appealed to the
bench and bar via states Law Journals. These
cited to the Kinsey Reports as the scientific
authority to define normal and therefore non-
criminal behavior. The North Carolina Law
Review testifies to its readers:

More than two decades have passed
since the publication of Alfred Kinseys
study on human sexual behavior that
made clear the wide disparity between
conservative sexual behavior permitted
by law and the liberal sexual practices
that Kinsey found actually to occur in
society. Dr. Kinsey stated that [s]ex
laws are so far at variance with general
sex practices that they could not
conceivably be rigorously enforced
(Citing to 23 New York University Law
Quarterly Rev. 540, 541 (1948), quoting
Kinseys Male volume).
54

Other states Law Journals cite the Kinsey Report
data to advocate legalizing prostitution (Maine,
1976); harmlessness of boy prostitution (Duke
University, 1960); lightening sex crime penalties
(Ohio, 1959); legalizing homosexuality (South
Dakota, 1968); the need for beneficent concern for
pedophiles (Georgia, 1969); and for general sex
law revisions (Oklahoma, 1970). The journals
commonly cited the fact that 95% of males are
sex offenders (Oregon, 1972); that young children
are seducers (Missouri, 1973, Tennessee, 1965);
and that judicial bias is the cause of severe
condemnation of sex offenders (Pennsylvania,
1952).
55
Finally, the Colorado Law Review
ridicules American standards of virtue, honor and
chastity by publishing The Legal Enforcement of
Morality authored by none other than Playboys,
Hugh Hefner. Claiming to be Kinseys
pamphleteer, Hefner writes to his legal audience:
Kinsey reports that in some groups among
lower social levels, it is virtually
impossible to find a single male who has
not had sexual intercourse by the time he
reaches his mid-teens.
56

Revision Commissions reported to state
legislatures. The Model Penal Code was their
blueprint for complete sex crime revisions. Such
liberalized sex laws were enacted nationwide--
1129 20
th
10
generally occurring for the first time since statehood.
57

In the rush to science-based legal reform, not all state
commissions accepted the sweeping revisions as an
assumed improvement in the clarification of law. In
1970 the Michigan Journal of Law Reform published the
report of the director of the Criminal Law Revision
Commission in California describing the advisory boards
reaction to its revision suggestions:
[I]ts product at first inspection struck most of
the members of the Board, unfamiliar with the
Model Penal Code or another contemporary
criminal law revision, as a strange and baffling
departure from all of the familiar landmarks of
conventional law. The style of the Model
Penal Code, its rigorously logical order and its
general abandonment of common law
terminology does pose difficulties for anyone
whose entire educational and professional
experience has been circumscribed by the
eighteenth century common law concepts still
preserved in the criminal law of California.
The staff, of course, was greatly influenced by
the Model Penal Code.
58

PURPOSE AND PRINCIPLES OF ALIS
MODEL PENAL CODE

The stated purpose of the ALI MPC was to reduce
crime, recidivism and to modernize the law in
accord with scientific advances. In his 1952
Harvard Law Review article, chief author Columbia
University Law Professor Herbert Wechsler argued
for a Model Penal Code on the grounds that the
current crime rate was too high. He said this high
rate proved the common law then in effect, was
ineffective and "unscientific."
59
By the late
1970s, most local and state bar associations had
heeded Wechsler's call and promoted the passage of
a revised penal code based on the ALI MPC.
In the wake of modernity, naturalistic science
emerged preeminent over the nations guidance by
the fixed moral standards of the Declaration of
Independence. The MPC portrayed fixed law with
moral supports as inadequate and antiquated.
Unhinged from the divine, evolving law with
scientific support became the standard.
60

Model Penal Code authors called for laws using the "aid
that modern science can afford." This created a crisis in
American law. Modern evolving law, apparently based
on science, appeared to conflict with America's long
settled (and protective) common law, and the
common law was being portrayed as inconsistent,
ambiguous, outmoded, and redundant.
61
Law, by
definition, to be "law" must be fixed. However,
state revision commissions revised state penal codes
according to the new ALI MPC understanding that
law is always evolving and requires constant
change.
The American Law Institute transformed corrections
by revising the definition of criminal responsibility.
This dramatic change occurred under the guidance of
three psychiatrists: Lawrence Z. Freedman, Winfred
Overholser, and Manfred Guttmacher. Though there
was not complete agreement, Wechsler reports the
ALI authors were totally responsive to the
psychiatric points, while advancing a fresh
solution.
62
By applying the modifications of the
Model Penal Code, criminal responsibility was
redefined to include; 1) knowledge of right and
wrong, and 2) the capacity to conform to the law.
There was an important new element to which only a
qualified expert could testify. The M'Naughten
Rule that originated in 1843, required the cognitive
ability of the offender to know right from wrong in
order to be guilty of crime. The drafters of the Model
Penal Code thought that in addition to knowledge, it
was important to determine the offenders capacity
for self-control.
Benjamin Karpman--who is quoted as the
primary psychiatric authority in the Model Penal
Code--claimed that criminal behavior could be
compared to tonsillitis:
Criminal behavior is an unconsciously
conditional psychic reaction over which
[the criminals] have no conscious
control. We have to treat them as
psychically sick people, which in every
respect they are. It is no more
reasonable to punish these
individualsthan it is to punish an
individual for breathing through his
mouth because of enlarged adenoids,
when a simple operation will do the
trick.
63

Karpman held little regard for a common law that
had provided safety and security for the law-abiding
citizen, while punishing criminal behavior. As a
1129 20
th
11
Violent Crime 1951-1997,
Number of Offenses
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
5
1
-
5
3
5
4
-
5
6
5
7
-
5
9
6
0
-
6
2
6
3
-
6
5
6
6
-
6
8
6
9
-
7
1
7
2
-
7
4
7
5
-
7
7
7
8
-
8
0
8
1
-
8
3
8
4
-
8
6
8
7
-
8
9
9
0
-
9
2
9
3
-
9
5
9
6
-
*
*
3-Year Range
T
o
t
a
l

O
f
f
e
n
s
e
s

(
M
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Basic data from Statistical Abstracts of the United States ,
and the Department of Commerce, Census Bureau
** - 1997 is latest published data
psychiatrist, he claimed the medical profession is the
vanguard of human progress.
Experiment is viewed as superior to
precedent; old methods are readily
abandoned, to give way to newer methods.
It is therefore a matter of great
wonderment, and disappointment as well,
that with so many physicians on the staff
of prisonsmedicine has thus far
contributed so little of positive value
toward a more scientific and more humane
understanding of crime.
64

The influence of Guttmachers Group for the
Advancement of Psychiatry (GAP) on law reform is
evidenced by states adoption of a therapeutic
approach to criminology despite therapys
experimental and unproven track record. The South
Carolina Law Review reported in 1968 that:
There are no data indicating the amount of
success of correctional efforts to date. There is
a large body of literature reporting numerous
research findings and number of plausible
theories concerning treatment of the offender.
However, the knowledge that is available has
not been translated into feasible action programs
or the programs have not been successfully
implemented or if they have been implemented
they have lacked evaluation. If they have been
evaluated, the results have usually been
negative, and in the few cases where there were
positive results reported there have been no
replications to support these findings.
65

A further consequence of therapeutic influence has
been to strip the authority of the jury, replacing it
with expert testimony. The ALI MPC authors held
that a judge did not have the expertise to judge
offenders. Moreover, a jury of ones peers was too
likely to mete out tough punishments to criminals.
Wechsler wrote,
It is widely urged that the responsibility for
the determination of the treatment of offenders
should not, in any case, be vested in the
courts; that judges have no special expertise or
insight in this area that warrants giving them
decisive voice; and that they should be
superseded by a dispositions board that might
include the judge but would draw personnel of
equal weight from social work, psychiatry,
penology and education.
66

In view of the new offender sympathies
and the desire to therapeutically manage
criminals in the ALIs MPC, the power of
the uniquely American jury of ones
peers system was significantly curbed.
This was accomplished in state after state
through the experts classification and sub-
classification of crimes and the assignment
of multi levels of penalties for once simply
understood crimes and punishments.
If psychiatric experts were now needed to
determine criminal responsibility under the new
law system, they would also determine the
remedy. Wechsler said that the common law
employs unsound psychological premises such
as freedom of will or the belief that punishment
deters.
67
Criminals under the MPC were often
cast in neutral terms such as actors and victims
as complainants. Terms such as rapist or
sodomist are too harsh according to the new
penal revisions.
68
And based on the Model Penal
Code, an individual may have been so impaired
mentally that he was unable to follow the law.
Therefore, argued the MPC, the convicted sex
crime offender is more likely to be rehabilitated
through treatment and counseling by mental
health experts than by incarceration. After fifty
1129 20
th
12
years of experience and research producing no
evidence that therapy reduces recidivism,
69
former
Attorney General Janet Reno acknowledged in her
acceptance speech for the Brandeis Medal for
commitment to individual liberty, concern for the
disadvantaged, and public service, that punishment is
indeed necessary to control crime.
70

The principal sex offenses of rape, sodomy, sexual
abuse, and indecent exposure were redefined. In the
ALI MPC the simplicity of common law punishments
were made complex by grading them
71
according to
the use of forcible compulsion, the capacity or
incapacity of the victim to consent, the age of the
victim, and the age of the sexual predator.

ALI MODEL PENAL CODE FAILED

As we have seen, the purpose of the Model Penal
Code, according to Professor Wechsler, was to
reduce crime. In this regard, the data are clear:
the ALI MPC has been a total failure. Women
and children are far less safe today than they
were before the changes brought in by the MPC.
Wechsler declared the MPC authors intentions
in 1955: We mean to act as if we were a
legislative commission, charged with construction
of an ideal penal code.
72
Wechsler wrote in the
Columbia Law Review when the project was over,
Viewing these words in retrospect, I am content
with their description of the effort.
73
By the late
1970s, most state legislatures had heeded
Wechsler's call and had passed revised penal
codes.
74
These revisions were supposed to have
been guided by a new scientific understanding of
sex, sex crime and sex criminals. However, the
results suggest a lessening of understanding rather
than an enhancement of it.
As the chart shows, violent crime increased 993%
from 1951 to 1997. There was a 2.1% increase in
the child population (the number of people under
age 20) from 1970 to 2000.
75
This clearly does not
account for the skyrocketing levels of sex crimes.
According to the MPC vision, comprehensive sex
education graphically presented in elementary and
secondary grades should have reduced crime.
Instead, during the same period, we see pandemic
rates of venereal diseases,
76
rape, illegitimacy and
abortions in teenage populations with the
elimination of fornication as a crime, and the
trivializing of penalties for statutory rape,
rape, prostitution and other sex crimes.
The radical ALI MPC reforms that
reduced state sex crime penalties are a
window into how America came to this
sociosexual malaise. Studies confirm a
correlation between greater punishment and
less crime.
77
The rise in crime that is
making America a less-safe environment
for women and children has followed the
changes in law that occurred as states
abandoned the common law and adopted
the guidance of the ALI Model Penal Code.

CONCLUSION

Alfred Kinsey was a moral revolutionary
in scientists clothing. The science was
bad, even bogus; the man himself may
now be forgotten; but the revolution came
to stay, with a vengeance. Kinseys
messagefornicate early, fornicate often,
fornicate in every possible waybecame
the mantra of a sex-ridden age, our age,
now desperate for a reformation of its
own.
78

The Kinsey Reports, well known to sexual and legal
revolutionaries, are all but unknown to the current
bench and bar. Kinseys once taunt official
mystique sags with many troubling revelations,
especially since 1997. However, Kinseys reputation
still must be maintained because his Reports are the
foundation of evolutionary sexuality worldwide.
Sexual anarchists everywhere need Dr. Kinsey.
This need resulted in an image reconstruction effort
mounted by PBSTVs The American Experience,
and by Hollywood, PBS and FoxSearchlight films,
Myriad Pictures and Coppola's American Zoetrope
studios. Reinventing Kinsey as a sexual pioneer
may continue to cover up the ugly reality of the
Indiana University zoologist, eugenicist, evolutionist,
pedophile collaborator Kinsey and his assault on law
and justice, and maybe not.
The manufactured statistics of The Kinsey
Reports transformed Americas institutions of
medicine, education and law. Normal
human sexuality was metamorphosed into
another image, which became indelible, when
the American Law Institute delivered The
1129 20
th
13
Kinsey Reports junk science (in 1955 Draft #4,
Sexual Offenses, Section 207 of the Model Penal
Code) to the bench and bar in every state. Soon,
based on the ALI MPC and the Kinsey Reports, the
states long-settled and fixed common law sexual
and reproductive standards were abolished via
misinformed legislation and judicial decisions.
After the laws were changed, the SIECUS brand of
sex education entered schoolrooms to permanently
alter Marriage, and the American family.
Prior to 1950 American Law largely prohibited
any sexual acts outside of marriage. Marriage was a
public contract, both civil and religious. Society
had an interest in the security and solvency of every
marriage. Marriage was to provide for the progeny
of the union, secure the orderly passage of property
to the next generation and prevent any burden to the
State wrought by divorce, promiscuity, perversion
and unnatural acts.
79

Marriage served the public interest. However,
the experts of the ALI MPC dismantled the
institution, based on the Kinsey Reports. By
recommending the legalization of fornication,
cohabitation, adultery, sodomy, etc., the MPC
transformed what were known as Public Morals
or vice laws into private sexual behaviors
between consenting individuals. The new
freedom, Privacy, would allow one to be left
alone to pursue ones one sexual tastes, according
to Judge Learned Hand.
80

The junk science based on the debunked and
discredited Kinsey Reports today serves as the
foundation of publicly funded sex education. In
addition, the ALI Model Penal Code has been
adopted, all or in part, in every state. The harmful
results can be seen over the past 50 years,
especially as these changes negatively affect the
lives of American women and children. The case
is strong for real fact-based reform to remove the
fraudulent findings of the Kinsey Reports from
publicly funded programs, policies, and laws
beginning with sex education and criminal law.

HOW SHOULD LEGISLATORS RESPOND?

State judiciary and education committees,
legislators or activists may want to make
presentations to clarify and inform leadership of
the history and scope of Kinseys fraudulent
science-based reforms. Undoing harmful
changes to sex education curricula and sex
offense laws since each states penal code
revision would be prudent. Bar
Associations and state legislatures can
initiate a restoration effort for legal
protections once enjoyed by women and
children.
The legal reforms that have been enacted since
1960 must be examined. First of all, legislators
must be aware of the scientific authorities that
were used to justify sex law changes. Next,
legislators should determine what benefit or
detriment these sex law changes have brought to
Americas law-abiding citizens, especially our
vulnerable children. Finally, legislators must
directly address a working system for protecting
women and children. The current system
provides overwhelming proofs that it is moving
society in the wrong direction.
Law must refocus on illegal acts and their
consequences. Criminal behavior must once
again be met with criminal sanctions that depend
on the act of the aggressornot the age of the
victim, or the personality of the offender.
State legislatures must require accountability for
programs involving rehabilitation. Programs
should reduce recidivism or meet other
measurable criteria established by the legislature
in order to receive taxpayer support.
State legislators should continue the call for
accurate science in childrens education. A
review board could monitor textbooks purchased
by the state Department of Education, and
investigate parents concerns. Political
ideologies should never be represented as
science to vulnerable school children.

POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS TO LEGAL
REFORMATION

Legislators, activists and concerned citizens
who seek to restore legal protections to women
and children may be met with the objection that
"you can't legislate morality" or that "culture
drives law, anyway."
A report in the Wall Street Journal confirms that law
can shape behavior. According to the Journal, in
response to rampant AIDS in Tanzania, laws and
1129 20
th
14
severe penalties against illicit sexual conduct were
established, and this in a culture that historically has been
free of limits on sexual behavior. The Journal reports,
"within two years teachers report a decrease in schoolgirl
pregnancy." The national AIDS committee chairman
states, "We're penalizing people less often because almost
everyone is behaving better."
81
Just as Tanzania's
experience demonstrates that law shapes behavior, we can
expect positive change here in the United States as well.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis
said;
the conduct of life is to so large an extent
determined by the existing legal institutions,
that an understanding of the legal system must
give you a clearer view of human affairs in
their manifold relations, and must aid you in
comprehending the conditions, and institutions
by which you are surrounded.
82

People often point to the influence of music and
media upon our youth to explain massive
changes in society. But these are outgrowths of
what Brandeis explained drives our conduct of
life. If understanding the legal system gives
you a clearer view of human affairs and aids in
comprehending conditionsby which you are
surrounded, as Justice Brandeis declared, then
the question to be answered is evident: What,
within American legal institutions, changed to
account for the significant changes in the
conduct of life in America regarding
illegitimacy, rape, and sexual violence? On the
evidence, those changes occurred primarily as a
result of twentieth century law reform based on
the American Law Institutes Model Penal Code,
whose authority for defining normal human
intimate behavior was the Kinsey Reports.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Prior to the adoption of the American Law
Institutes Model Penal Code by the states, men
who raped and preyed on children were deemed
criminals, not simply actors as they often are
today. Abused and violated women and children
were victims, not complainants. Justice was
meted out by a jury of ones peers, not by social
science experts, and predators received
penalties, not legal protections.
With regard to sex offense crimes in the ALI
MPC: A rash of state sex offense commissions
convened just prior to the ALI MPC publication,
providing findings to MPC authors. These
commissions also relied heavily upon Alfred
Kinsey and the fraudulent Kinsey Reports view
of normal human sexuality. Sexual activities
are presented by the ALI MPC authors as wide
human need and necessary from womb to tomb
for health and happiness. Language and terms
are changed to neutralize crimes against women
and children. Rape and child abuse are redefined
and de-stigmatized; the definition of adult
tends to include children for purposes of sex.
Creation of multiple degrees of a sex crime
negates the felony penalty. And sex education in
public schools is recommended as the primary
crime prevention measure.
As in law, terms were changed in sex education
to dissociate it from the eugenics movement.
The Birth Control Federation of America became
Planned Parenthood, which was necessary to
neutralize the highly negative image offered to
the public by the term birth control (Alan
Guttmacher writing in the preface of Margaret
Sangers autobiography, 1970). The new term
family planning did not convey prejudice
against large families, and linked contraceptives
with marriage and babies instead of with
prostitutes and illicit sexual alliances. Sex
education became family life education which
SIECUS founder Lester Kirkendall said would
be less threatening to parents and teachers and,
in the end, would lead to more not less sex
education.
83

The plans legal revolutionaries made and acted
upon overturned or trivialized 52 designated
laws protective of women and children,
84
aided
and enabled by the indispensable sex science
of the Kinsey Reports. Over the past fifty years,
our sex and reproduction laws have been
deconstructed on the basis of a fraudulent set of
data.
Law, by definition, is fixed or settled. But in
the second half of the twentieth century Law
entered an ever- evolving stream, based on so-
called scientific innovation. Billed as science
based law reform, the Model Penal Code was
1129 20
th
15
promoted as a simple revision of the law based on new
scientific discoveries in the social sciences. This
effort was undertaken because of the high rates of
violent crime. However, over the ensuing 50 years,
the ALI MPC has failed to reduce crime and
specifically failed to provide protections for women
and children. It is time for state lawmakers to jettison
bad policy based on bad science, and to restore legal
protections for American women and children.
Fifty years have passed since the advent of the
ALI MPC into the American stream of law.
Now is the time for state legislatures to review
the performance of the science-based criminal
law reform that according to its chief author in
1952, was expected to lower crime. Wechsler
declared common law penal codes were
ineffective. It is time to review many of the
radical changes brought about by the enactment
of the Model Penal Code and to restore the safety
and security lost for our most vulnerable citizens.
FOOTNOTES

1
Joseph Epstein, COMMENTARY, January 1998. At www.Britannica.com, downloaded March 31, 2001
2
HUMAN NATURE, October 1978, pp. 92-95.
3
James Jones, ALFRED C. KINSEY: A PUBLIC/PRIVATE LIFE at 619 (NY: W.W. Norton, 1997).
4
This is one of the startling observations of the Kinsey group When a total clean-up of sex offenders
is demanded, it is in effect a proposal to put 95% of the male population in jail. Albert
Deutsch, SEX HABITS OF AMERICAN MEN, at 121.
5
J. A. Reisman, KINSEY: CRIMES AND CONSEQUENCES (2
nd
ed.), (Crestwood: Institute for Media
Education, 2000).
6
Really Dr. Kinsey? 337 THE LANCET at 547 (March 2, 1991).
7
J. A. Reisman, supra., at 50-53. See also Arno Karlen, SEXUALITY AND HOMOSEXUALITY at 456 (1971).
8
Gebhard, Gagnon, Pomeroy, and Christenson, SEX OFFENDERS at 31-33 (1965).
9
Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, ALFRED C. KINSEY: SEX THE MEASURE OF ALL THINGS at 130-131, 144, (1998).
10
Id. At 144, see also Reisman, supra. at 40.
11
Warren Weaver, Desk Diary, May 7, 1951, pp. 4-5, Rockefeller Archive Center.
12
Testimony of Alfred C. Kinsey before the Assembly Interim Committee on Judicial System and Judicial
Process of the California Legislature, 1949, p. 133. Recorded in the Assembly Journal, March 8,
1950.
13
NIMH Grant The Kinsey Data; Marginal Tabulations, 1979, p. 3. -6 Gebhard and Johnson claim theirs is a
5,460 White Male Sample.
14
Abraham Maslow, Test for Dominance-Feeling (Self-Esteem) in college Women, THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY at 255, 270 (1940); See also Abraham Maslow, Self-esteem, Dominance, Feeling
and Sexuality in Women, 16 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY at 259, 294 (1942)
15
James H. Jones, Dr. Yes, THE NEW YORKER at 100-101 (September 1, 1997).
16
James H. Jones, interview in Tim Tate, Secret Histories: Kinseys Paedophiles. (Yorkshire Television
(Channel 4), United Kingdom, aired August 10, 1998.
17
James H. Jones, Annals of Sexology, Dr. Yes. THE NEW YORKER at 101 (August 25 and September 1, 1997).
18
James H. Jones, ALFRED C. KINSEY: A PRIVATE/PUBLIC LIFE at 809, footnote 78 (1997).
19
Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE, at 144 (W. B.
Saunders, 1948).
20
Secret Histories, Kinsey Paedophiles, supra. See also Kinsey, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE, at
161 (noting violent convulsions, groaning, sobbing, violent cries, with an abundance of tears
(especially among younger children.)).
21
J. A. Reisman, supra. note 5, at 165-170.
22
Kinsey, et al, supra. Note 19, at 144.
23
Reisman, J. A. Supra. note 5, at 177.
24
Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin, SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE, page 180, Table 34.
25
SIECUS Report, February/March 1996, Position Statement on Sexually Explicit Materials.
26
Herbert Otto, (Ed.), THE NEW SEX EDUCATION, at 171. (Chicago: Association press/Follett Publishers, 1978).
27
Survey results and analysis are available at www.whatparentsthink.com
28
The panel of researchers found effectiveness in the heterosexual transmission of HIV and the female to male
transmission of gonorrhea. These two areas represent 2% of all STDs occurring annually in the
U.S. See the Response of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse to the NIH Condom Report;
American Social Health Association, Sexually Transmitted Diseases in America: How Many
Cases and at What Cost? Kaiser Family Foundation, December 1998; and CDC HIV/AIDS
Surveillance Report, 1999.
29
Dr. John Diggs, WebMD, http://my.webmd.com/content/article/1700.50173
30
Justin Torres, Condom crazy: The UN Pushes Contraception to fight AIDS. WORLD MAGAZINE, VOL. 15,
September 9, 2000
31
Center for Disease Control, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report. Dec. 1999. Vol. 11, No. 2, Table 5.
32
Meg Meeker, EPIDEMIC: HOW TEEN SEX IS KILLING OUR KIDS, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing,
2002).
33
Illinois Commission on Sex Offenders, March 15, 1953, p. 36.
34
Herbert Wechsler, Challenge of a Model Penal Code. 65 HARVARD LAW REVIEW at 1103 (1952).
35
Carol Cassell, Contemporary Sexuality, The American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and
Therapists (AASECT), (October, 1991).
36
The Illinois Commission cites this as a scientific finding on p. 9. See also, Kinsey, A.C., Pomeroy, W. B., &
Martin, C.E. SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN THE HUMAN MALE. at 181 (W. B. Saunders, 1948).
37
A term used by Psychiatrist and Law Professor Ralph Slovenko to describe a four or five year old girl. See R.
Slovenko & C. Phillips, Psychosexuality and the Criminal Law. 15 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW, at
809 (1962). The sometimes extreme seductiveness of a young female is a factor which has no
place in the law, but it certainly affects motivation. Even at the age of four or five, this
seductiveness may be so powerful as to overwhelm the adult into committing the offense. The
affair is therefore not always the result of the adults aggression; often the young female is the
initiator and seducer. (Emphasis added).
38
Albert Deutsch (Ed.), SEX HABITS OF AMERICAN MEN, A SYMPOSIUM ON THE KINSEY REPORTS at 126-128,
(New York: Prentice Hall, 1948).
39
Herbert Wechsler, Challenge of a Model Penal Code, 65 HARVARD LAW REVIEW 1103 (1952) .
40
Morris Ernst and David Loth, AMERICAN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND THE KINSEY REPORT, n. 28, at 132
(Graystone Press, 1948).
41
Morris Ploscowe, Sexual Patterns and the Law, in Albert Deutsch, SEX HABITS OF AMERICAN MEN: A
SYMPOSIUM ON THE KINSEY REPORT at 126 (1948).
42
Rene Guyon, THE ETHICS OF SEXUAL ACTS (1948); Morris Ernst, AMERICAN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND THE
KINSEY REPORT, (1948); Donald Porter Geddes and Enid Curie, Eds. ABOUT THE KINSEY
REPORT, (1948); Jerome Himelhoch and Sylvia Fava, Eds. SEXUAL BEHAVIOR IN AMERICAN
SOCIETY, (1948).
43
Report of the Illinois Commission on Sex Offenders, March 15, 1953, at 9.
44
Linda Jeffrey and Ronald D. Ray. 2003. A HISTORY OF THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTES MODEL PENAL
CODE: THE KINSEY REPORTS INFLUENCE ON SCIENCE-BASED LEGAL REFORM 1923-2003.
(Crestwood, KY: First Principles Press).
45
Frank E. Horack, Jr. Sex Offenses and Scientific Investigation. 44 ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW, at 156, 158 (1950).
46
Wardell Pomeroy, DR. KINSEY AND THE INSTITUTE FOR SEX RESEARCH, at 210-11 (1972).
47
Preliminary Report of the Subcommittee on Sex Crimes of the Assembly Interim Committee on Judicial System
and Judicial Process, California Assembly, March 8, 1950, reported in foreword, unnumbered.
48
Testimony of Alfred C. Kinsey, Id., p. 133.
49
Report of the Illinois Commission on Sex Offenders, March 15, 1953, at 9.
50
Report and Recommendations of the Commission on the Habitual Sex Offender as Formulated by Paul W.
Tappan, Technical Consultant, February 1, 1950 at 12.
51
Id., at 18.
52
Louis B. Schwartz, Book Reviews: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, 96 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAW REVIEW at 917 (1948).
53
Id.
54
John Parker Huggard, Criminal LawNorth Carolinas Sodomy Statute: A Need for Revision, 53 NORTH
CAROLINA LAW REVIEW at 1037 (1975).

55
Judy Potter, Sex Offenses. 28 MAINE LAW REVIEW 78 (1976); Albert J. Reiss, Sex Offenses: The
marginal status of the adolescent. 25 LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS 311-312
(1960); Phillip E. Stebbins, Sexual Deviation and the Laws of Ohio 20 OHIO STATE LAW
JOURNAL 347 (1959); Ronald P. Johnsen, Sodomy StatutesA Need for Change, SOUTH
DAKOTA LAW REVIEW 395-396 (Spring, 1968); B. E. C., Jr. Pedophilia, Exhibitionism,
and Voyeurism: Legal Problems in the Deviant Society 4 GEORGIA LAW REVIEW 152
(1969); Larry E. Joplin, Criminal Law: An Examination of the Oklahoma Laws
Concerning Sexual Behavior , 23OKLAHOMA LAW REVIEW 459 (1970); Edward N.
Fadeley. Sex Crime in the New Code, 51 OREGON LAW REVIEW 517 (1972); Orville
Richardson, Sexual Offenses Under the Proposed Missouri Criminal Code, 38 MISSOURI
LAW REVIEW 383 (1973); Ralph Slovenko and Cyril Phillips, Psychosexuality and the
Criminal Law, 15 VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW 809 (1962); Jerome Hall, Science and
Reform in Criminal Law, 100 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 733 (1952).
56
Hugh Hefner. The Legal Enforcement of Morality. 40 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO LAW REVIEW 200
(1967).
57
See for example, The New Jersey Penal Code, Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision
Commission, October, 1971, at x; Morgan S. Bragg, Victimless Sex Crimes: To the Devil,
Not the Dungeon, 25 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LAW REVIEW 140 (1973); John S. Eldred,
Classification and Degrees of OffensesAn Approach to Modernity, 57 KENTUCKY LAW
JOURNAL, 81 (1968-69); John C. Danforth, The Modern Criminal Code for Missouri
(Tentative Draft)A Challenge Fulfilled and the Challenge Presented, 38 MISSOURI LAW
REVIEW, 362 (1973); Paul E. Wilson, New Bottles for Old Wine: Criminal Law Revision
in Kansas, 16 KANSAS LAW REVIEW, 588 (1968).
58
Arthur H. Sherry, Criminal Law Revision in California, 4 JOURNAL OF LAW REFORM 433 (1971).
59
Herbert Wechsler, Challenge of a Model Penal Code. 65 HARVARD LAW REVIEW at 1103 (1952).
60
Herbert W. Titus, GOD, MAN, AND LAW: THE BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES at 3-14. (Oak Brook, IL: Institute
in Basic Life Principles, 1994).
61
Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, October 1971, p. v.
62
Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the Criminal Law in the United States: The Model Penal Code. 68
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW at 1442 (1968).
63
Benjamin Karpman, CRIMINALITY, INSANITY AND THE LAW, 1949. Quoted in 52 COLUMBIA LAW
REVIEW at 749 (1952).
64
Benjamin Karpman, Sex Life in Prison, 38 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY at 476
(1948).
65
C. W. Dean, Treatment Concepts and Penology: A Sociologistss View. 21 SOUTH CAROLINA LAW
REVIEW at 51 (1968).
66
Herbert Wechsler, Challenge of a Model Penal Code, 65 HARVARD LAW REVIEW at 1128.
67
Id., at 1103.
68
Orville Richardson, Sex Offenses under the Proposed Missouri Criminal Code, 38 MISSOURI LAW
REVIEW, at 372 (1973).
69
Sex Offender Treatment: Research Results Inconclusive About What Works to Reduce Recidivism.
Government Accounting Office, GGD-96-137, June 21, 1996.
70
Reno Receives Highest Law School Award. The Louisville Cardinal, Independent Student Newspaper
of the University of Louisville, February 12, 2002, p. 1-2.
71
Richardson, supra. Note 69, at 377, 392.
72
Herbert Wechsler, A Thoughtful Code of Substantive Law, 45 JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW,
CRIMINOLOGY AND POLICE SCIENCE, at 524-535 (1955).
73
Herbert Wechsler, Codification of the Criminal Law in the United States: The Model Penal Code, 68
COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW at 1427(1968).
74
Wechsler cites to drafting committees in Minnesota, 1964; New Mexico, 1964; New York, 1967;
Pennsylvania, 1967; and Michigan, 1967. Other early revisions include Illinois, 1962;
Georgia, 1969; Kansas, 1970; Maryland, 1970; New Jersey, 1971; Massachusetts, 1972;
Colorado, 1972; and Kentucky, 1974.
75
U.S. Child Population, Bureau of Census, International Data Base reports 76.97 million under 20 in
1970, and 78.60 million under 20 in 2000.
76
$17 billion spent on major STDs and their preventable complications, including HIV infections in 1994.
Data from the National Institutes of Health NIAID, Fact Sheet, December 1998.
77
A study last year by the Manhattan Institute demonstrated that enforcing penalties against minor crimes
prevented over 60,000 violent crimes in New York City from 1989 to 1998. The tough-on-
crime stance some call broken-windows policing, was significantly and consistently
linked to declines in violent crime. See George Kelling & William Sousa, Jr. Do Police
Matter? An Analysis of the Impact of New York Citys Police Reforms. CIVIC REPORT
NO. 22, December 2001. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
78
Joseph Epstein, COMMENTARY, January 1998. At www.Britannica.com, downloaded March 31, 2001
79
WEBSTERS AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, (1828), The act of uniting a man
and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a
contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual
affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God
himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for
promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
80
David Allyn, Private Acts/Public Policy: Alfred Kinsey, the American Law Institute and the
Privatization of American Sexual Morality. 30 JOURNAL OF AMERICAN STUDIES at 426
(1996).
81
Michael Phillips, To Help Fight AIDS, Tanzanian Villages Ban Risky Traditions, THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL, January 12, 2001, at 1.
82
Leonard Baker, BRANDEIS AND FRANKFURTER: A DUAL BIOGRAPHY at 29 (Washington Square, NY:
New York University Press, 1986).
83
Lester Kirkendall, Education for Family Living, in Ellis and Abarbanel (Eds.), THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF
SEXUAL BEHAVIOR at 700 (1967).
84
Morris Ernst and David Loth, AMERICAN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND THE KINSEY REPORT, (NY:
Graystone Press, 1948).

1129 20
th
2

From the first presentation to the ALEC Education
Task Force of the Kinsey fraud in 1999 to the final
vote at the 2003 ALEC Summit meeting. it has been
a pleasure working to make this State Factor a
reality. I was honored to serve as the Junk Science
sub-committee Chair on this very important project.
The evidence herein speaks for itself, documenting
the reckless, imprudent decades-long use of
fraudulent "sex science" data to cripple the sex laws
and public policies that had served our nation so
well until they were deftly subverted by a cadre of
legal revolutionaries. It is hoped that this State
Factor will serve legislators all over the nation by
providing a factual history of how the Kinsey frauds
came to dictate school sex education and our sex
laws nationwide.

SenatorKay OConnor
Chair of the SubcommILLee on Junk ScIence

TIe AEC EducuLIon Tusk orce
members wIo served on LIe SubcommILLee on
Junk ScIence ure:

SenuLor Kuy O'Connor (KS) CIuIr
Rep. KeILI KIng (CO)
SenuLor uurIe BIeuker (KS)
DeI. JuneL GreenIp (MD)
Rep. CuroIyn CoIemun (OK)
Rep. Andre MurLeI (NH)
DeI. JoIn ReId (VA)
SenuLor Juck WesLwood (KY)
Dr. JudILI A. ReIsmun,
ScIenLIIIc AdvIsor Lo LIe SubcommILLee
on Junk ScIence.

Dr. Indu JeIIrey wus LIe SLuLe ucLor`s
CIIeI AuLIor Ior !"#$%&'() +"),-
.&%$"/$'%(# 0%& 1%2"( ,(3 45'-3&"(6 7
8'#$%&'/,- 7(,-9#'# :0 ;5" <$,$"#
4&'2'(,- 4%3"#=

For further information on changes to
state law codes, please see the detailed
monograph, A History of the American
Law Institutes Model Penal Code: The
Kinsey Reports Influence on Science-
based Legal Reform1923-2003,
available at www.firstprinciplespress.org.

Drs. Reisman (jareisman@surewest.net)
and Jeffrey (drjeff@aye.net) are available
for questions or to brief legislators and
other state leaders or for consultation and
expert testimony if required.

1129 20
th
3

EXHIBIT C


Declaration of John Doe, Minor Child. - 1

CAMDEN DIVISION

TARA KING, ED.D, individually and on
(AACC),
Plaintiffs,

v.

Defendants.


DECLARATION OF JOHN DOE, MINOR CHILD
I, John Doe, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am under the age of 18 and am a resident of New Jersey affected by A3371, the
legislation that is the subject of this action. The statements in this Declaration are true and
correct and if called upon to testify to them I would and could do so competently.
2. I am submitting this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
and in opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.
3. I am 15 years old, and I began to see a therapist for my Gender Identity Disorder (G.I.D.)
and Same-Sex Attraction when I was 13.
4. The first time I remember having G.I.D. was when I was nine years old. I remember
having a bias against the male sex, thinking that boys were stupid because my mother said bad
things to my father. I also did not feel like my father accepted me because I was very artistic and
not like the boys he had grown up with.
5. When I was 10, I started feeling like I wanted to commit suicide because I didnt like
myself. I thought I would like myself much better if I were a girl. I began to secretly shave my
armpits and pubic hair, so I could look more feminine. When my voice began to change, I tried
to make it higher because I couldnt stand how low it was becoming. I hated everything
masculine about myself. I thought I would be happy if I could be feminine.
6. I began having feelings of Same-Sex Attraction when I was 12 or 13. I remember having
crushes on celebrity guys I saw in magazines. This is when my thoughts of suicide were at
their worst. I hated myself because I wasnt as good as these guys. These guys were muscular
and athletic, and I knew I wasnt. I thought that if I were a girl, I wouldnt have to compete with
them anymore. I knew I would never be good enough if I remained a boy. The hatred I felt for
myself made me feel panicky, and my obsessive-compulsive traits became worse than theyd
ever been. I was having panic attacks during the day and I had trouble sleeping at night. My life

was spinning out of control and I was so depressed, I was thinking about killing myself around
the clock. My parents knew that I was suicidal, so after my most extreme outburst to that point
and when they found pictures of guys under my mattress, they took me to a new therapist.
7. At that time, my suicidal thoughts were at their highest frequency. My parents wanted to
get me help, and I wanted help, too, although at the time I didn't know it. I just couldn't stand
having to live with these conflicting feelings. My parents agreed to seek help from a
professional counselor recommended by NARTH, who specializes in helping men reduce or
eliminate their unwanted same-sex sexual attractions.
8. After my parents contacted my therapist, we talked to him about his therapy. He
explained to us the theory of why I was experiencing same-sex attractions, which he said were
really the manifestation of underlying emotional issues and childhood wounds that were caused
by unmet needs I had as a child. Specifically, he explained that my lack of positive attention
from my father and an improper identification with my mother were the root causes of my
unwanted same-sex attractions.
9. My therapist explained the types of counseling that he uses in reparative therapy sessions,
explained that some therapists do not think an individual can or should change his sexual
orientation, that not everyone is able to successfully reduce or eliminate their unwanted same-sex
attractions, and told us that often patients continue to struggle with same-sex attractions
throughout life and that fully recognizing my heterosexual potential is a life-long process.
10. My religious belief and conviction is that homosexuality is wrong. I wanted to address
that value conflict because my same-sex attractions are contrary to the religious values that I
hold. I want to live out my religious values and do not want to act out on same-sex attractions

1
My understanding is that this kind of treatment would be banned under A3371 because it qualifies
as sexual orientation change efforts.

that violate my religious beliefs. I want to resolve my sexual attractions so that I act in
conformity with my religious beliefs. Because of this, and because I did not want to experience
these same-sex attractions, I talked with my parents about having my therapist help me. My
parents agreed to permit me to participate in reparative therapy with him.
11. I have been seeing this therapist since May of 2011, and I can really say I am improving.
I now have a normal guy voice, I dont shave my body hair anymore, and I definitely have a
better relationship with my father. I do not have thoughts of suicide anymore and my confidence
as a guy is starting to build.
12. I really look forward to the counseling sessions so that I can move further towards
overcoming my same sex attractions. I would also say that my Same-Sex Attraction is lessening
to the point where its only three out of 10 when it used to be eight out of 10. Every day gets a
little better with therapy. I just do not experience my unwanted same-sex sexual attractions as
frequently as I did before I started my counseling sessions with my therapist. The counseling
sessions have really helped me.
13. I feel like I now have hope that someday I might be able to get to the point where Im
living a happy single life. I might even be able to get to the point when I can live a happy
married life, when I am old enough.
14. I want to be able to continue to go to my counseling sessions with my therapist. I have
made progress, but I still need more therapy to help me toward my goal of eliminating my
unwanted same-sex attractions.
15. I am very concerned that if my therapist is not allowed to continue to provide my
counseling, then I might lose much of the progress that I have made so far in treatment. I believe
that if he is not allowed to continue to provide my counseling, then I will begin to experience the

same feelings of confusion and awkwardness that we have worked so hard to reduce and
eliminate, and may even begin to have thoughts of suicide again. I also believe that if my
therapist is not allowed to continue to provide my counseling, then I will begin to experience my
unwanted same-sex attractions more often than I do and that I will have a harder time dealing
with them and with the conflict between those attractions and my religious beliefs.
16. I really want to emphasize that the counseling has significantly improved the relationship
between my parents and me. I think additional counseling will only strengthen that relationship. I
do not think that the rights of my parents to get therapy for me should be taken away. I think I
should have the right to get this therapy. I think everyone should have the freedom to pursue
whats right for them.
17. No one has forced or coerced me to attend counseling with my therapist; at the end of the
day, I am the one who wants to continue the treatment for my unwanted same-sex attractions.
The counseling sessions have not harmed me in fact, they have helped, and I am a much
happier person than I was before.
18. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of
New Jersey that the foregoing statements are true and accurate.

_/s/_____John Doe_______________
John Doe, Minor Child

Executed this 20th_ day of September, 2013.

Declaration of Jane Doe, Mother of Minor Child. - 1

CAMDEN DIVISION

(AACC),
Plaintiffs,

v.

Defendants.


DECLARATION OF JANE DOE, MOTHER OF MINOR CHILD
I, Jane Doe, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18, a resident of the State of New Jersey, and am affected by A3371,
the legislation that is the subject of this action. The statements in this Declaration are true and
2. My husband and I, and our son, John Doe, currently counsel with a Licensed Clinical
Social Worker in New York, who is a member of NARTH and has been certified by Dr. Joseph
Nicolosi in SOCE. Although we are happy with our current therapist, as residents of New Jersey,
and as parents, we wish to retain the option of seeking similar therapy within New Jersey, should
the need arise in the future. A3371 is an invasion of our right to do so; while the gun is aimed at
the license of therapists, its intended target is the right of parents to raise their children in
accordance with their religious, rational, and moral beliefs.
3. I am therefore submitting this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment and in opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.
4. I am the mother of my 15 year old son, John Doe, who is the eldest of my four children.
When my husband and I were first married, we had many arguments in front of our infant son. I
would constantly say things to my husband like: You are not loving enough. You are not a good
husband. Women are better than men because they know how to express their feelings. While it
was true that my husband was somewhat cold and had a difficult time expressing his emotions,
these words should never have been communicated in front of our young son. Our son has also
always been very sensitive and artistic, which is why my critical view of my husband and my
husbands lack of emotion likely had a negative impact on our sons upbringing.
5. At the age of five, our son began to play with female dolls such as Barbies or dolls based
on Disney characters. In particular, he was obsessed with Ariel from The Little Mermaid. He
was also a gifted artist who drew free-hand sketches of Ariel on any scrap piece of paper he

could find. Our son spent many long hours drawing, which my husband did not appreciate
because he himself was not an artist. I remember one specific incident that my son would later
recall as extremely hurtful for him. While he was drawing my husband asked, Why cant you be
like all the normal boys and go outside to play sports? I was livid because I was a musician and
knew what it was like to be a sensitive artist.
6. By the time our son turned 10, we had an incident at another couples house where our
son was caught taking off his clothes in order to dress up in princess costumes. We felt very
embarrassed because we knew this behavior appeared to be quite disordered.
7. Later on, our son also began to exhibit suicidal behavior where he would take sharp
knives into the bathroom and threaten suicide. At these moments, he would yell that he would
have preferred it if God had made him a girl. We became concerned that our son could have
Gender Identity Disorder, or G.I.D.
8. At this point, we knew we needed to seek therapy for our son. We searched for a Catholic
therapist believing that as long as the therapist shared our faith, he would be able to help our son.
I have a fairly extensive understanding of the theories relating to G.I.D and Same-Sex Attraction,
which I obtained in part from self-study and in part through my Masters in Systematic Theology
from Seton Hall Universitys Immaculate Conception Seminary School of Theology. Thus, I was
surprised and concerned when this Catholic therapist did not seem to share the same scholarly
view of G.I.D. and Same-Sex Attraction as the many experts in the field with whom I studied. It
was therefore no surprise to me that our son did not improve. In fact, he just seemed to get worse.
9. With no real help for my son's underlying issues, he continued to experience distress.
This distress came to a peak when he turned 12, when his voice began to change with
adolescence. It seemed the deeper it became, the more our son tried to make his voice artificially

higher and by the time he turned 13, he began to speak in a high, artificial falsetto. At this point,
the downward spiral was very quick. We took a trip to Myrtle Beach and our son shaved his
body hair, including his armpits, flushed his underwear down the toilet, and tried to fling himself
over the balcony of our hotel room. Upon our return home, we found various pornographic
pictures and illustrations of men in graphic sexual positions under his mattress.
10. This time, we reached out to a good priest friend of ours who introduced us to the
National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, or "NARTH." Through
NARTH, we found a fantastic therapist, an LCSW, who happens to be an Orthodox Jew who
studied under Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, and who is also a specialist in reparative therapy.
11. We contacted our current therapist to discuss whether our son would be able to benefit
from reparative therapy. He explained to us his theory of why my son was experiencing same-
sex attractions, which he said were really the manifestation of underlying emotional issues. Our
therapist explained that some of my sons emotional and personal identity issues were the result
of some childhood wounds that were caused by needs that my son had as a child that my husband
and I did not meet. Our therapist also explained that my husbands failure to provide positive
male attention caused my sons desire to fit in with me as a woman, and that this was the root
cause of my sons unwanted same-sex attractions.
12. Since our son had told his father and me that he did not want to experience his same-sex
attractions and wanted to have a therapist help him, and after consultation with our son as to this
course of action, my husband and I agreed to engage our therapist for reparative therapy with our
son.

1
Reparative therapy is the name Dr. Nicolosi uses, which practice appears to fall within the ambit of
"sexual orientation change efforts" under A3371.

13. Our therapist explained the types of counseling that he uses in counseling sessions, that
some therapists do not think an individual can or should change his sexual orientation, that not
everyone is able to successfully reduce or eliminate their unwanted same-sex attractions, and told
us that often patients continue to struggle with same-sex attractions throughout life and that my
sons ability to fully recognize his heterosexual potential is a life-long process.
14. My son, who is still a minor, has now been receiving counseling from our therapist since
May 2011. Because of the counseling sessions, we have noticed significant changes in our son,
such as the fact that he exhibits more traditional male characteristics. Our son has told my
husband and me that he no longer experiences his unwanted same-sex sexual attractions as
frequently as he did prior to counseling.
15. Our son has now grown closer to his father, has begun to embrace his masculinity, and
never speaks of suicide or wanting to be a girl. There is still much to be resolved, though, in
terms of his confidence as a young man who can compete with other young men and see himself
as appealing to the opposite sex. Our son may need therapy for the rest of his life, and with it, he
has the chance to lead a happy and healthy lifestyle. It is our sons desire and therefore our desire
that our son be permitted to continue his counseling during the remainder of his adolescence, and
beyond, if need be.
16. I believe that if my son can continue these counseling sessions, then he will be able to
continue to make progress toward his goal of eliminating his unwanted same-sex attractions. On
the other hand, I believe that if my son is no longer allowed to receive this counseling, then my
son will regress from the progress he has made thus far, and will again suffer from the personal
identity issues and unwanted same-sex attractions that he asked us to help him reduce.

17. Our son has told my husband and me that he believes that if his therapist is no longer
allowed to provide reparative therapy to him that he will have a harder time dealing with his
unwanted same-sex attractions. As a mother, I believe that my son should be permitted to
continue with his desired course of therapy without interference from the state. If the State
prohibits his therapy, I particularly fear that he will begin to again experience suicidal thoughts
and may even attempt suicide.
18. The relationship between our son and the two of us has significantly improved since he
started the counseling with his therapist. I believe the relationship between my husband and my
son will continue to improve if he is allowed to continue to have this counseling. If he is not
allowed to continue, then our relationship with our son might regress as he becomes unhappy
with any increased and unwanted gender and sexual identity issues.
19. Our son has been the one who has said that he wants to engage in and continue with the
treatment. My husband and I have affirmed our sons choice and never pressured him to either
start or continue the treatment. We have seen the counseling benefit our son, and we have not
seen any harm resulting from the counseling. He is much happier and less withdrawn and
depressed since he began counseling.
20. In addition to the fact that my husband and I firmly believe that our son should be able to
seek counseling for his unwanted same-sex attractions, my husband and I also have sincerely-
held religious beliefs that homosexuality is a harmful lifestyle. As parents, we believe we have
the right to obtain counseling from a licensed professional to help our son with his unwanted
same-sex attractions without interference from the State. We firmly believe that the counseling is
helping our son make positive life changes. A3371 significantly burdens our rights as parents to
help our son and help him in the best way we know how.

21. I am completely appalled at Governor Christies decision to deny parents the right to seek
therapy for children with Gender Identity Disorder or unwanted Same-Sex Attractions. I feel
Governor Christie has made a very ignorant decision not on the basis of true reparative therapy
norms, but on the basis of ridiculous and ludicrous examples of therapy that sound not only
insane, but downright criminal. I hope that this unlawful decision can be overturned, so that
childrens lives can be saved through true, healing reparative therapy.

_/s/_____Jane Doe_________________
Jane Doe, Mother of Minor Child John Doe

Executed this _20th_ day of September, 2013.

Declaration of Jack Doe, Father of Minor Child. - 1

CAMDEN DIVISION

(AACC),
Plaintiffs,

v.

Defendants.


DECLARATION OF JACK DOE, FATHER OF MINOR CHILD
I, Jack Doe, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of 18, a resident of the State of New Jersey, and am affected by A3371,
the legislation that is the subject of this action. The statements in this Declaration are true and
2. My wife and I, and our son, John Doe, currently counsel with a Licensed Clinical Social
Worker in New York, who is a member of NARTH and has been certified by Dr. Joseph
Nicolosi in SOCE. Although we are happy with our current therapist, as residents of New Jersey,
and as parents, we wish to retain the option of seeking similar therapy within New Jersey, should
the need arise in the future. A3371 is an invasion of our right to do so; while the gun is aimed at
the license of therapists, its intended target is the right of parents to raise their children in
accordance with their religious, rational, and moral beliefs.
3. I am therefore submitting this Declaration in support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary
Judgment and in opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.
4. I am the father of my 15 year old son, John Doe, who is the eldest of my four children.
When my wife and I were first married, we had many arguments in front of our infant son. I
caused a lot of problems because I was not an outwardly loving man. Instead, I saw love as being
constantly on the go, being a doer and a provider. That compounded with stubbornness caused
my wife and I to have raging arguments for hours and well into the night. I hurt her enormously,
and she would in turn berate me in front of our son. This undoubtedly had a negative impact on
our sons upbringing.
5. In his elementary school years (grades K through 4), our son started playing with dolls.
We thought it was atypical, but did nothing about it. He also tried playing baseball and soccer
during these years. He quit soccer after a few weeks, but stuck with baseball for two years, after
much prodding from my wife and me. It was readily apparent he did not feel comfortable around

other boys, or in playing these sports. He was particularly bad at baseball. When they put him
into right field, he would tend to "skip" out to his position and his at-bats were very weak. He
also tried Cub Scouts, which did not work out very well, either. He did not have any interest in
boy activities and could not relate to the other Scouts. Instead of sports and Scouts, which were
my interests as a young boy, my son spent hours honing his artistic gifts. While he was drawing I
asked, Why cant you be like all the normal boys and go outside to play sports? It was very
insensitive on my part. I was hung up on real men playing typical sports and did not appreciate
his wonderful gifts. As a result, there was distance and discord between us, and he moved
emotionally closer and closer to his mother.
6. Once our son entered junior high school (grades 5 7), we hoped things would get better.
He entered a new school, got involved in the drama club, started swimming on the local swim
team and entered karate tournaments. Even though we thought he was doing better, inside he was
doing worse. He started cutting himself and entertaining thoughts of suicide. Whatever activity
he got involved in, he could not relate to other boys, and could not perform to his potential. At
his core, our son was in a battle with himself. He felt inadequate as a young man, emotionally
distanced from his father, and attracted to boys and men who embodied what he thought a
boy/man should be. At a particularly low point he expressed that he wished God had made him a
girl.
7. At age 12, our sons voice began to change with adolescence. It seemed that the deeper
his voice became, the more our son tried to make his voice artificially higher and by the time he
turned 13, he began to speak in an obviously artificially high, falsetto voice. At this point, our
son began to spiral downward very quickly. We took a trip to Myrtle Beach, and our son shaved
his armpits, flushed his underwear down the toilet, and tried to fling himself over the balcony of

our hotel room. Then, we returned home to find various pornographic pictures and illustrations
of men in various positions under his mattress.
8. This time, we reached out to a good priest friend of ours who introduced us to NARTH.
Through NARTH, we found a fantastic therapist, who happens to be an Orthodox Jew, who
studied under Dr. Joseph Nicolosi. With our therapist, we began therapy that involves repairing
the broken relationship between my son and me as well as helping my son to realize that he is a
wonderful young man and much more well-rounded than he gives himself credit for being. We
have learned together that there is no such thing as the "perfect man." My son, through this
journey with his counselor, a NARTH member, is moving towards establishing healthy
friendships with other teen boys.
1

9. Our son has been seeing this therapist since May of 2011, which was the spring of his 7
th

grade year. Since beginning counseling, our son has grown closer to me, has begun to embrace
his masculinity, and never speaks of suicide, cutting himself, or wanting to be a girl. Our son is
actively involved in martial arts and swimming while still pursuing his artistic interests. Our son
was voted Best Team Spirit two years in a row by his swim team coaches, won matches in
karate tournaments, had a lead role in his 8
th
grade play, and earned a scholarship to his Catholic
High School. Before therapy, our son could only draw women, because he had no concept of
men, but now, after relatively few years of therapy, our son draws both genders well.
10. My son has greatly benefited from therapy, but his journey is far from over. My son is
not yet where he wants to be and our relationship still has a lot of room to grow.
11. The current New Jersey legislation makes it illegal for us to seek and continue within
New Jersey the type of therapy that has been so helpful for my son's journey towards becoming a

1
Reparative therapy is the name Dr. Nicolosi uses, which practice appears to fall within the ambit of
"sexual orientation change efforts" under A3371.

young man who is happy, healthy, and has high self-esteem. For the health of my son, this
legislation has to be overturned.

_/s/_____Jack Doe_________________
Jack Doe, Father of Minor Child John Doe

Executed this __20th_ day of September, 2013.

Plaintiffs Motion Objection to the Courts Dispensing with Supporting Declarations and Evidence
and Motion to Deem Certain Factual Allegations Admitted by the State - 1

TRENTON DIVISION

TARA KING, ED.D., individually and on
(AACC),

Plaintiffs,
v.


Defendants.

Case No. 3:13-cv-05038

PLAINTIFFS MOTION OBJECTING TO THE COURTS DISPENSING WITH
PLAINTIFFS SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS AND EVIDENCE, DISPENSING
WITH EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS, AND MOTION TO DEEM CERTAIN FACTUAL
ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED BY THE STATE

COME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, and file this Motion
Objecting to the Courts Dispensing with Plaintiffs Supporting Declarations and Evidence,
Case 3:13-cv-05038-FLW-LHG Document 50 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 34 PageID: 1359

Dispensing with Evidentiary Motions, and Motion to Deem Certain Factual Allegations
Admitted by the State.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs challenge New Jersey Assembly Bill No. 3371 (A3371) both facially and as
applied against them, their counseling, and their clients. (Dkt. 1, Compl. 181-267). In support
of both their facial and as-applied challenges, Plaintiffs submitted Declarations providing sworn
testimony concerning how A3371 violates Plaintiffs and their clients First Amendment rights to
free speech and free exercise of religion, and parental rights. (See Dkt. 3-1 to 3-6, Declarations of
Tara King, Ronald Newman, David Pruden, Christopher Rosik, Joseph Nicolosi, and Eric
Scalise); (Dkt. 33-1 to 33-6, Rebuttal Declarations of Christopher Rosik, Ronald Newman, and
Judith Reisman, and Declarations of John Doe, Jack, Doe, and Jane Doe). Those declarations
provide highly relevant information dispositive of Plaintiffs facial and as applied constitutional
challenges to A3371.
Plaintiffs object to this Court dispensing with Plaintiffs evidentiary declarations and
evidence. During the October 1, 2013, hearing, Plaintiffs understood this Court to suggest that
the submitted declarations and evidence were not necessary to the determination of this case.
This Court subsequently entered a Minute Order Entry (Dkt. 46) terminating all of the motions
concerning the evidence before the Court. Plaintiffs hereby object to dispensing with all of the
relevant evidence and move that this Court reconsider its Order and dispensing of the evidence.
Plaintiffs constitutional challenges cannot be decided without consideration of the
specific and highly relevant testimony of Plaintiffs Declarations, much of which is undisputed
on the dispositive issues of this case. During the hearing, this Court asked counsel for the
Plaintiffs about certain factual matters of the case, including but not limited to, what is the sexual

orientation change efforts (SOCE) counseling offered by the Plaintiff counselors. These, and
other questions regarding the facts of the case, are addressed in Plaintiffs declarations submitted
in support of Summary Judgment. This is all the more reason Plaintiffs declarations must be
considered.
To further address this Courts questions concerning Plaintiffs facial and as-applied
challenges, Plaintiffs hereby submit the following citations to Plaintiffs testimony addressing (1)
the nature of SOCE counseling, (2) the undisputed fact that no party before this Court practices
aversive techniques, (3) the ability of Plaintiffs and other counselors to refer clients to unlicensed
counselors without violating other provisions of their ethical codes, (4) the fact that A3371 puts
counselors into an irresolvable conflict and forces them to violate their ethical codes, (5) that the
term sexual orientation is not wholly well-understood, even among mental health professionals
practicing in the area of SOCE counseling, (6) the fact that A3371 has the primary effect of
inhibiting the free exercise of religions of the Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs clients, which include the
parents and their minor children, and (7) that the evidence before this Court fails to demonstrate
that SOCE causes harm to minors.
FACTUAL MATTERS WITH SPECIFIC CITATIONS
The Nature of SOCE Counseling
1. At the October 1, 2013, hearing, this Court raised questions concerning the nature of
SOCE counseling and stated that it was unclear what Plaintiff counselors do in such counseling,
including inquiries into the specific type of communication (i.e., speech) that occurs during such
counseling. In essence, this Court inquired into what counselors say in this counseling and the
nature of the conversation when a minor seeks such counseling. Plaintiffs undisputed testimony
specifically provides the answers to this Courts inquiry. For ease of reference and to highlight

the pertinent testimony this Court should consider in deciding Plaintiffs converted Motion for
Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs provide the following specific citations:
1

Declaration of Dr. Tara King
(Dkt. 3-1, King Decl. 12) (SOCE counseling is talk therapy. It is no different
than any other form of mental health counseling. . . . The SOCE counseling that I
practice is simply the traditional psychodynamic process of looking at root causes,
childhood issues, developmental factors, and other thing that cause a person to
present with all types of physical, mental, emotional, or psychological issues that
in turn cause them distress. This type of counseling is insight-oriented, just like
every other modern form of mental health counseling.).

Declaration of Dr. Ronald Newman

(Dkt. 3-2, Newman Decl. 7) (for those clients who seek counseling from a
Christian perspective and desire to conform their counseling goals with their
sincerely held religious beliefs, I focus on Biblical integration in the counseling
relationships.).

Declaration of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi

(Dkt. 3-5, Nicolosi Decl. 10) (My SOCE counseling consists of discussions
with the client concerning the nature and cause of their unwanted same-sex
attractions, behaviors, or identity; the extent of these attractions, behaviors, or
identity; assistance in understanding traditional, gender-appropriate behaviors and
characteristics; and assisting and fostering and developing those gender-
appropriate behaviors and characteristics.).

(Id. 37) (A3371 bans SOCE, which is not just about discussions of sexual
orientation, but also about discussions about a persons behavior that is
incongruent with a persons religious or moral values. Licensed counselors need
the freedom to talk about a clients behavior in a manner that incorporates
discussions of the clients religious faith or values.).

Plaintiffs Counsel is Talk Therapy Not Outdated Aversive Techniques

2. Additionally, this Court stated that not every SOCE practitioner was before the Court in
this case, so the Court could not assume that other counselors do not use aversive techniques.
2

1
In providing these citations, Plaintiffs are merely highlighting the relevant testimony already in
the record before this Court and have pulled the specific quotations specifically from Plaintiffs
Declarations.


However, the undisputed evidence is that Plaintiffs use only talk therapy and even the States
declaration admits that aversive therapy has not been used in decades. (See Dkt. 29-3,
Drescher Decl. 14). Moreover, this case involves an as applied challenge in addition to a facial
challenge. Thus, what the Plaintiffs do is highly probative to the as applied challenge. It is
undisputed that Plaintiffs engage only in talk therapy or speech. For ease of reference and to
highlight the pertinent testimony, Plaintiffs provide the following specific citations:
(King Decl. 12) (The parade of horribles of aversion techniques, such as
electroshock treatments, pornographic viewing, nausea-inducing drugs, etc. are
unethical methods of treatment that have not been used by any ethical and
licensed mental health professional in decades.).

Declaration of David Pruden

(Dkt. 3-3, Pruden Decl. 12) (The Legislature and supporters of A3371 have
consistently attempted to tie practices that had been used in the distant past with
the practices that NARTH members currently use. NARTH members do not
engage in any of the practices that the supporters of A3371 refer to as
aversion practices, including electric shock treatments, nausea and
vomiting inducing medicine, or shame aversion. These types of techniques
have been irrelevant in psychotherapy for decades, and it is illogical to attempt to
bring these antiquated practices into the discussion of modem practices involving
SOCE. The attempt of supporters of A3371 to lump modem therapeutic
techniques with these unethical practices is inaccurate and does not describe the
therapy currently engaged in with clients by NARTH members.) (emphasis
added).

Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Christopher Rosik

(Dkt. 33-1, Rosik Rebuttal Decl. 23) ([C]ontemporary SOCE is only talk
therapy and no longer utilizes such outdated [aversive] practices.).

2
The Ninth Circuit also recognized what Plaintiffs undisputed testimony reveals here, which is
that every party before this Court practices only talk therapy. See Pickup v. Brown, No. 12-17681,
2013 WL 4564249, *1 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2013) (The Plaintiff mental health providers in
these cases use only non-aversive techniques.) (emphasis added). Pickup clearly stated: The
record shows that Plaintiffs who are licensed mental health providers practice SOCE only
through talk therapy. Id. at 8 n.5 (emphasis added). The same is true here.

(Id. 24) (More broadly, Defendants experts and mental health associations
repeatedly associate electric shock, nausea inducing drugs, and other aversive
interventions with SOCE, sometimes acknowledging that these interventions have
long been abandoned by the psychological professions (e.g., Haldeman Decl.,
paragraph 8). What they fail to report (Drescher is a welcomed exception
here) is that such aversive interventions were quite accepted at the time
within psychology and applied to a wide variety of clinical issues. Mentioning
only SOCE in the context of past aversive techniques risks creating an
inaccurate and prejudicial impression of SOCE interventions as historic
outliers when this in fact is far from the truth.) (emphasis original).

Declaration of Dr. Jack Drescher (Submitted by the State)

(Dkt. 29-3, Drescher Decl. 13) (The use of psychoanalytic and behavior
therapy in SOCE was prevalent through the 1960s and early 1970s. Behavior
therapists used a variety of aversion treatments, including electric shock
treatments, nausea-inducing drugs and having an individual snap an elastic band
around the wrist when the individual became aroused to same-sex erotic images
or thoughts. (APA Report at 22). Some cognitive therapists attempted to change
thought patterns using hypnosis or by redirecting thoughts and reframing desires,
but these efforts were generally not successful. (See id.)) (emphasis added).

(Id. 14) (specifically noting that Plaintiffs do not engage in aversive techniques
but merely talk therapy).

Declaration of Dr. Douglas Haldeman (Submitted by Garden State Equality)

(Dkt. 30-3, Haldeman Decl. 8) (some of the most notorious aversive change
therapies have largely fallen into disfavor, ... some practitioners have continued to
engage in other types of SOCE.).

Plaintiff Counselors Cannot Refer Clients to Unlicensed Counselors

3. Defendants mischaracterized the ability of Plaintiffs and other licensed mental health
counselors in New Jersey to refer minors seeking SOCE counseling to other unlicensed
counselors. It should be noted that the Act is silent on this issue, as was the facial language in
Pickup. This Court referred to the Ninth Circuit case of Pickup suggesting that licensed
counselors can refer to unlicensed counselors. However, the Pickup finding was dependent upon
a specific narrowing construction offered by the State during oral argument at the trial court for
that determination; no such unequivocal narrowing construction has been offered by the State

here. Furthermore, as Plaintiffs counsel advised the Court during the hearing, Plaintiffs cannot
ethically refer to an unlicensed counselor under A3371 and existing ethical codes. Plaintiffs
declarations address this issue. Plaintiffs provide the following specific citations:
(King Decl. 17) (citing the ACA Code and stating that Section A.11.d
mandates that when mental health counselors refer a client to a different
practitioner for some course of counseling, that the referring professional ensure
that appropriate clinical and administrative processes are completed and open
communication is maintained with both clients and practitioners. A3371 forces
me to violate this provision as well, because I will no longer have any option of
referring a client to an appropriate licensed mental health professional.)
(emphasis added).


(Newman Decl. 12) (A3371 would also prohibit me from making
referrals . . . .).

(Pruden Decl. 10) (A3371 also provides no guidance concerning whether
NARTH members can refer a client to an unlicensed counselor who can engage
in SOUCE counseling with them without violating some ethical standard. . . .
NARTH members have an ethical duty to monitor the progress of any referral
while still counseling the client on other issues during the counselor-client
relationship. It appears the bill would require members not to refer any client to a
person who could practice SOCE because it might be a practice that seeks to
reduce or eliminate someones unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or
identity.).


(Nicolosi Decl. 30) (A3371 will cause New Jersey counselors to violate
Section 3.10 of the American Psychological Associations Ethics Code (APA
Code) because they will be prohibited from even discussing a course of
treatment, SOCE, that is part of the information that they are ethically required to
provide to their clients. Counselors would also be prohibited from even referring
a client who wants to discuss SOCE therapy to a professional who can provide
it.).

(Id. 35) (Additionally, it is completely uncertain about whether a simple
referral would constitute an effort seeking to reduce or eliminate same-sex
attractions, behaviors, or identity that would violate A3371. Informing someone

that such SOCE counseling is available at another location by another individual
not subject to A3371 seems like it could be a violation, but A3371 provides no
guidance on this matter, so a counselor is again faced with a dilemma of how to
exercise his or her professional judgment.).

Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Ronald Newman

(Dkt. 33-2, Newman Rebuttal Decl. 13) (In my 33 years of clinical practice, I
have helped many minors and adults work through anxieties and
depressions related to their unwanted same-sex attractions. While under this
law, I will not even be able to refer potential clients to a non-licensed (religious)
counselor, as it can be perceived as a sexual orientation change effort.)
(emphasis original).

(Id. 23) (My private psychology practice for over fifteen years, as well as the
practices of other faith-based licensed professionals, have been built on referrals
from the clergy and a wide range of Christian sources, and would be irreparably
harmed if referrals from those sources were to cease. The fact that clergy are
excluded from this law is irrelevant, since they refer to professionals in more
difficult cases or where expertise is needed, such as with unwanted same-sex
attraction.).

A3371 Forces Plaintiff Counselors and Other Counselors to Violate Their Ethical Codes

4. Defendants mischaracterized the ability of Plaintiffs and other licensed mental health
counselors in New Jersey to comply with A3371 without violating other provisions of their
respective ethical codes. But, A3371 places licensed mental health professionals in an
irresolvable conflict and puts them on a collision course with an ethical violation. Plaintiffs
provide the following citations:
(King Decl. 15) (A3371 would prohibit professional counselors from even
discussing available treatment options that might help alleviate a clients
unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity because a client might
subsequently view even a simple discussion of SOCE counseling as an effort
to reduce or eliminate his or her unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors,
or identity and subject the counselor to ethical charges and violations. A3371
will force counselors to violate a fundamental principle of informed consent.
Section A.2 of the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics (ACA
Code) states that all patients need adequate information about the counseling
process, and that the client has the freedom to choose the counseling relationship.

A3371 will force me to violate this principle because it will prohibit me from
even discussing the availability of SOCE counseling. Discussing my personal
story, the availability of SOCE counseling, or the notion that I believe change
is possible could be considered an effort to change a clients sexual
orientation, which would subject me to professional ethics violations. A3371 will
therefore silence me in my counseling sessions and prohibit me from sharing my
personal story with my clients and helping those who seek the change that I was
able to achieve.) (emphasis added).

(Id. 16) (A3371, however, will force me to commit an ethical violation by
imposing a certain ideologyi.e., the governments ideology against SOCE
counselingon all my patients who seek SOCE treatment because A3371 only
permits counselors to affirm same-sex attractions. It arguably precludes
counselors from even telling clients with unwanted same-sex attractions that there
is help available. A3371s mandate that I impose the governments ideology
regarding same-sex attractions is a direct violation of Section A.4.b of the
ACA Code, which mandates that mental health counselors avoid imposing
values that are inconsistent with counseling goals. A3371 forces me to ignore
the clients values when those values and sincerely held religious beliefs inform
the client that change is possible and that SOCE counseling is an effective method
to reduce or eliminate their unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or
identity.) (emphasis added).

(Id. 17) (A3371 also forces me to violate Section A.11 of the ACA Code.
Section A.11.a states that [c]ounselors do not abandon or neglect clients in
counseling. A3371 mandates that I abandon my clients who seek to reduce or
eliminate their unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity because
I will no longer be able to provide the counseling that my clients desire.)
(emphasis added).


(Newman Decl. 12) (Complying with A3371 would cause me to violate
Section 3.10 of the American Psychological Associations Ethics Code (APA
Code), which requires that I provide a patient with all information necessary to
make an informed decision concerning a particular course of available counseling.
It would also cause me to infringe General Ethical Principle E of the APA Code
requiring that I ensure the patient the freedom to make a self-determined choice
concerning his therapy. A3371 will cause me to violate those provisions because
its prohibits me from providing detailed information to my clients about the
available forms of counseling, including SOCE, so that the clients decision to
choose a particular form of counseling is properly informed. A3371 would also
prohibit me from making referrals to other licensed counselors who can provide
SOCE. However, failure to comply with A3371 will subject me to possible
disciplinary action.).


(Id. 13) (Because A3371 forces me to violate one of my current ethical
obligations or violate A3371, which would also be an ethical violation, the law is
certain to cause irreparable harm to my practice by putting my professional
license in jeopardy without providing any clear understanding of how to comply
with all of the requirements of the counseling profession while still providing the
type of counseling that is consistent with my minor patients sincerely held
religious beliefs.).

(Id. 14) (A3371 will also cause me to violate Section 3.06 of the APA Code
by causing me to enter into a relationship where my objectivity is called into
question, especially since A3371 mandates that only one ideologyi.e., the
governments ideology concerning SOCEbe shared in the counselors office
regardless of the patients sincerely held religious beliefs, desires, or counseling
goals.) (emphasis added).


(Nicolosi Decl. 30) (The practice of giving detailed information to minor
clients and their parents satisfies the ethical requirements that a counselor provide
all of the information that is reasonable for the client to make an informed
decision concerning their individual course of treatment and that facilitates the
autonomous client decision-making process. A3371 will cause New Jersey
counselors to violate Section 3.10 of the American Psychological
Associations Ethics Code (APA Code) because they will be prohibited from
even discussing a course of treatment, SOCE, that is part of the information
that they are ethically required to provide to their clients. Counselors would
also be prohibited from even referring a client who wants to discuss SOCE
therapy to a professional who can provide it.) (emphasis added).

(Id. 31) (Compliance with A3371 will force New Jersey counselors to
violate the informed consent mandates of Section 3.10 of the APA Code and
probably also infringe ethical requirement outlined in General Principle E of
the APA Code that a counselor allow the patient complete freedom to make a
self-determined choice concerning his therapy. However, providing clients
with unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity with the treatment they
desire automatically constitutes and ethical violation under A3371.) (emphasis
added).

(Id. 32) (Because of this impossible Catch-22, A3371 is certain to cause
irreparable harm to the practice of New Jersey counselors by putting their
professional license in jeopardy no matter how they proceed, and with no
guidelines on how to resolve the conflict between A3371 and the ethical codes.).

(Id. 33) (A3371 will also cause New Jersey counselors to violate Section
3.06 of the APA Code by causing them to enter into a relationship where
their objectivity is called into question because A3371 mandates that only one

ideologyi.e., the States ideology condemning SOCEbe shared in the
counselors office.) (emphasis added).

Declaration of Dr. Eric Scalise

(Dkt. 3-6, Scalise Decl. 11) (The AACCs members follow the time-honored
and foundational ethical value of client self-determination. A3371 directly and
significantly undermines what is considered as a cornerstone principle in mental
health counseling. This principle can be found in the language of the ethical codes
of notable professional member organizations such as the American
Psychological Association (APA), the American Counseling Association (ACA),
and the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (AAMFT), to
name a few.).

Complaint and Ethical Codes

(Dkt. 1, Complaint 29) (General Principle E of the American Psychological
Associations Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA
Code) includes the following: Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all
people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-
determination.) (emphasis added).

(Id. 33) (Section 3.04 of the APA Code, Avoiding Harm, further states:
Psychologists take reasonable steps to avoid harming their clients/patients . . .
and to minimize harm where it is foreseeable and unavoidable.).

(Id. 36) (Section 1(c) of the APA Guidelines states: A psychiatrist shall strive
to provide beneficial treatment that shall not be limited to minimum criteria of
medical necessity.).

(Id. 38) (Opinion 10.01(2) of the American Medical Association Code of Ethics
(AMA Code) states: The patient has the right to make decisions regarding the
health care that is recommended by his or her physician. Accordingly, patients
may accept or refuse any recommended medical treatment.)

(Id. 41) (Opinion 10.016 of the AMA Code states: Medical decision-making
for pediatric patients should be based on the childs best interest, which is
determined by weighing many factors, including effectiveness of appropriate
medical therapies, the patients psychological and emotional welfare, and the
family situation. When there is legitimate inability to reach consensus about what
is in the best interest of the child, the wishes of the parents should generally
receive preference.).

(Id. 44) (Section A.2.d of the American Counselors Association Code of
Ethics (ACA Code) states: When counseling minors or persons unable to give
voluntary consent, counselors seek the assent of clients to services, and include

them in decision-making as appropriate. Counselors recognize the need to balance
the ethical rights of clients to make choices, their capacity to give consent or
assent to receive services, and parental or familial legal rights and responsibilities
to protect those clients and make decisions on their behalf.).

(Id. 45) (Section B.5.b of the ACA Code states: Counselors are sensitive to the
cultural diversity of families and respect the inherent rights and responsibilities of
parents/guardians over the welfare of their children.).

(Id. 47) (Section A.4.a of the ACA Code states: Counselors act to avoid
harming their clients, trainees, and research participation and to minimize or to
remedy unavoidable or unanticipated harm.).

(Id. 50) (Principles 1 and 1.2 of the American Association of Marriage and
Family Therapists Code of Ethics (AAMFT Code) provide that all licensed
Marriage and Family Therapists shall advance the welfare of families and
individuals and shall obtain informed consent from their clients, which generally
requires that the client has been adequately informed of significant information
concerning treatment processes and procedures.).

(Id. 52) (Principle 1.8 of the AAMFT Code provides that licensed marriage and
family therapists respect the rights of clients to make decisions.).

(Id. 55) (Section 1.01 of Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social
Workers (NASW Code) states that it is a social workers primary responsibility
to promote the well-being of their clients.).

(Id. 57) (Section 1.02 of the NASW Code provides that the clients shall have
the right to self-determination and that a social worker should only seek to assist
the client in achieving his or her goals and objectives for the counseling.).

(Id. 59) (Section 1.03 of the NASW Code provides that social workers must
provide sufficient information for the client to make an informed decision about
his or her course of care and specifically states that such informed consent must
include a discussion of reasonable alternatives.) (emphasis added).

A3371 Substantially Burdens Plaintiffs Free Exercise of Religion

5. This Court raised questions concerning how A3371 implicates the free exercise of
religion of Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs clients, which include parents and their minor children.
Plaintiffs declarations provide highly relevant testimony concerning how A3371 violates their
rights to free exercise of religion. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508

U.S. 520, 533-34 (1993), the Supreme Court noted that facial neutrality is not always
determinative, because the First Amendment prohibits subtle departures from neutrality, and it
covers suppression of religious beliefs that is masked as well as overt. Id. The legislature relied
on the APA Report, concerning which the declarations and the APA Report reveal an intent to
significantly discriminate against religion and religious beliefs of those seeking to change
unwanted same-sex attractions, behavior, or identity. For ease of reference and to highlight the
pertinent testimony concerning A3371s violation of the Free Exercise Clause, Plaintiffs provide
the following citations:
(King Decl. 14) (Many of my clients . . . are Christians and request Christian as
part of the SOCE counseling that I provide. A3371 will prohibit me from
practicing my profession and my counseling with these clients according to
the sincerely held religious beliefs that both my clients and I have.)
(emphasis added).


(Newman Decl. 8) (Many of these individuals seek to reduce or eliminate their
unwanted same-sex attractions because their religious beliefs inform them that
change is possible.).

Declaration of Dr. Christopher Rosik

(Dkt. 3-4, Rosik Decl. 3) (Although many qualified conservative psychologists
were nominated to serve on the task force, all of them were rejected. This fact
was noted in a book co-edited by a past-president of the APA (Yarhouse, 2009).
The director of the APAs Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office, Clinton
Anderson, offered the following defense: We cannot take into account what
are fundamentally negative religious perceptions of homosexualitythey
dont fit into our world view (Carey, 2007). It appears that the APA operated
with a litmus test when considering task force membershipthe only views of
homosexuality that were tolerated are those that uniformly endorsed same-sex
behavior as a moral good. Thus from the outset of the task force, it was
predetermined that conservative or religious viewpoints would only be acceptable
when they fit within their pre-existing worldview. One example of this is the
Reports failure to recommend any religious resources that adopt a traditional or
conservative approach to addressing conflicts between religious beliefs and sexual

orientation. This bias can hardly be said to respect religious diversity and had
predictable consequences for how the task force addressed its work.) (emphasis
added).

(Id. 49) (SOCE typically occurs when client desire to live within the
boundaries of their conservative religious values and beliefs.) (emphasis
added).

(Id. 65) (Clients often pursue psychological care for [various] psychological
difficulties due to deeply held religious and moral beliefs . . . .) (emphasis
added).


(Nicolosi Decl. 19) (On page 18, the APA Report implies that by striving to
live a life consistent with their religious values, people with same-sex attractions,
behaviors, or identity must deny their true sexual selves. This further implies that
individuals with sincerely-held religious beliefs that lead them to seek a reduction
or elimination of their unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity will
not experience organismic wholeness, self-awareness, and mature development of
their personal identity. Those religious individuals who seek to live in conformity
to their religious values are assumed to experience a constriction of their true
selves because of a religiously imposed behavioral control. This false distinction,
created by the APA Report, ignores the desire of many clients to live in
congruence with the fundamental tenets of their sincerely held religious and moral
beliefs. For these individuals, the values they hold because of their religious
beliefs are viewed as guideposts and sources of inspiration that help guide them
on their pursuit of wholeness, and wholeness for these people can only be
achieved by living in congruence with their religious beliefs.).

(Id. 20) (The APA Report seeks to diminish the beliefs of these individuals
by suggesting that religious beliefs should be reconstructed to align with their
unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity rather than working to
conform their sexual attractions, behaviors, or identity to their religious beliefs.
On pages 72-73, the APA Report recognizes that many clients seek SOCE
counseling because of their religious beliefs. On page 58, the APA Report then
states that therapy is a process of uncovering and deconstructing dominant
worldviews and assumptions with conflicted clients that enable them to redefine
their attitudes toward their spirituality and sexuality. The APA Report
ignores the fact that many people desire to elevate their religious beliefs
above any unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity and that they
seek counseling to assist them with this goal. The APA Report states that
counseling for individuals in this category should focus on refram[ing] the
religious beliefs to focus on aspects of faith that encourage love and acceptance of
their child rather than on a religions prohibitions.) (emphasis added).


(Id. 23) (Focusing on reframing an individuals religious beliefs is beyond the
purview of psychological counseling, and it ignores the most fundamental
principle of the professionnamely, that the client has the right to self-
determination. A3371 explicitly states that it is relying on the conclusions of the
APA Report and the proponents and drafters of A3371 focus solely on the
conclusions of it and other studies that are methodologically flawed. This reveals
the flaws of A3371 and specifically shows that it is aimed at reframing an
individuals religious perspectives deemed antiquated or discriminatory and
imposing an ideology on those individuals that do not wish to live in conformity
with the view espoused by A3371 and the APA. The APA Report also states on
page 19 that prejudices directed at individuals because of their religious
beliefs and prejudice derived or justified by religion are harmful to
individuals, society, and international relations. (emphasis added). This
further reveals that the APA Report and A3371 attempt to elevate sexual
orientation above a persons sincere religious beliefs, and shows that A3371
specifically targets those individuals that have religious beliefs opposed to
homosexuality.).

(Id. 37) (A3371 is not just about discussions of sexual orientation, but also
about discussions about a persons behavior that is incongruent with a persons
religious or moral values. Licensed counselors need the freedom to talk about a
clients behavior in a manner that incorporates discussions of the clients religious
faith or values.).

Declaration of Dr. Eric Scalise

(Scalise Decl. 16) (A3371 places prospective clients in an untenable double
bind when receiving [SOCE] counseling, especially when their religious values
may inform and direct their behavior, expressions, and identity in a manner
contrary to same-sex attractions. Furthermore, A3371 may, in fact, represent
actual harm to the client because it does not allow the licensed treating
practitioner to address these competing value systems, leaving the client with no
means to process the potential inner conflict.).

(Id. 17) (A3371 moves far beyond its original intent to protect minor clients
and represents a reckless infringement on the religious liberties of anyone needing
counseling in this area.).

(Id. 18) (When a client's faith values may be in conflict with other cultural
values, especially as they may pertain to the language found in A3371, that
ultimately the client-and in the case of a minor, his/her parent or legal guardian-
has the moral and ethical right to participate in and determine the appropriate
course of care, including alignment with his/her relevant religious beliefs.)

Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Ronald Newman


(Newman Rebuttal Decl. 8) (The religious organizations teach that people have
the right of self-determination and the responsibility to control their behavior
within the boundaries established by their teachings. Most religions have a holy
book, such as the Torah or Bible, which conservative believers look to for their
belief system and how to live their lives. The freedom to believe a diversity of
things about God, morality, etc., is part of what defines us as a nation. This
freedom is now being severely challenged by this law. A3371 attacks the right
of parents to practice their religious faith and teach their children the
boundaries they understand to be healthy for them.) (emphasis added).

(Id. 9) (A3371 also denies the rights of individuals to choose therapy with
someone who understands the tenets of their faith and can counsel in a manner
that is culturally sensitive to their faith subculture. It also hinders my ability to
practice my faith and work with clients who desire assistance in applying the most
effective therapeutic tools to help them align their behavior with their deeply held
religious belief systems.).

(Id. 21) (Since the majority of my clients come to me because they are
seeking counseling that integrates a Christian worldview, my psychology
practice would suffer irreparable harm if I were no longer able to counsel in
a manner consistent with a conservative Christian faith. No parent would
refer a minor child if they believed I could only address issues of sexuality in a
gay affirming manner without regard to their belief system.) (emphasis added).

Rebuttal Declaration of Dr. Christopher Rosik

(Rosik Rebuttal Decl. 4) (The majority of Link Care Centers clients come to
the facility because of its Christian identity and their trust that their Christian
values and beliefs will be represented in treatment.).

(Id. 26) (I practice in an explicitly faith-based counseling center where a high
percentage of clients present with deeply held traditional religious beliefs and
values and have sought out clinicians who they believe are highly familiar with
their faith community and can understand and affirm their religiously-based moral
and value frameworks.).

(Id. 29) (Even more alarmingly, Haldeman states, Respecting client autonomy
does not mean that clients with strong religious beliefs that include, for example,
disapproval of homosexual behavior, should be permitted to elect to undergo
SOCE (paragraph 24, lines 1-3). Surely this is a statement that in the context
of A3371 can only be taken to mean the religious beliefs and values of minor
clients and their parents, if disapproving of homosexual behavior, are to be
summarily overridden by the State. Haldeman concludes his declaration by
asserting that true self-determination is accomplished when the patients false
assumption are corrected (paragraph 26, lines 6-7), which in the context of his
argument must include clients false religious assumptions about the moral status

of homosexual behavior. From my vantage point, such religious reeducation is
outside the scope of the psychological disciplines and is the far more
dangerous precedent as regards a clinicians preferred outcome for the
therapeutic encounter.) (emphasis original).

(Id. 30) (Herek takes a more nuanced position on this subject that nonetheless
still flirts with a similar line of reasoning when he equates the acceptance of a
non-affirming moral evaluation of homosexual behavior as implicit self-stigma,
which is a back door manner of denying any possibility for client autonomy and
self-determination in SOCE. While I concur with Herek that the influence of
external pressures and social norms should be carefully evaluated among clients
presenting for SOCE, I reject the assertion that the pursuit of SOCE is by
definition such self-stigma. This can only be the case if sexual orientation
identities are to be universally prioritized over religious identities when sexual
attractions and religious values conflict, which could conceivably constitute a
form of religious discrimination.).

(Id. 31) (In my experience, it is far more common that clients who pursue
SOCE first and foremost perceive their same-sex attractions as a religious
and/or moral problem and only rarely as a mental disorder. This once again
seems to indicate that prohibiting the provision of SOCE to these minors and their
parents can be considered a form of religious discrimination that does not respect
their autonomy and self-determination in choosing their preferred form of
psychological care.) (emphasis original).

(Id. 48) (Within this ideological restricted environment, A3371 represents
the triumph of advocacy interests over science. This law seriously and
without genuine scientific warrant infringes upon the rights and religious
liberties of many minors and their parents to participate in their preferred
therapeutic approach. And it prevents the rights of licensed therapists to
exercise their professional judgment in providing SOCE. The stakes for
professional and parental rights and religious liberties could not be higher, and I
therefore ask this court to reject A3371.) (emphasis original).

Declaration of John Doe

(Dkt. 33-4, John Doe Decl. 10) (My religious belief and conviction is that
homosexuality is wrong. I wanted to address that value conflict because my
same-sex attractions are contrary to the religious values that I hold. I want to
live out my religious values and do not want to act out on same-sex attractions
that violate my religious beliefs. I want to resolve my sexual attractions so that I
act in conformity with my religious beliefs. Because of this, and because I did not
want to experience these same-sex attractions, I talked with my parents about
having my therapist help me. My parents agreed to permit me to participate in
reparative therapy with him.) (emphasis added).



(Drescher Decl. 11) (individuals who experience self-stigma or who desire to
change their sexual orientation because it conflicts with other beliefs and values
can benefit from other therapeutic interventions that do not have the goal of
making them heterosexual.).

Declaration of Dr. Douglas Haldeman (Submitted by Garden State Equality)

(Haldeman Decl. 24) (Respecting client autonomy does not mean that clients
with strong religious beliefs that include, for example, disapproval of homosexual
behavior, should be permitted to elect to undergo SOCE. Regardless of a clients
religious beliefs, it is inappropriate for a competent therapist to offer a purported
treatment that does not work and creates a significant risk of serious harm. A
competent therapist treating a client with strong religious beliefs assists the client
in understanding the source and emotional consequences of any conflicts between
experience and belief, and in negotiating a healthy life course in light of accurate
knowledge about what can be changed and what cannot).

(Id. 26) (true self-determination is accomplished when the patients false
assumptions are corrected and the individual is allowed to make truly informed
decisions about his life) (emphasis added).

Declaration of Dr. Gregory Herek (Submitted by Garden State Equality)

(Dkt, 30-5, Herek Decl. 45) ([I]ndividuals who experience self-stigma or who
desire to change their sexual orientation because it conflicts with other beliefs and
values can benefit from other therapeutic interventions that do not have the goal
of making them heterosexual.).

The APA Task Force Report

(APA Report at 3) (The vast majority of people who participated in the early
studies were adult White males, and many of these individuals were court-
mandated to receive treatment. In the research conducted over the last 10 years,
the population was mostly well-educated individuals, predominantly men,
who consider religion to be an extremely important part of their lives and
participate in traditional or conservative faiths (e.g., The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints, evangelical Christianity, and Orthodox Judaism).)
(emphasis added).

(Id. at 73) (the few studies in the literature on religious adolescents seeking
psychotherapy related to sexual orientation suggest that such distress is most
likely to occur among adolescents in families for whom a religion that views
homosexuality as sinful and undesirable is important.) (emphasis added).


(Id. at 18) (noting that [a]ffirmative and multicultural models of LGB
psychology give priority to organismic congruence (i.e., living with a sense of
wholeness in ones experiential self) and comparing this the other spectrum of
religions give priority to telic congruence (i.e., living consistently within ones
valuative goals.).

(Id. at 55) (For instance, although many religious individuals desired to live
their lives consistently with their values, primarily their religious values, we
concluded that telic congruence grounded in self-stigma and shame was unlikely
to result in psychological well-being (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Glassgold,
2008; Gonsiorek, 2004; Haldeman, 2004; Mark, 2008; Shidlo & Schroeder,
2002).).

(Id. at 19) (the resolution states that faith traditions have no legitimate place
arbitrating behavioral or other sciences (line 432) or to adjudicate empirical
scientific issues in psychology (line 432) (quoting APA Resolution on Religious,
Religion-Related, and/or Religion-Derived Prejudice (2008).) (emphasis added).

(Id. at 58) (Buchanan et al. (2001), using a narrative therapy approach,
described a process of uncovering and deconstructing dominant worldviews
and assumptions with conflicted clients that enabled them to redefine their
attitudes toward their spirituality and sexuality (cf. Bright, 2004; Comstock,
1996; Graham, 1997; Yarhouse, 2008).) (emphasis added).

(Id.) (Acceptance of the presence of same-sex sexual attractions and sexual
orientation paired with exploring narratives or reframing cognitions, meanings,
or assumptions about sexual attractions have been reported to be helpful.)
(emphasis added).

(Id.) (For clients with strong values (religious or secular) an MMHP may wish
to incorporate techniques that positive meaning making an active process
through which people revise or reappraise.) (emphasis added).

(Id. at 59) (Additionally, connecting the client to core and overarching
values and virtues, such as charity, hope, forgiveness, gratitude, kindness, and
compassion, may refocus clients on the more accepting elements of their religion,
which may provide more self-acceptance, direction, and peace, rather than on
their religions rejection of homosexuality.).

(Id.) (Altering the meaning of suffering and the burden of being conflicted as
spiritual challenges rather than as divine condemnation (Glassgold, 2008;
Hall & Johnson, 2001) and believing that God continues to love and accept them,
because of or despite their sexual orientation, may be helpful in resolving distress
(Graham, 1997; Ritter & ONeill, 1989, 1995). For some, reframing spiritual
struggles not only as a crisis of faith but also as an opportunity to increase faith or
delve more deeply into it may be productive.) (emphasis added).

Sexual Orientation is Not Well Understood

6. Defendants frequently mischaracterized the mental health professions understanding of
sexual orientation, and this Court questioned whether sexual orientation was vague. When this
Court stated that Plaintiffs practice in this area, counsel for Plaintiffs pointed out that many of
the members of AACC do not, and those who do addresses how this is vague in application. As
the evidence before this Court demonstrates, the understanding of the term sexual orientation is
vague and is not completely understood by the mental health community.
(Pruden Decl. 10) (A3371s prohibition is virtually impossible to comply with
because it is well understood in the mental health profession and conceded by
the APA Task Force Report, that sexual orientation is difficult to define and
encompasses a number of factors, including behavior, practices, identity, and
attractions. Given that this prohibition specifically deals with a concept the APA
Task Force Report concluded was fluid, many NARTH members will be
required to guess at what practices would be prohibited under the law.)
(emphasis added).

(Rosik Decl. 16) (A fairer rendering of the literature [the APA Report]
reference[s] in this regard would appear to be that this research is so
methodologically flawed that one cannot make any conclusive statements
concerning the applicability of developmental factors in the origin of
homosexuality. Thus by the task forces own methodological standards, the
literature they cite fails to support or rule out a role for these potential
developmental influences in the genesis of sexual orientation.) (emphasis
original).

(Id. 35) (Savin-Williams and Ream observed that, The instability of same-sex
attraction and behavior (plus sexual identity in previous investigations) presents a
dilemma for sex researchers who portray non-heterosexuality as a stable trait of
individuals (p. 393). They acknowledged that developmental processes are
involved even as they focused mostly on problems with measurement. The
reality of such spontaneous changes in sexual orientation among teenagers is
not in accord with a bill whose defenders contend sexual orientation is a
universally enduring trait.) (emphasis original).


(Id. 36) (A3371s intent for a blanket prohibition on SOCE for all minors
with unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors is akin to doing heart
surgery with a chainsaw in its inability to address the complex realities of
sexual orientation. For example, a study by Herek et al. (2010) reported that
only 7% of gay men reported experiencing a small amount of choice about their
sexual orientation and slightly more than 5% reported having a fair amount or
great deal of choice. Lesbian woman reported rates of choice at 15% and 16%,
respectively. It is worth noting that these statistics, which are not
inconsequentially small, do suggest that sexual orientation is not immutable for
all people and again suggest the plausibility that modification of same-sex
attractions and behaviors could occur in SOCE for some individuals. Even more
important, however, are the findings for bisexuals: 40% of bisexual males and
44% of bisexual females reported having a fair amount or great deal of
choice in the development of their sexual orientation. This is in addition to
22% of male bisexuals and 15% of female bisexuals who reported having at least
a small amount of choice about their sexual orientation. Other studies confirm the
particular instability of a bisexual sexual orientation (Savin-Williams, Joyner, &
Rieger, 2012). These numbers create a significantly different impression about
the enduring nature sexual orientation than the picture often painted by
proponents of A3371. At a minimum, such data suggest that proponents of
A3371 would have done better to exclude bisexuality from the scope of this bill.
If such a large minority of individuals (albeit mostly bisexuals) experience a self-
determinative choice as being involved in the development of their sexual
orientation, why would it not be conceivable that SOCE might augment this
process for some individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors?)

(Id. 39) (Moreover, such fluidity and change makes clear that simple causative
genetic or biological explanations are inappropriate. The later development of
same-sex attractions and behaviors is not determined at birth and there is no
convincing evidence that biology is decisive for many if not most individuals.
The American Psychiatric Association has observed that, to date there are no
replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for
homosexuality (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Peplau et al. (1999)
earlier summarized, To recap, more than 50 years of research has failed to
demonstrate that biological factors are a major influence in the development
of womens sexual orientationContrary to popular belief, scientists have
not convincingly demonstrated that biology determines womens sexual
orientation.) (emphasis original).

(Id. 40) (There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons
that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation.
Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal,
developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no
findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual
orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think

that nature and nurture both play complex roles. (APA, 2008a; emphases
added)) (emphasis original).

(Id. 43) (Causatively, then, sexual orientation is by no means comparable
to a characteristic such as race or biological sex which are thoroughly
immutable. Thus, while same-sex attractions may not be experienced as chosen,
it is reasonable to hold that they can be subject to conscious choices such as those
which might be facilitated in SOCE. Same-sex attractions and behaviors are not
strictly or primarily determined by biology or genetics and are naturalistically
subject to significant change, particularly in youth and early adulthood.)

(Id. 63) (The normative occurrence of spontaneous change in sexual orientation
among youth, the nontrivial degree of choice reported by some in the
development of sexual orientation, and the questionable blanket application of the
literature on stigma and discrimination to SOCE further bring into question the
appropriateness of A3371. Sexual orientation is not a stable and enduring
trait among youth, and this lends plausibility to the potential for professionally
conducted SOCE to assist in change in unwanted same-sex attraction and
behaviors with some minors.) (emphasis added).


(Nicolosi Decl. 16) (the APA Report failed to consider the factors associated
with the development of homosexual attractions and merely assumed that
homosexuality is as developmentally normal as heterosexuality. Yet, the APA
Report would concede that the causes of homosexuality are unknown.).

(Id. 21) (The APA Reports position is based on the unproven assumption that
homosexuality is inborn and immutable. See Journal of Human Sexuality IV at 57
(noting that the APA Report based its conclusions on an a priori assumption that
homosexuality is inborn and therefore immutable which is unsupported by the
APAs own statements). The APAs position dates back to the 1970s when on
the basis of emerging scientific evidence and encouraged by the social movement
for ending sexual orientation discrimination, the American Psychological
Association and other professional organizations affirmed that homosexuality per
se is not a mental disorder. See APA Report at 11. This undermines the basis for
A3371 and the APA Reports conclusions because it reveals that the APAs
change in position and its assumptions that homosexuality is immutable were
based on political and social pressure, not concrete scientific evidence.).

(Id. 22) (On page 30, the APA Report defines sexual orientation as an
individuals patterns of sexual, romantic, and affectional arousal and desire for
other persons based on those persons gender and sexual characteristics. The
APA Report does not define sexual orientation as enduring, which reveals that
these definitions are not based on any universally recognized or consistently

applied scientific standard. Additionally, on page two, the APA Report
recognized that [s]ame-sex sexual attractions and behavior occur in the context
of a variety of sexual orientations and sexual orientation identities, and for some,
sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual or group membership and affiliation,
self-labeling) is fluid or has an indefinite outcome. Given the mental health
professions inability to provide a concrete definition of sexual orientation,
there is potentially no limit to what could fall into its definition. The
vagueness in the understanding itself of what is encompassed by sexual
orientation results in a variety of understandings of its meaning, and includes
pederasty, which is a homosexual relationship between a young man and a
pubescent boy outside his immediate family, or pedophilia, or a host of other
paraphilias or fetishes. This presents a difficult problem for a licensed
counselor tasked with complying with A3371 when the definition of sexual
orientation is fluid and vague. In any event, A3371 provides no definition of
sexual orientation, leaving counselors to guess as to the meaning intended by the
statute.) (emphasis added).

(Id. 24) (The assertions of A3371 proponents are based on the unsubstantiated
belief that same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity are the result of biology.
The general position of A3371 proponents that sexual orientation is tied to
physiological drives and biological systems that are beyond the conscious choice
contradicts the APAs own public-disseminated information regarding sexual
orientation and etiology, which says: There is no consensus among scientists
about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay
or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic,
hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no
findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is
determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture
both play complex roles. (APA, 2008b, p.2).).

(Id. 33) (sexual orientation is difficult to define and encompasses a number
of factors, including behavior, practices, identity, and attractions.) (emphasis
added).

(Id. 34) (There are multiple meanings of sexual orientation among
licensed mental health professionals. But how is one to define the gay
adolescent? We might reasonably assume that the best way to determine if a
teen is gay is by what the teen says about himself. Proponents of A3371 would
agree that if a teen says he is gay, he is gay. But are we to believe him? What is
the credibility of a teenager who, according to the new law, cannot be believed if
he says his homosexual feelings do not represent his deepest sense of self, and he
wants to change? How are we to define a teenager who has same-sex
attractions, behaviors, or identity but does not believe his sexual behavior
makes him gay? He believes that deep down he is a heterosexual, but has same-
sex attractions, behaviors, or identity. Is it behavior or identity that defines his
gayness? Counselors look more deeply into the teenagers motivations and

recognize that any self-label may represent a variety of motivations that do not
necessarily define his true sexual identity. A3371 would prohibit this inquiry, if
the counselors intent is to effect change in sexual orientation, whatever that
may be. Moreover, same-sex sexual attractions, behaviors, and identity among
minors often diminish or disappear spontaneously. It would be unethical for a
licensed counselor to tell the client who is experiencing temporary unwanted
same-sex sexual attractions, behaviors, or identity that such attractions, behavior,
or identity is something the client should embrace. In not helping the client
eliminate or reduce such attractions, behavior, or identity, the counselor might be
pushing the client toward homosexuality, when in fact the client is heterosexual
and merely experiencing a temporary period of homosexual attractions.)
(emphasis added).

Declaration of Eric Scalise

(Scalise Decl. 15) (Many AACC members do not routinely offer SOCE
counseling or rarely do, because they do not consider themselves to be competent
by virtue of education, training, and experience regarding these related issues.
Nevertheless, they will still likely encounter clients, including minor clients,
within their other areas of specialty who are facing unwanted same-sex sexual
attraction, behavior, or identity. These members are not inherently versed in the
research literature or SOCE as are other professionals who may regularly counsel
in this area. Nevertheless, as counselors trained to work in accordance with a
clients values, beliefs, and right to self-determination, they may
consequently address sexual orientation as defined herein, but will not
necessarily understand the definition or terms or reach of A3371. When these
members engage a client regarding either attraction, behavior, identity or any area
of gender expression (including mannerisms or speech), they will likely violate
the law and be disciplined under A3371.) (emphasis added).

(Id. 20) (Many AACC members do not practice SOCE counseling exclusively,
or in some cases, at all. Nevertheless, these counselors will be subject to the same
prohibitions that experts in sexual orientation counseling face. The APA Task
Force Report revealed that not even the experts in this area universally agree
on a definition of sexual orientation. The Task Force Report concluded that
[s]ame-sex sexual attractions occur in the context of a variety of sexual
orientations and sexual orientation identities, and for some, sexual orientation
identity (i.e., individual or group membership and affiliation, self-labeling) is
fluid or has an indefinite outcome. This places a tremendous burden on AACC
members, who though lacking expertise in this field, are still at risk of loss of
their professional license when a minor client raises the issue of unwanted same-
sex attractions, behavior or identity in a counseling session that was not originally
understood to be prohibited counseling. These AACC members will be left to
speculate as to exactly what counsel is prohibited by A3371, as well as the
definition of sexual orientation and how to apply A3371 to any number of
questions that arise when minor clients clearly choose for their attractions,

behaviors, or identity to conform to their religious or moral values despite any
unwanted sexual attractions, behaviors, or identity.) (emphasis added).

Declaration of Dr. Gregory Herek (Submitted by Garden State Equality)

(Herek Decl. 14) (The factors that cause an individual to become
heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual are not currently well understood.
Widely differing accounts of the origins of adult sexual orientation have been
proposed but no single theory enjoys unequivocal empirical support. There may
be multiple developmental pathways to adult sexual orientation rather than a
single cause. Given the current lack of definitive knowledge about why some
individuals develop a heterosexual orientation, others become homosexual, and
still others become bisexual, many social and behavioral scientists regard sexual
orientation as being shaped by a complex interaction of biological, psychological,
and social forces. They often differ, however, on the relative importance they
assign to each.) (emphasis added).

(Id. at 15 n.31) (The Task Force noted that sexual orientation has not been
assessed in a uniform way across studies. Some studies operationally defined it
in terms of attraction (using self-reports or physiological measures), whereas
others assessed self-reported sexual behavior, and others assessed self-labeling or
identity. Some research reports did not include any explanation of how sexual
orientation was measured.) (emphasis added).

There is No Concrete Proof of Harm

7. Defendants frequently referenced and explicitly mischaracterized the purported
consensus regarding the efficacy of SOCE and its alleged harm to minors. Indeed, the primary
evidence relied upon by the State specifically refutes any alleged consensus and specifically
notes that there are no conclusive studies on whether SOCE is harmful to minors. Moreover, the
undisputed testimony before this Court specifically notes that there is significant benefit to such
counseling for those who seek it and have desired to change. Plaintiffs provide the following
citations:
(King Decl. 5) (I am a former lesbian who went through SOCE counseling, and
my life is proof that SOCE counseling can and does work for individuals
struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity. In my
opinion, based on my training, experience, and personal life story, SOCE

counseling is an effective method to assist people who struggle with unwanted
same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identities and who desire to conform their
attractions, behaviors, and identities to their sincerely held religious beliefs.)
(emphasis added).

(Id. 9) (I have been changed and reformed from that lifestyle for 23 years now.
Because I knew that change was possible for people struggling with unwanted
same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identities, and the peace and emotional, mental
and spiritual health that results from successful change, I wanted to use my skills
in education and counseling to begin to help those individuals who were
struggling just as I had struggled. I founded the King of Hearts Counseling Center
to establish a place where I could assist people with many different mental health
issues, but also to help individuals who struggle with unwanted same-sex
attractions, behaviors, or identity.).


(Rosik Decl. 5) (The six studies deemed by the task force to be sufficiently
methodologically sound to merit the focus of the Report targeted samples that
would bear little resemblance to those seeking SOCE today and used long
outdated methods that no current practitioner of SOCE employs. This brings into
question the Reports willingness to move beyond scientific agnosticism (i.e., that
we do not know the prevalence of success or failure in SOCE) to argue
affirmatively that sexual orientation change is uncommon or unlikely. The Report
seems to affirm two incompatible assertions: a) we do not have credible evidence
on which to judge the likelihood of sexual orientation change and b) we know
with scientific certainty that sexual orientation change is unlikely. However, the
absence of conclusive evidence of effectiveness is not logically equivalent to
positive evidence of ineffectiveness (Altman & Bland, 1995).

(Id. 6) (There are places in the Report that do seem to acknowledge that, given
their methodological standards, we really cannot know anything scientifically
definitive about the efficacy of or harms attributable to SOCE. For example, the
Report states, Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur
from SOCE (APA, 2009, p. 42). Similarly the Report observes, Given the
limited amount of methodologically sound research, we cannot draw a
conclusion regarding whether recent forms of SOCE are or are not effective
(APA, p. 43). Similarly, [T]here are no scientifically rigorous studies of
recent SOCE that would enable us to make a definitive statement about
whether recent SOCE is safe or harmful and for whom (APA, p. 83; cf. p. 67,
120).) (emphasis original).

(Id. 11) (The Shildo and Schroeder (2002) and Schroeder and Shidlo (2003)
results thus are based on a non-representative sample likely to be heavily biased
in the direction of retrospectively reporting negative therapy experiences, some of
which occurred decades ago. The task force appears to have ignored the warnings

from the studys authors: The data presented in this study do not provide
information on the incidence and prevalence of failure, success, harm, help, or
ethical violations in conversion therapy (Shildo & Schroeder, 2002, p. 250,
emphases in the original). It is difficult to understand how this research can be
cited without qualification or context as demonstrating likely harm from SOCE
conducted by licensed medical and mental health professionals. Again, what we
can say with confidence is that some SOCE clients report harm and others report
benefit and we do not know from the literature how often either outcome occurs.
While harm may occur with any form of psychological care, the evidence
provided in this study is essentially nothing more than unverifiable hearsay.
This is hardly a legitimate ground for legal prohibition.) (emphasis original).

(Id. 12) (The APA and other professional bodies that utilize this Report are
negligent if not fraudulent in giving a technically true warning that SOCE may
potentially cause harm but failing to do so within the broader context that this
warning certainly applies to all forms of psychological care for any and all forms
of presenting problems or concerns. For example, regardless of theoretical
orientation or treatment modality, some psychological or interpersonal
deterioration or other negative consequences appear to be unavoidable for a small
percentage of clients, especially those who begin therapy with a severe initial
level of disturbance (Lambert & Ogles, 2004, p. 117). Clients who experience
significant negative counter-transference or whose clinicians may lack empathy or
underestimate the severity of their problem may also be at greater risk for
deterioration (Mohr, 1995).).

(Id. 13) (Furthermore, it must be remembered that, on average, persons
with same-sex attraction already experience and/or are at greater risk for
experiencing a number of medical and mental health difficulties prior to
participating in any SOCE (Whitehead & Whitehead, 2010). This makes it
extremely difficult to disentangle psychological distress directly attributable to
SOCE from that which preceded commencement of SOCE. And since SOCE
commonly involves helping clients become more aware of the stress and distress
in their lives in order to manage or alleviate them, as do many approaches to
mental health care, persons who leave therapy prematurely may have an increased
awareness or experience of their (pre-) existing stress and distress. Thus, they may
feel worse as a consequence of not having allowed therapy sufficient time to
help resolve the difficulties. Anecdotal personal stories of harm certainly
cannot scientifically establish the proportion of distress derived directly from
SOCE, and high quality research that might be able to distinguish such
causation simply does not exist.) (emphasis added).

(Id. 18) (Contra to the repeated claims of the Report that it is an established
scientific fact that no empirical studies or peer-reviewed research supports
theories attributing same-sex sexual orientation to family dysfunction or trauma
(APA, 2009, p. 86), there currently exists recent, high quality, and large-scale
studies that provide empirical evidence consistent with the theory that

familial or traumatic factors potentially contribute to the development of
sexual orientation (Bearman & Bruckner, 2002; Francis, 2008, Frisch & Hviid,
2006; Roberts, Glymour, & Koenen, 2013; Wilson & Widom, 2009). Despite
their significant relevance for scientific discussions on the etiology of same-sex
attractions, these studies were ignored by the task force. It is perfectly
reasonable to believe that not offering professional SOCE to some minors
with unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors who seek such care may
actually harm them by not helping them deal with what is one of the possible
consequences of sexual molestation and abuse.) (emphasis added).

(Id. 62) (As the task force noted, the prevalence of success and harm from
SOCE cannot be determined at present. Anecdotal accounts of harm, which
are a focal point of attention by supporters of A3371, cannot serve as a basis
for the blanket prohibition of an entire form of psychological care, however
meaningful they may be on a personal level. While such hearsay evidence is
not nothing, it is negligent if not fraudulent that APA and other professional
organizations accept such unverified claims that experiences of SOCE were
harmful while dismissing much better documented claims that experiences of
SOCE were beneficial, and were not harmful (Phelan, Whitehead, & Sutton,
2009). Indeed, it is not difficult to find counterbalancing anecdotal accounts of
benefit from SOCE (see http://www.voices-of-change.org/). Furthermore,
accounts of harm cannot tell us if the prevalence of reported harm from
SOCE is any greater than that from psychotherapy in general, where
research demonstrates 5-10% of clients report deterioration while up to 50%
experience no reliable change during treatment (Hansen, Lambert, & Forman,
2002; Lambert & Ogles, 2004).) (emphasis original).

(Id. 64) (Any genuine harm that results from SOCE practice with minors can
most appropriately be remedied by the application of ethical principles of practice,
including informed consent, and addressed through the existing oversight
functions of state regulatory boards and state mental health associations. It is
questionable and unlikely that the tangible, prosecutable harms from SOCE are as
widespread as A3371 sponsors claim. If such harms did exist, why have we
heretofore not seen SOCE practitioners losing their licenses and mental health
association memberships in droves? A3371 is a legislative overreach that takes an
overly broad and absolute approach to SOCE harm and success despite evidence
suggesting age, gender, and non-heterosexual sexual orientation differences in the
experience and degree of change in sexual orientation. In particular, it is fair to
ask whether bisexual and mostly heterosexual youth are well served by A3371, a
distinction this law does not make.).


(Nicolosi Decl. 11) (I have had many clients who, through SOCE
counseling, have been able to succeed in reducing their unwanted same-sex

attractions, behaviors, or identity and have reported a marked increase in
their recognition of their heterosexual potential.) (emphasis added).

(Id. 18) (The APA Report flatly contradicts many points that specifically refute
the assertions made by proponents of A3371. On page two, the APA Report states
that none of the recent research, which are all studies from 1999-2007, meet the
methodological standards for determining the efficacy, safety, or dangers of
SOCE counseling. This undermines the assertions of proponents of A3371 that
SOCE counseling is harmful to minors. Just as the research allegedly fails to
prove SOCEs efficacy, the APA Report concedes it fails to prove any
concrete harm. See Journal of Human Sexuality IV at 57-58. Furthermore, on
page 25, the APA Report concedes that there needs to be more research and
analysis of the potential benefits or dangers of SOCE counseling. In fact, on page
42, the APA Report specifically found that there was a dearth of information
based on sound scientific research concerning the safety of SOCE counseling. The
dearth of scientific study prevents blanket assertions by proponents of A3371 that
SOCE counseling is in fact harmful to minors and should therefore be prohibited.
This is reinforced on page 44 of the APA Report, which states that [b]ecause of
the lack of empirical research in this area, the conclusions must be viewed as
tentative. Indeed, on page 11, the APA Report admitted that recent research
cannot provide conclusions regarding efficacy or safety.) (emphasis added).

Declaration of John Doe

(John Doe Decl. 11) (I have been seeing this therapist since May of 2011, and I
can really say I am improving. I now have a normal guy voice, I dont shave
my body hair anymore, and I definitely have a better relationship with my father.
I do not have thoughts of suicide anymore and my confidence as a guy is
starting to build.) (emphasis original).

(Id. 12) (I really look forward to the counseling sessions so that I can move
further towards overcoming my same sex attractions. I would also say that my
Same-Sex Attraction is lessening to the point where its only three out of 10 when
it used to be eight out of 10. Every day gets a little better with therapy. I just do
not experience my unwanted same-sex sexual attractions as frequently as I did
before I started my counseling sessions with my therapist. The counseling
sessions have really helped me.).

(Id. 13) (I feel like I now have hope that someday I might be able to get to the
point where Im living a happy single life. I might even be able to get to the point
when I can live a happy married life, when I am old enough.).

(Id. 14) (I want to be able to continue to go to my counseling sessions with my
therapist. I have made progress, but I still need more therapy to help me toward
my goal of eliminating my unwanted same-sex attractions.).


(Id. 15) (I am very concerned that if my therapist is not allowed to continue to
provide my counseling, then I might lose much of the progress that I have made
so far in treatment. I believe that if he is not allowed to continue to provide my
counseling, then I will begin to experience the same feelings of confusion and
awkwardness that we have worked so hard to reduce and eliminate, and may even
begin to have thoughts of suicide again. I also believe that if my therapist is not
allowed to continue to provide my counseling, then I will begin to experience my
unwanted same-sex attractions more often than I do and that I will have a harder
time dealing with them and with the conflict between those attractions and my
religious beliefs.).

(Id. 16) (I really want to emphasize that the counseling has significantly
improved the relationship between my parents and me. I think additional
counseling will only strengthen that relationship. I do not think that the rights of
my parents to get therapy for me should be taken away. I think I should have the
right to get this therapy. I think everyone should have the freedom to pursue
whats right for them.).


(Drescher Decl 22) (there is little study of SOCE in minors.) (APA Report at
72).
The APA Task Force Report

(APA Report at 120) (To date, the research has not fully addressed age, gender,
gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, disability, language, and
socioeconomic status in the population of distressed individuals.).

(Id. at 91) ([S]exual minority adolescents are underrepresented in research on
evidence-based approaches, and sexual orientation issues in children are virtually
unexamined.) (emphasis added).

(Id. at 2) (None of the recent research (1999-2007) meets methodological
standards that permit conclusions regarding efficacy or safety.) (emphasis
added).

(Id. at 42) (We conclude that there is a dearth of scientifically sound research on
the safety of SOCE. Early and recent research studies provide no clear
indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes . . . because no study to date
of scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so.) (emphasis added).

(Id. at 90) (research on SOCE (psychotherapy, mutual self-help groups, religious
techniques) has not answered basic questions of whether it is safe or effective
and for whom. . . . [R]esearch into harm and safety is essential.) (emphasis
added).


(Id. at 3) (Some individuals perceived that they had benefitted from SOCE.).

(Id.) (Other individuals reported that SOCE was helpfulfor example, it
helped them live in a manner consistent with their faith. Some individuals
described finding a sense of community through religious SOCE and valued
having others with whom they could identify.) (emphasis added).

(Id.) (some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual
or group membership and affiliation, self-labeling) and other aspects of sexuality
(i.e., values and behavior)).

(Id. at 42) (other recent studies document that there are people who perceive that
they have benefited from it.)

(Id.) (These reports of perceptions of harm are countered by accounts of
perceptions of relief, happiness, improved relationships with God, and perceived
improvement in mental health status, among other reported benefits.).

(Id. at 43) (We found that nonaversive and recent approaches to SOCE have not
been rigorously evaluated. Given the limited amount of methodologically sound
research, we cannot draw a conclusion regarding whether recent forms of SOCE
are or are not effective

(Id. at 49) (For instance, participants reporting beneficial
effects in some studies perceived changes to their sexuality, such as in their
sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual behavior, sexual orientation
identity (Beckstead, 2001; Nicolosi et al., 2000; Schaeffer etal., 2000; Spitzer,
2003; Throckmorton & Welton,2005), or improving nonsexual relationships with
men (Karten, 2006)) (emphasis added).

(Id.) (Some participants of SOCE reported what they perceived as other positive
values and beliefs underlying SOCE treatments and theories.).

(Id. at 53) (These individuals report a range of effects from their efforts to
change their sexual orientation, including both benefits and harm. The benefits
include social and spiritual support, a lessening of isolation, an understanding of
values and faith and sexual orientation identity reconstruction.).

Facts This Court Should Deem Admitted

8. Plaintiffs also note that this Court is considering cross-motions for summary judgment
without Defendants ever filing an Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint, nor was there ever any motion
or order granting leave for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs Complaint. As such, to

the extent not denied, Defendants have admitted Plaintiffs allegations. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(b)(6); see also Charles Novins, Esq. O.C. v. Cannon, No. 09-5354, 2010 WL 3522793, *2
(D.N.J. Sept. 2, 2010) (If an allegation not relating to the amount of damages if not denied, and
a responsive pleading was required, the allegation is considered admitted.).
Additionally, Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiffs Statement of Material Facts, so
they too are deemed admitted to the extent not denied. Hooks v. Schultz, No. 09-5627, 2010 WL
415316 (D.N.J. Jan. 29, 2010) (noting that if party fails to respond to a movants statement of
material facts, [t]he Court will deem all of [the movants] facts to be undisputed); Handron v.
Sebelius, 669 F. Supp. 2d 490, 494 (D.N.J. 2009) (failure to respond to movants statement of
material facts not in dispute results in those facts being undisputed); Kimberly v. Borough of W.
Newton, No. 08-603, 2010 WL 231789, *2 (W.D. Penn. Jan. 12, 2010) (although Plaintiffs
filed a brief in opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment, they failed to respond
to defendants concise statement of undisputed material facts . . . Thus, all of defendants facts
are deemed admitted.). Moreover, the State Defendant has not objected to any of Plaintiffs
declarations or to any of Plaintiffs recitation of Undisputed Facts, and their Statement of
Material Facts does not create a dispute as to the dispositive evidence cited in Plaintiffs
evidentiary declarations. Thus, Plaintiffs evidence is deemed admitted.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court take the following
actions:
A. Consider all of Plaintiffs undisputed declarations and evidence as part of this Courts
consideration of Summary Judgment; and

B. Deem that all facts not responded or objected to by Defendants, as admitted pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6), particularly against the State which failed to file an Answer and
failed to object to Plaintiffs Statement of Undisputed Facts
C. Grant such other relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Demetrios Stratis
Demetrios Stratis
New Jersey Bar No. 022391991
Mathew D. Staver*
Stephen M. Crampton*
Daniel J. Schmid*
Liberty Counsel
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
P.O. Box 11108
Lynchburg, VA 24502
Tel. 434-592-7000
Fax: 434-592-7700
court@LC.org

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Attorneys for Plaintiffs


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was filed electronically with
the court on October 11, 2013. Service will be effectuated by the Courts electronic notification
system upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Demetrios Stratis
Demetrios Stratis
New Jersey Bar No. 022391991

1
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5038 (FLW)
__________________________
TARA KING, ED.D., etc.,
et al.,
Plaintiffs
v.
CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE,
etc., et al.,
Defendants
_________________________
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
TRANSCRIPT OF
MOTIONS
OCTOBER 1, 2013
CLARKSON S. FISHER UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE
402 EAST STATE STREET, TRENTON, NJ 08608
B E F O R E : THE HONORABLE FREDA L. WOLFSON, USDJ
A P P E A R A N C E S :
LAW OFFICES OF DEMETRIOS K. STRATIS
BY: DEMETRIOS K. STRATIS, ESQUIRE
-and-
LIBERTY COUNSEL
BY: MATHEW D. STAVER, ESQUIRE
DANIEL J. SCHMID, ESQUIRE
On behalf of the Plaintiffs
OFFICE OF THE N.J. ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: SUSAN M. SCOTT, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
On behalf of the State Defendants
GLUCK WALRATH, LLP
BY: ANDREW BAYER, ESQUIRE
-and-
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN RIGHTS
BY: CHRISTOPHER F. STOLL, ESQUIRE
On behalf of the Defendant Intervenor GSE
* * * * *
VINCENT RUSSONIELLO, C.C.R.
OFFICIAL U.S.COURT REPORTER
(609)588-9516
2
C E R T I F I C A T E
PURSUANT TO SECTION 753, TITLE 28, USC, THE
FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT IS CERTIFIED TO BE AN ACCURATE
TRANSCRIPTION OF MY STENOGRAPHIC NOTES IN THE
ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.
S/Vincent Russoniello
VINCENT RUSSONIELLO, CCR
OFFICIAL U.S. COURT REPORTER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
I N D E X
Proceedings Page
General Discussion re
Eleventh Amendment Claims 5
By Mr. Staver 5
Ruling by the Court 8
Question of standing 8
First Amendment claim 9
By Mr. Staver 10, 14, 26, 34, 42
By Mr. Scott 14, 23, 41
Vagueness Challenges 47
By Mr. Staver 47, 48
Freedon of Religion 47
By Mr. Staver 49
Parental Rights 55
Standing on Garden State
By Mr. Staver 60
By Mr. Stoll 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
(In open court.)
THE CLERK: All rise.
THE COURT: Thank you.
I'll have the appearances. Everyone else may
be seated.
MR. STRATIS: Good morning, your Honor.
Demetrios Stratis on behalf of the plaintiffs
serving as local counsel.
Standing to my right is Mr. Daniel Schmid from
Liberty Counsel also representing plaintiffs; and also
standing to my right is Mr. Matt Staver who will be
doing the oral argument this morning on behalf of
plaintiffs.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MS. SCOTT: Good morning, your Honor.
Deputy Attorney General Susan Scott on behalf
of the State defendants.
MR. BAYER: Good morning, your Honor.
Andrew Bayer, Gluck Walrath, on behalf of
Intervenor Garden State Equality.
I have with me Christopher Stoll from the
National Center for Lesbian rights. Mr. Stoll will be
arguing on behalf of Garden State Equality.
THE COURT: Thank you. Have a seat, please.
I guess appropriately the record should
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
reflect that the federal government may be shut down
but the New Jersey courts are operating. So here we
are. Let's move forward.
The way I would like to go about this, I'm
essentially going to be framing questions to each of
you. I'm not looking for a presentation of your
arguments. I've certainly read every bit of paper
that you have given to me in this matter. So let me
begin by getting a couple of issues out of the way,
and to start with, perhaps, with regard to the
Eleventh Amendment claims.
A defense is being raised by the State which I
don't think was actually replied to in your papers,
Mr. Staver, and I don't know that you are taking any
further position on them.
MR. STAVER: Yes, we are, your Honor.
They raised, your Honor, the Eleventh
Amendment, but Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247,
spoke -- addresses allowing nominal damages even
against a government entity without implicating the
Eleventh Amendment.
And the Third Circuit in the 2000 case in
Allah v. AL-Hafeez, 226 F.3d 247 at 251, 3rd Cir.
2000, said that the Supreme Court recognized in both
Carey and another case, Stachura, that certain
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
absolute constitutional rights may be vindicated by an
award of nominal damages in the absence of any showing
of injury warranting compensatory damages.
There are other cases here, too, your Honor,
that deal with the nominal damages. And so,
therefore, we are not seeking compensatory damages.
Nominal damages does not implicate the Eleventh
Amendment sovereign immunity.
THE COURT: Ms. Scott.
MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, I'm sorry. I'm not
familiar with those two cases. But I would argue that
the law is well-established in this area that monetary
damages against the government are barred by the
Eleventh Amendment immunity in claims against the
government.
THE COURT: That's how I've always understood
it. I'll take a look at the cases that you sent. I
think it would be appropriate for you, perhaps, to
submit those case citations in full to both the State
and myself. I'm going to be doing a written opinion
in this matter in any event. But I would be
hard-pressed to think that the cases you cited go to
exactly the proposition doing away with the sovereign
immunity claim, but I'll take a look at them since I
don't have them in advance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
MR. STAVER: Your Honor, can we do something
supplemental to this hearing?
THE COURT: Not a letter memorandum. Just
give me the case citations in full. That's all I
want.
Similarly, with regard to the state
constitutional claims in this matter, what's your
position on that?
MR. STAVER: Plaintiffs?
THE COURT: Yes. Bringing any state law
claims in this matter in federal court.
MR. STAVER: We are moving forward on summary
judgment on the federal claims only.
THE COURT: The question is: Do you even have
any right? They are moving for summary judgment to
dismiss the state law claims saying you can't bring
them. Right?
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
THE COURT: And I don't have any opposition to
that. You don't have a legal position that you've
taken in opposition to that. Correct?
MR. STAVER: We haven't taken a legal position
on that, no, your Honor. We are not planning to rely
upon the state constitution as contemporaneous with
the federal rights anyway. So that's what our focus
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
of the summary judgment memo, and all the briefing has
been.
THE COURT: So I don't see any opposition to
the State's argument that the Eleventh Amendment would
bar these claims from being brought against the State
defendants, and, obviously, then that would have to be
granted.
Let's move forward now.
The next issue that I want to address briefly
is the question of standing. At this point I don't
really understand the defendants to be arguing that
the plaintiffs themselves, the providers, do not have
standing. Correct?
MS. SCOTT: That's correct, your Honor.
MR. STOLL: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: So we don't have that issue.
The question, though, then becomes with regard
to the third-party claims, that they want to assert
those on behalf of the minors as well as the parents
of minors to get into the inquiry of standing there,
and everyone agrees obviously with regard to the
three-part test that must be made, the first would be
whether the plaintiffs have suffered an injury, the
plaintiffs who do have standing, and, therefore, the
third-party standing inquiry is still going to be tied
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
to what the claim of the plaintiffs is. Correct?
That would be your position as well because we
have to determine whether they actually suffered an
injury.
MS. SCOTT: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Apart from the two other criteria.
Well, I know that there has been some argument
as to whether they would satisfy the criteria of
whether the plaintiff and third-party have a close
relationship or, third, whether the third-party has
any obstacles that prevent it from asserting claims
themselves. I don't really think that's the focus of
the main argument on standing as to the third parties.
I think it would still go to the injury prong.
Would you agree with that?
THE COURT: So I'm going to put that argument
aside on standing because it would all go back to the
merits on the claim. So we are on the same page on
that. Fine. Thank you.
Let's then now proceed to the main argument
that's being presented in the papers which is the
First Amendment claim here.
Now, obviously a great deal of the briefing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
has been directed to the fact that there is another
court at this point, the Ninth Circuit, who has
interpreted the California statute which is
essentially identical to the New Jersey statute. I
guess my assumption is New Jersey fashioned its
statute exactly to the California statute. Correct?
MR. STAVER: It did, but it is not identical.
It has a couple of interesting and significant
differences.
THE COURT: What are the differences?
MR. STAVER: One difference is that this
statute uses the word "counseling" four times and the
California statute never uses it at all. In fact, it
uses it specifically in the definition of "sexual
orientation change efforts."
The other thing is that this statute also adds
a provision the California statute doesn't have and
that is counseling for a person seeking to transition
from one gender to another. That was absent in the
California case.
And then it goes on to say -- it does not
include counseling that, and it lists counseling that
does not seek to change. So this one specifically
uses that word, and we think that's a significant
aspect of the difference between the two statutes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
THE COURT: Frankly, I don't think that was
really set forth in the briefing at all.
MR. STAVER: We mentioned it in one section of
the brief where it uses the word "counseled."
THE COURT: That's about it. There was no
substantive discussion of why that makes a difference.
Now, of course, I know that the Ninth Circuit
has ruled. I'm not bound by what the Ninth Circuit
has done. Certainly, though, it is something that I'm
going to be looking at and can be persuasive. But
what is your substantive discussion, then, on the
difference by having that word in that you think in
some way distinguishes the outcome here?
MR. STAVER: A couple of things. One of the
things I would like to do, your Honor, if I could,
before the end of the hearing today is raise the issue
of standing relative to the Intervenors because the
Third Circuit in 2011 has raised the issue that
standing is a different determination from the right
to intervene, and I believe there is a serious
standing issue with regards to Garden State. So at
some point I would like to be able to present that.
THE COURT: We'll hold off on that at the
moment.
What's your argument on why that makes a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
difference and how that changes the statute or the
impact it would have on any constitutional analysis?
MR. STAVER: I think it makes it more clear,
your Honor, that what's at issue here is speech, and,
certainly, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged, and that's
the same in this case, that our clients are engaged in
and those clients there were engaged in talk therapy.
Counseling by virtue of its very understanding is
speech.
Now, one of the things that they have argued
is that it bans a practice of engaging in same sex
sexual orientation change efforts, but the statute
actually specifically says:
"As used in this section, sexual orientation
change efforts means" -- and it goes through what it
means -- "except that it doesn't mean counseling that
does not seek to change sexual orientation."
Counseling is not just a practice of some kind
of modality separate from speech. Counseling is
speech, and what we are dealing with here is a more
clear implication of speech I believe on the face of
this statute than even on the face of the California
statute.
THE COURT: Let's be clear. Does it really
change anything? What does a psychotherapist do?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
Whether it's a psychologist, a psychiatrist, a social
worker, anyone else that's licensed, what is it that
they do?
MR. STAVER: They counsel.
THE COURT: So does adding the word, frankly,
"counseling" change anything?
MR. STAVER: I don't think it is determinative
of the statute. I think the statute itself goes to
the issue of speech. But I think the word
"counseling," by intentionally changing that word that
was not in the California statute, clearly goes to the
idea that this is geared towards pure speech and not
something else; like, for example, if a medical doctor
was giving counsel but now they are also giving some
kind of intrusive medical therapy or surgical or
diagnostic study, that may be distinguishable between
pure speech.
But, here, what our clients and what the
record that's unrebutted says is that they engage in
talk therapy, and I think the difference here, adding
the word "counsel" where that wasn't added where in
every other instance they adopted the language
verbatim from California, makes it more clear that it
is directed specifically to pure speech.
THE COURT: Except that the way it defines in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
the outset a person who's licensed, who performs
counseling, and that's what they are defining what
these people do, and that's the practice in the
profession.
Frankly, I don't see it as a difference. But
that's fine. I have your argument.
Do you want to respond to that? It wasn't
really in the papers.
MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, I do recognize that it
wasn't briefed in the papers, but I would think that
"counseling" just makes it all the more clear that
what these people engaged in is treatment. So I think
the argument is still the same.
THE COURT: Let me turn back a moment now to
you, Mr. Staver.
We start with what's going on here, is that I
think your clients have indicated that they don't
engage in aversion techniques as part of -- shall we
just call it SOCE here today, just to make it easy?
MR. STAVER: Yes.
THE COURT: (Continuing) -- that they don't
engage in aversion techniques; that it's all part of
counseling or talking as to what they do.
What are the techniques that are used by these
therapists for SOCE? No one has actually told me what
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
they do.
MR. STAVER: They just simply speak. They
counsel. They talk.
THE COURT: In what way? What we've got here,
and I'll get to this in a few moments, there is some
distinction being drawn obviously as to what can be
done and what can't be done, and it's consistent with
what the Ninth Circuit did as well when it talks about
that this is really conduct and not speech. It's
talking about practices that are engaged in and
obviously these practices necessarily includes talking
but that doesn't mean that it's speech.
In that connection, it's been set forth in the
Ninth Circuit opinion as well as in the briefing by
the parties in this case what your clients, the
plaintiffs, could actually do, which is that they can,
they've said, make a minor client aware that there is
such a thing as SOCE. Correct?
As I go through these, you better tell me if
I'm accurately saying what you said.
That there is such a theory as SOCE. That
there is literature about it out there. That there
are some who can advise or counsel them, and that they
can even refer them to someone. Correct?
MS. SCOTT: Yes, your Honor, on all points.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
THE COURT: All right.
MR. STAVER: May I respond to that, though?
THE COURT: Not yet. I'm going through what
they've said under the reading of the statute, what's
not prohibited, because, frankly, those things, I
think they would concede, could fall within speech as
was set out in Conant, or otherwise, when they're
simply being informative about things that are out
there and available. But what is not permitted is to
actually engage in the technique of giving services
that would engage in this kind of SOCE conversion
therapy.
So starting with that, I have asked you, apart
from informing a minor client and parents, whatever,
that there is such a thing as conversion therapy, that
some have written about, that some have engaged in,
what would your clients do? What is the therapy that
they actually engage in? I want to know what that is.
No one has told me that in the papers. What is it?
MR. STAVER: Well, your Honor, in one of the
declarations Dr. Nicolosi says in paragraph 10:
"My SOCE counseling consists of discussions
with the client concerning the nature and the cause of
their unwanted same sex sexual attractions, behaviors
or identity, the extent to these attractions,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
behaviors or identity, assistance and understanding
traditional gender appropriate behaviors and
characteristics, and assistance in fostering and
developing these gender appropriate behaviors and
characteristics."
What he said there is essentially what happens
with our clients, and our clients have indicated that
they have a person that comes in. They do not raise
the issue of SOCE with them unless and until the
person requests that and says that they are having
unwanted -- and I want to emphasize that -- unwanted
same sex sexual attraction, so the client does not
want to have these feelings, behavior or identified as
gay or lesbian. They don't want to do that. Once
that is raised, they engage in informed consent and
they talk to them about why.
THE COURT: What does the last part mean, "and
assistance in fostering and developing these gender
appropriate behaviors and characteristics"? Which
obviously has a connotation what they consider to be
appropriate. Okay. Put that aside.
But what does that mean, "assistance in
fostering"? That's what I want to know. I got the
first part of talking about, How do you feel?, and
understanding how they feel. What do they do to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
assist, engaging in this conversion therapy?
MR. STAVER: Well, they explore the issues
that ultimately the client wants to talk about and why
that is causing them stress. They go through other
kinds of potential stressors that they've had in their
past. They find out what their ultimate objective is
and if their objective is that they do not want to --
that they are fine with identifying as gay and
lesbian --
THE COURT: Mr. Staver, you are not answering
my question. Focus on my question.
Now, they are at the point where they've got
someone in that says that's not the way I want to be.
They figured out why they feel the way they do, why
they may have certain feelings. What do they do to go
about changing those? That's what it's about,
conversion therapy. What do they do?
MR. STAVER: They just simply talk to them in
terms of -- I can't say what they do for every
individual. But they talk to them about what their
ultimate objectives are, and they try to give them
support to reach that objective, which in this case
would be change. They ultimately engage the parents
as well.
THE COURT: How do they tell them to change?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
MR. STAVER: They don't tell them to change in
the sense that if they don't want to change.
THE COURT: I'm on with you saying this is
someone who comes in and says, I want to change. What
do they do to help them change? What is it that they
are actually doing? What do they engage in?
MR. STAVER: Well, for example, they would
engage in trying to counsel them based on repairing
familial relationships that may be damaged. They
counsel with the parents and they counsel with the
minors. They counsel with why are they feeling low
self-esteem. They talk about religion. They talk
about God, and how they are uniquely created, and they
have value and worth, especially when they have some
of these kids that are coming in or parents coming in
that are very distressed and they feel helpless. They
feel with the struggle. So they give them some
confidence to be able to be confident in who they are.
THE COURT: That's coping. I asked: What do
they do to change?
MR. STAVER: Well, I think that gets to the
problem of this whole issue because by counseling an
underlying issue, as the declarations have clearly
indicated, where someone may have underlying issues,
that itself may ultimately lead to someone changing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
without actually even counseling with respect to
sexual orientation.
On the other hand, sometimes counseling begins
with sexual orientation change efforts. Sometimes it
comes later as the underlying issues are addressed and
they ultimately encourage them to be with their dad,
spend time with their dad, to engage in activities
with their dad, and so their dad to say positive,
affirming things towards the son, so that there is not
this disconnect between the dad and, for example, the
son. They also counsel them about how they relate to
other peers that they are having a difficult time
with.
THE COURT: But it's all the therapies and the
counseling that you are identifying that goes on.
Right? That's part of what their practice is.
MR. STAVER: Right. They don't engage -- I
know in the declarations or in the opposition they
talked about aversion therapy and so forth. Our
clients clearly do not engage in that; and, as the
record has indicated, even one of their experts from
the State has indicated that that's an outdated mode
and nobody uses that anymore. So all of those ideas
of what happened decades ago are not happening now.
What they are engaging in is pure psychotherapy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
that --
THE COURT: We hope that's the case.
Obviously, I only have a couple of declarations from
people. There are lots more engaging in this
obviously. We don't know that. And I understand the
statute doesn't distinguish between aversion versus
non-aversion therapy. But, okay.
MR. STAVER: Let me address two things. That
may happen with unlicensed counselors, and I'm not
here to defend unlicensed counselors, but the licensed
counselors that I know, they are bound by ethical
codes not to engage in those kinds of things and they
don't engage in that. They are not supposed to impose
their own ideology on the client. So if the client
wants to identify as gay and lesbian, they cannot by
the counseling impose their own ideology.
Secondly, as it relates to the Ninth Circuit
where it says that these licensed counselors can refer
out to an unlicensed counselor, they cannot for two
reasons:
If the State deems that this kind of counsel
is harmful and a licensed counselor refers to an
unlicensed counselor, they are going to be held
responsible for the result.
Secondly, they can't refer to any unlicensed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
counselor for anything and not continue to be involved
in that counseling.
So they have to have, like an attorney
referring to someone else, some continuing engagement
and involvement. So if they refer to an unlicensed
counselor, they are going to be implicated because
they have to be involved in that. So what the Ninth
Circuit said is clearly not accurate. They cannot
engage in sending someone out to an unlicensed
counselor.
THE COURT: They cannot engage because of
rules that bind them ethically or because of concern
of third-party liability?
MR. STAVER: Rules that bind them ethically.
THE COURT: Which rules?
MR. STAVER: We cited a number of them in our
APA Code of Ethics, the ATA Code of Ethics, the
Marriage and Family Therapists Code of Ethics. When
someone refers them out, they have an obligation to
maintain that relationship or oversight, especially,
for example, if someone is coming in and they are
counseling them on, say, drug addiction, but now they
have sexual orientation change efforts issues that
come out, they are still counseling on the drugs.
They may not be even qualified on the sexual
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
orientation change. So they refer out to an
unlicensed counselor, but they are still counseling
this person on what they are competent in. They have
to be involved in that because what happens to that
client to the unlicensed person comes back as an
ethical violation on the licensed counselor.
THE COURT: Let me turn to the State on that.
Mr. Staver has said that one of the arguments
that you've made, both you and Garden State Equality,
is as to the kinds of things that are allowable that
they can say or do. For instance, to refer to someone
who does engage in conversion therapy that's
unlicensed, or in another state, or whatever, he has
said you can't do it under the Code of Ethics. What
do you say about that?
MS. SCOTT: Your Honor, the Code of Ethics
says that they have an obligation to oversee the
referral. It doesn't mean that they have an
obligation to also engage in what they've referred
their client to obtain from that unlicensed
professional.
THE COURT: Let me ask you this question,
though:
If they refer to an unlicensed professional or
an -- I don't know what that person is -- unlicensed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
someone who they know engages in conversion therapy,
is that proper if we know, and you've made a
determination under the statute, that such kind of
therapy is harmful, do they face some sort of
liability by making a recommendation then on something
you barred to engage in that, and to actually send
them to someone to do it -- I just throw that out --
and if there is a harm that is realized as a result of
that, because they do go to this unlicensed
professional, does the therapist assume a liability
under the statute?
MS. SCOTT: I think that's a different
statute, a different liability that would be at issue.
We go back to what our statute prohibits, and
I don't think the statute prohibits them from
referring someone. It simply says: You as a licensed
mental health provider cannot provide this treatment.
A referral is not providing that treatment. And
overseeing the general referral of someone to the SOCE
treatment, I still don't think is covered by this
statute as actually practicing SOCE. So under this
statute that's at issue here, I don't believe they run
afoul of that.
THE COURT: They don't run afoul of the
statute. They might run afoul of some ethical or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
legal obligation if they are referring someone whom
the State has deemed to be engaging in harmful
techniques, and I'm sure part of their ethical code or
at least medical profession is to do no harm.
MS. SCOTT: Right. And so we would argue that
they should be doing that, but not under the statute,
under those ethics.
THE COURT: So what you are saying is the
statute doesn't infringe on a First Amendment right
because we're saying you could go ahead and say
whatever you want about it, you got other problems
with it, you got other problems, but the statute is
not preventing you from doing so.
THE COURT: Other than the fact that the
statutes make findings about what's harmful.
MS. SCOTT: Right.
THE COURT: Now, Mr. Staver, I'm not sure
where we were in your argument, but we were just going
through what can be said. I was going through what
are techniques.
So what I've heard from you is essentially
it's telling them why coping mechanisms, other things,
why God would tell them that, yes, this should be
unwanted. I'm guessing they've all said they are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
religious people and they think this is appropriate.
MR. STAVER: I wouldn't say that, your Honor.
THE COURT: I don't know. They seem to say
it.
MR. STAVER: Well, they would not do that
unless the client sought that type of counsel.
THE COURT: Although they seem to certainly
present themselves, and they call themselves certain
names that indicates a sort of religious type of
affiliation, and they said they certainly cater to
this cliental, which I'm understanding that's what
they will be doing.
MR. STAVER: That's correct. They are
themselves Christian, and most of the people that come
to them are Christian or religious of some nature.
Could be Judaism, could be Islam. In fact, one of the
clients in California, his parent is Islamic and his
wife is Catholic. So the people that seek them, the
clients, have a religious perspective, and that's one
of the reasons, the prime reason why they have the
conflicts.
So they are wanting to prioritize their
religious values over the conflicts that they
experience. They are seeking a counselor who also
comes from a religious perspective, but, again, those
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
counselors will not initiate it or tell them to go
down this path versus this path if that's not what the
client wants.
THE COURT: We are talking about minors, of
course, as well. I understand there is a whole issue
of informed consent that you are raising, but we are
talking about minors and parents making these
decisions.
Now, there is a whole other argument that you
have about that. But when you talk about what's
wanted or not wanted, it becomes a little fuzzy when
you are talking about children.
MR. STAVER: In fact, New Jersey has a
14-year-old provision and California has a 12-year-old
provision that 14-year-olds can seek out counseling
even against their parents' consent; whereas this now
has the odd situation that they can seek out
counseling on anything including sexual orientation
affirmation but not if they seek change.
THE COURT: Now, when you talk about informed
consent for a moment -- just to go off for a moment,
because this is one of the options that you talk
about -- that's not really an answer if the
Legislature has determined -- and we will have to go
through this analysis -- if it determined that SOCE is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
not only unnecessary because it has not been
documented that it has any impact on minor children,
but that it offers no health benefit and indeed poses
a risk of harm.
So if you've got no health benefit and you've
got a risk of harm, you don't even get to informed
consent, would be their position, I would think. I
don't think it's been argued maybe quite that way, but
I think that's the way I would look at it.
MR. STAVER: Well, the problem with that is
that even the APA Task Force of 2009 on which the
statute relies does not support that proposition
asserted by the State. The APA Task Force says that
there is no research on minors.
THE COURT: Well, it's scant. That's part of
the problem with children, that there really has not
been the same kind of studies done, but, therefore, of
course, there is no documented benefit. On the other
hand, they have identified harm.
MR. STAVER: They have identified anecdotal
reports of harm. No studies regarding harm. They
have also identified anecdotal reports of efficacy or
benefit, and they ultimately find no studies on
minors; and to state that minors are harmed when there
is no research and when there is actually evidence in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
their own documents of benefit, and when the same APA
report calls for research in this area, what the State
has done is completely closed the door to any research
or any counseling that would continue in the absence
of any studies that would show that that's necessary.
THE COURT: I've got the APA report. Thank
you. No one provided it to me, but I do have it. I
also have the 2012 article from the Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
which was relied upon by the Legislature where, as
well, they make a finding that the negatives from this
kind of therapy or the potential that there is no
empirical evidence that it actually has an impact, and
that given that there is no evidence that efforts to
alter sexual orientation are effective, beneficial, or
necessary and the possibility they carry the risk of
significant harm, such interventions are
contra-indicated.
Those are the articles that they rely upon.
If ultimately this is determined to be a conduct-based
statute and not speech, I'm only looking at rational
basis.
You would agree, if that's my determination.
I know you disagree with the premise.
MR. STAVER: I disagree with the premise. But
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
if it's only conduct and not also incidentally --
THE COURT: Yours and my premise. I
understand your incidental O'Brien situation.
So if we've got conduct, if it's determined to
be aimed at conduct and not speech, it's rational
basis. And if it's rational basis, all you really
need is some legitimate state interest identified
which could be served by the statute, and it need not
be looking with scrutiny as to how they came to that,
whether there can be, perhaps, something contrary to
it.
It's whether the Legislature rationally might
have believed the predicted reaction would occur, the
desired ends would be served, and that's all you need.
On a rational basis, if it's conduct only, you have a
hard time with your position; don't you?
MR. STAVER: We have a harder time under the
First Amendment. But there is also, in addition to
the First Amendment -- let me come back to that --
free exercise and parenteral rights.
On the First Amendment issue itself, when you
look at on the face of what they cite, that does not
give the State a rational basis to completely ban a
particular area of counseling.
THE COURT: Well, if you look at the case law,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
Third Circuit and everywhere else, they have given a
strong presumption of validity under rational basis.
Indeed, ordinarily, the burden is almost
insurmountable. You, of course, have to accept the
Legislature's generalizations even when there may be
an imperfect fit between the means and the ends, and
it doesn't have to fit mathematical niceties.
Legislative choices are not subject to Court
fact-finding and can be even -- the Supreme Court
said -- unsupported by evidence or empirical facts.
Bottom line is: You may argue how you want.
But if you end up in a rational basis analysis, you
have a major uphill battle.
Put that aside.
Now, I know you have made two arguments: One,
if you want to argue, if it is pure speech, obviously,
it's a very, very tough standard for the defendants.
You have also argued this incidental effect,
the O'Brien standard, as you call it, which gives it a
more intermediate type of review.
Defendants have largely argued, of course,
relying on rational basis standard because claiming it
is conduct not speech that's impacted here, have
supplemented by dealing with the O'Brien argument, and
spent I think very little time on if it is pure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
speech, that sort of review, because I think you know
it becomes a very difficult question. So we are all
on the same page on this.
Now, a lot of the briefing has also been
directed at the manner in which the Ninth Circuit in
the Pickup case reviewed their statute, and then
reconciling two earlier Ninth Circuit cases, the
Conant case and the NAAP case. And, ultimately, of
course, I start with, I'm not bound by anything the
Ninth Circuit did or the reasoning in any of those
cases. But obviously it's out there, it's helpful to
look at, and to look at what the analysis is.
Let's take a look at for the moment, because
that is our first real reported case on such a
statute, that it is appropriate to take a look at
what's been done there.
Now, I know from the plaintiffs' perspective
you think that the Pickup case did not adequately
reconcile the Conant decision and the NAAP decision.
NAAP you don't like as much, obviously, which says
that basically counseling is really not a First
Amendment issue, but reconciling the Conant case with
that.
Let me have your argument, Mr. Staver,
briefly, because I've read all your papers.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
MR. STAVER: One thing we've pointed out, your
Honor, in the surreply, I believe it was on
September 25th, the Ninth Circuit has ordered --
THE COURT: The surreply?
MR. STAVER: Yes. We filed one I think on
Thursday.
THE COURT: I didn't give you permission to do
so. So I didn't read it.
MR. STAVER: We filed a motion. The Court
hasn't ruled on it.
THE COURT: Well, I didn't read it. The
instruction my law clerk gave you was no more
briefing. Anything you want to argue, argue here in
oral argument.
MR. STAVER: Correct. After that was filed,
that's correct.
So on September 25th, the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals issued an order for the other side to
respond to the motion for rehearing, a rehearing
en banc. So that's going on. I think their response
time is around October 21st.
(Continued on next page.)
///
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
THE COURT: As I said, it doesn't matter; I'm
not bound by the Ninth Circuit. I'll look at the
analysis and I'll make my own determination.
MR. STAVER: Well, as it relates to NAAP,
plaintiffs don't have any problem with NAAP, but NAAP
doesn't control. NAAP is a situation regarding
entrance into the counseling profession, and the State
there required certain educational and internship
requirements.
The individuals in NAAP -- there were three
sets of individuals. One of them didn't have -- well,
several of them didn't have the educational
requirements and one of them I think didn't have the
internship requirements.
THE COURT: I understand it's a licensing
scheme. It's not so much what the context in which
NAAP occurred. It's what the Court said about the
First Amendment in counseling. That's what we're
talking about.
Now, it says:
"Plaintiffs contend that because psycho-
analysis is the talking cure, it deserves special
First Amendment protection because it is pure speech.
As the District Court noted, however, 'the key
component of psychoanalysis is the treatment of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
emotional suffering and depression, not speech, that
psychoanalysts employ speech to treat the clients does
not entitle them or their profession to special First
Amendment protection.'"
So that's the focus on, really, I think,
what's being looked at in NAAP. We understand it's in
a licensing context. I'm not going to apply a
licensing context. But it's where the analysis comes
from. I also understand there is some language in
NAAP that could certainly be deemed helpful to you.
MR. STAVER: Correct.
THE COURT: And there definitely is. That's
the problem, and I think in all of these cases, is
that you could pick out language in any way that you
like.
For instance, when it says, "nothing in the
statutes prevents licensed therapists from utilizing
psychoanalytical methods or prevents unlicensed people
from engaging in psychoanalysis," but it talks about
nothing that prevents them from practicing methods,
and I think you will argue, ah, we have a statute that
does exactly that.
THE COURT: But isn't the overlay, though, at
the very least, while it says that "the licensing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
scheme was not adopted because of any disagreement
with psychoanalytical theories, it was adopted for the
important purpose of protecting public health, safety
and welfare."
I understand that the New Jersey statute
prohibits a particular method. But isn't the reason
that the Legislature has given for prohibiting that
method is because it has made a finding that it is
inimicable to the safety, health, and welfare of
minors, and wouldn't it then still fall within that
kind of analysis in NAAP?
MR. STAVER: No, your Honor. I think the
section that you pointed out where it says that the
statute doesn't regulate what is said in the content
of the psychoanalysis is really the problem that we
have with this case, and that's why Conant subsequent
to NAAP ultimately went a different way because that
actually did regulate the content of discussions.
THE COURT: Well, let's stop there for a
moment, though. It's not content, and that's, again,
the distinction because that's why also the defendants
say: Look, there are certain things you can tell them
and give them certain information.
It's not content. It's the method, the
counseling that's being given to put into place and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
effectuate this conversion therapy, and that's what's
being aimed at.
In Conant the issue was whether the doctor
could even mention marijuana as a use. It said, by
the way, that he wasn't prevented from mentioning it,
but he couldn't prescribe it, and they could affect
what his conduct was in carrying it out.
Isn't it similar, then, to say that in this
situation, while a therapist can say there is such a
thing as SOCE out there and conversion therapy, I can
even point you to some literature, but that they can't
engage in the conduct of then effecting a therapy
directly to it, and then isn't that conduct as opposed
to speech and what's being said?
MR. STAVER: No, your Honor. The statute
doesn't eliminate a particular therapy. It is
implicated only when the counselor and the client
speak about change, not when they speak about
affirmation.
So consequently it's not only content but it's
viewpoint, and NAAP says that that statute did not
prevent a licensed therapist from utilizing
psychoanalytical methods or prevent unlicensed people
from engaging in methods.
Here the statute prohibits a specific kind of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
message with regard to sexual orientation change
efforts. It doesn't eliminate discussion regarding
sexual orientation change efforts. It just simply
says that you only can affirm, accept, but you can't
counsel change. You simply can't do that. So when
change comes up, that's when the statute is triggered.
Then you go over to Conant which came after
NAAP and it cites NAAP, and it is not inconsistent
with it. In fact, it says that the doctors there were
able to speak about marijuana with their clients but
they couldn't recommend medicinal marijuana to their
clients. So they could talk about it generically but
they couldn't recommend it to their clients.
They said here: Well, our clients can talk
about sexual orientation change efforts, which I don't
think that's true under the statute. But even if they
could, that's Conant. What our clients can't do is
recommend a change to a client seeking the change, and
I think that falls right back into the area of Conant,
and Conant found it as both a content- and a
viewpoint-based restriction.
THE COURT: That's a curious question because
would the position of the State -- and I know we
haven't even gotten to the Intervenor -- but would the
position of the State be that the therapist also is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
barred from, or can -- put aside the counseling,
getting involved in dealing with it and going on in
the counseling situation -- can the therapist say what
their view of SOCE is?
MS. SCOTT: I believe that that's prohibited
under the current statute governing the licensed
profession. That is not treatment. Providing of
therapy is not a forum for them to express their ideas
and viewpoints. So I think that violates the current
licensing statute.
THE COURT: Well, say, not the viewpoint. I
recommend, I would recommend, but I can't be involved
in it. Could they say that?
MS. SCOTT: I think we've already conceded
they can say that.
THE COURT: Okay. They can say: I could
recommend this treatment for you; it may be something
that would help you; and I can refer you to someone to
do it; but I cannot.
MS. SCOTT: Yes.
MR. STAVER: I don't think they can recommend
it. Once the issue of sexual orientation change
efforts comes up, the statute is triggered and it's
monitoring what's being said.
THE COURT: No. That's the position that they
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
are saying it is not. And don't I have to, at the
very least, if a statute can have more than one
meaning, and one of them is constitutional and one is
not, that I have an obligation to interpret it in a
way that it is constitutional?
And part of the argument is they are saying,
no, they can say that. They then just can't engage in
the therapies and treatments of implementing it and
treating it.
MR. STAVER: That's a general rule, but I
don't think it applies in this case. If that's what
the statute was designed to do, the statute could
simply say that you could talk about it but you can't
recommend it. And when does talking about versus
recommending cross the lines of impermissible to
permissible or vice versa?
THE COURT: There is clearly a distinction
being drawn between talking and counseling. Your
people are professionals in the field that understand
what counseling means.
MR. STAVER: Some of them are. Not all the
AACC members are engaged in this particular kind of
counseling. The particular therapists that we have
are, but not all the ones that are represented by the
association.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
THE COURT: I'm focussing on anybody that's
defined under the statute as a licensed therapist
that's covered by the statute.
MR. STAVER: Yes, they're licensed therapists,
but they may not be experts in SOCE. They may be a
drug addiction counselor, they may be a marriage and
family counselor, but these issues may come up as part
of general counseling in their other fields of
practice.
THE COURT: Do they fall within the definition
of the statute?
MR. STAVER: They do fall within the
definition. It covers a huge gamut. People that
would be experienced and engaged in this kind of
counseling as well as people who have no relationship
to this kind of counseling. But it may come up as
part of their counseling in a wide variety of
counseling areas.
THE COURT: All right.
What do you say about that, Ms. Scott?
MS. SCOTT: I think it does cover all of the
licensed professionals the statutes have covered. But
if this comes up in an area of the counselor who is
not an expert at SOCE methodologies, I don't think
they should be practicing it in the first place, but
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
none the less they are prohibited under the statute
from practicing it.
To go back to what plaintiffs' counsel was
saying, the statute does not say "talking about." It
says it just means "the practice of," and that should
be readily understandable by any licensed
professional, what the practice of a particular
treatment is. Whether or not they know what that
treatment is, is a whole other question, and should
they even be practicing it if they don't know what it
is is yet another question.
So I concede the statute covers the people
that it says they cover. I think that those people
should be able to understand what the difference is
between talking and practicing a particular therapy.
MR. STAVER: Your Honor, if I might respond,
when you have a counselor and they are having a client
there, and one day that issue of sexual orientation
change, unwanted sexual attractions comes up, and they
say: Well, there is some literature, you can go take
a look at it; or, maybe: Here is a website, you can
take a look at it.
So the next session the person comes and says:
I want you to be able to help me reach my objective,
my goal. That particular person, you've already said:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
Well, there is general information out there, which I
think if you continue to do that, talking about the
information that's out there, talking about tapes that
you can listen to, or YouTube videos you can watch,
that is engaging in change.
And, in fact, if you then begin to counsel
that person at all, because they are the client and
they have a right to self determination, and they say:
But I want you to help me reach my goal; the counselor
would have to say under the statute: I can't do that;
I am barred; I can't speak. So what's the counselor
going to do?
THE COURT: I can't counsel you; not, I can't
speak. And you are right. That's what they have to
say.
MR. STAVER: That's what they would say, but
the problem is they are going to steer so far away
from any line that the State gives us hypothetically
you can talk about but you can't counsel. That's
Conant. You can talk about, but you couldn't
recommend. That's the same thing in Conant, and Conant
found that unconstitutional.
But even if you can talk about but not
counsel, the clients are not going to talk about it
because they are going to move so far away from the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
line that the First Amendment would allow them to come
to, even under the State's view, they'll be chilled
because their license is literally at jeopardy. And
who is the determiner of that? It's not the State
saying: Well, you can talk about it or not. It's the
client's perception who ultimately files the grievance
and gets the counselor in an ethical litigation over
whether or not the "talking about" was actually change
counsel.
THE COURT: When is the client going to file
that if they are the ones who want it, when it didn't
work and they were harmed? And they can certainly
refer you to someone else and that's out there. You
feel conflicted when in it's religious-based, and so
much of what you've talked about is religious-based.
You can speak to your priest, your minister, your
religious leader about this, and they may be able to
guide you some in way.
Frankly, if it's a drug counselor, I don't
think they are equipped to be doing that in any event.
There are lots of areas I think that they shouldn't be
counseling on then and they should be referring to
someone who is competent to do so.
So I think that hypothetical is getting away
from where we are. So let's get back to the argument
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
here today.
I know we are talking about what are the
parameters of what can be said or not, and is it clear
from the statute what it is, or can you interpret the
statute in such a way as to where the line is drawn.
Right?
MR. STAVER: Right.
On the drug counseling, I would agree that a
drug counselor is not experienced, wouldn't be or
shouldn't be counseling in this area. But when that
comes up, they have to refer to someone who asked for
a referral. They won't be able to refer to a licensed
counselor. If they refer to an unlicensed counselor,
we have the same Code of Ethics quandary that these
counselors are placed in. They can't refer.
The problem with this particular statute is
that when this counselor is talking to this client,
it's ultimately going to be the client that ultimately
makes the determination as to whether or not this is
change, whether the counselor says it's change or not.
We know, for example, from minors in
counseling there is a very high drop-out rate. There
are stressors in any kind of counseling where people
who don't continue their counseling drop out, and
issues that they've had to deal with arise and they've
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46
never continued the counseling to resolve them.
You can clearly have a client come in that
wants counseling, drops out for whatever reason, and
decides: I'm going to file a grievance because even
though we were counseling underlying issues and not
change, the counselor tried to change me; or, we
weren't just talking about information, but he or she
was trying to give information about changing my
sexual orientation.
THE COURT: I appreciate your arguments on
what you think are the difficulties and where do you
draw the line. The ultimate decision, though, is
going to be whether this Court determines that this
statute is aimed at conduct, practice, as opposed to
speech, and then, as a result, what level of review
and scrutiny that it gets.
Because, ultimately, as I've indicated, if it
is a rational basis, certainly there are findings by
the Legislature as to the harms from this, and it's a
much more lenient standard in finding what that is and
did they have a basis, a legitimate basis for passing
this kind of statute.
So I have what your arguments are; and,
frankly, I have plenty of briefing on all of these
issues. I really wanted to ferret out a bit today on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
where we draw the line on all of this.
Have a seat for a second, Mr. Staver.
MR. STAVER: Your Honor, may I at some point
address the O'Brien issue in terms of the conduct in
speech?
THE COURT: I don't think it's necessary. I
have your briefing on this. Is it something that was
not in your briefing that you want to address?
MR. STAVER: No. If you don't have any
questions on it, I'm fine with the briefing.
THE COURT: No. Of course, that's slightly
different -- that whole inquiry of whether it is
conduct with an incidental effect on speech will still
come down to the inquiry then of whether therapy and
counseling is intended to be communicative treatment
or both. We are going to face some of the same issues
in that inquiry as well. I appreciate that.
Now, to address just briefly -- and, as I
said, I have a lot of briefing on all of these issues.
But with regard to any of the vagueness challenges to
the statute, it's a facial vagueness that's being
brought. Correct?
THE COURT: You've raised a number of issues:
What does sexual orientation mean? What is SOCE?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
Though your clients seem to have a pretty good idea
what both of those are, so I'm not too concerned about
that. And then the issue obviously being as well as
to the adequate definition of what's allowed and
what's not allowed here.
Let's turn to at this point -- and this will,
again, I think probably have somewhat less attention
-- the issues being raised with regard to the freedom
of religion or the free exercise of religion.
Now, Mr. Staver, isn't the problem here for
you that in rejecting and barring sexual conversion
therapy, gay conversion therapy, that is a general
determination that this has been made, that this is
harmful, it's not effective, I understand your clients
think it's affecting their religious views, but how
does the statute direct it to a particular religion of
burdening the religion? Isn't it a neutral statute
that's generally applicable?
MR. STAVER: No, your Honor.
I would also like to just say one thing in
terms of the vagueness.
While the two counselors, King and Newman,
practice in the area, as the declaration of Dr. Eric
Scalise said, many of those 50,000 members of AACC do
not know because they do not practice in the area but
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
they are still covered.
THE COURT: Frankly, I really do have a hard
time that people don't understand what the term
"sexual orientation" means or what "gay conversion"
means, but, okay. Put that aside.
Let's talk about the religion. Isn't this law
neutral in a general applicability and not burdening a
category of religiously-motivated conduct?
MR. STAVER: No, I don't think so, your Honor.
I think, first of all, as the undisputed
record at this point says, that our clients are
religious and that people that seek them are
religious, and that most of the people that seek
change of unwanted same sex sexual behaviors or
orientation or identity are religious.
THE COURT: Is there anything in the record
before the Legislature that shows this was a
religiously-motivated statute?
MR. STAVER: Well, there is nothing that says
on the face of it that it's religious. But the actual
APA Task Force that they cite speaks about religion
and speaks about what happens when religious
beliefs -- and this is what the Legislature relied
upon as their No. 1 source of information -- that when
religious beliefs conflict with sexual orientation,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50
then the religious beliefs need to be modified and not
the person who has unwanted attraction behavior
identity. And so that source actually puts religion
into the very heart of this case.
THE COURT: Actually, it's not what the report
says. I read the report. That's not how they put it.
It's talking about how to cope with those and how to
get families to deal with reconciling their religious
beliefs, and the fact of someone having a particular
sexual orientation that may be contrary to what they
believe that belief is and how to cope with that, and
explaining that those are stressors and why some
children come in with these conflicts, and claiming it
to be unwanted because of those stressors on them from
family, that understanding, or even their own beliefs,
religious beliefs, and how to deal with it. There is
no language that says specifically what you have to do
is change your religious beliefs. There is nothing in
that report that says that.
So put that aside. Let's talk about the
statute itself and in passing this whether religion
was a motivating factor.
By the way, it's only one of the areas why a
minor may have these questions about their sexual
identity. Religion, yes, is one of the problems, but
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
it is not the only one. So why are you saying this
was religiously motivated?
MR. STAVER: Well, your Honor, with regard to
the APA Task Force, I think it does indicate that you
try to get the person to change, and I think the
declarations filed by the Intervenor and the State
also put that issue right before the Court as well.
Although, the statute itself doesn't
specifically say religion, that history that it cites
I think brings in the religious issue. In fact,
Drescher, who is one of the declarants, puts that
front and center. The Task Force itself was one in
which those from a religious perspective were excluded
from the six members because their religious views
didn't fit their world view, in their words.
But the statute itself does give a number of
exemptions. One of the exemptions is the -- under the
statute, it is not necessarily religious per se, but,
in effect, I would agree with you, your Honor, that
not everybody who has same sex sexual orientation
issues are religious, but the vast majority of those
who seek the change are coming from a religious
perspective. So this has a desperate impact directly
upon not only on religious counselors but also
religious clients as well.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52
But generalized exemptions in this particular
statute are, you can counsel someone from heterosexual
to homosexual, the same sex, but you can't counsel
someone from homosexual to heterosexual. You can
counsel someone as an exemption to transition in
gender. You can affirm and you can provide
acceptance. You can have unlicensed counselors and
you have no application with adults. So I think there
are a number of exemptions on the face of this
statute.
THE COURT: Certainly, with regard to the
minors, there is that kind of State interest in
protecting minors, many of whom cannot make their own
decisions. I know we'll get into your parental
decision issue in a moment as well. But the concern
for minors, there are always statutes that have
certain protections for minors that may not have the
same protections for adults.
So distinguishing in that way I don't think
it's really your issue at all. I know that there has
been the briefing talking about what does "including
but not limited to" mean within the statute because it
talks about sexual orientation change efforts means
the practice of seeking to change a person's sexual
orientation including but not limited to -- and then
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
goes on.
I know what your argument is. I've heard it
in that regard. Is there anything else that you want
to add to this argument that's not in your papers?
MR. STAVER: I would say that the "included
but not limited to" refers to the gender identity,
gender expression, and so forth.
One of the things I think that's come out in
this and certainly in California is that, although,
it's not listed, it includes speech, it includes
mannerisms, which comes under the general idea of
gender expression. But one thing that clearly is
included in here is counseling under B 2 that does not
seek to change sexual orientation.
So it's not accurate for the State or the
Intervenor to say that there are other things that
this applies to, and, therefore, it could restrict
other things; therefore, it's constitutional because
the statute comes right back to the very main point:
counseling that does not seek to change is banned.
THE COURT: I understand, but doesn't that do
violence to your argument that you couldn't do the
reverse? It's referring to sexual orientation in
general. Your example being: Well, there is nothing
here that says that they are prevented from changing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
someone from -- is it heterosexual to homosexual? Is
that your example? It's talking about sexual
orientation in general, and I understand there are
other aspects here that talk about affirmation of
someone's sexual orientation, same sex.
But, frankly, let's be real. I'm not sure too
many counselors are going to be faced with someone who
comes in and says: I'm heterosexual; I would really
like to change to be a homosexual. Let's not talk
about things that aren't really happening. So put
that aside.
MR. STAVER: Your Honor, if I might, it's
specifically limited to someone of the same gender.
THE COURT: In talking about what I understand
on part of the statute. The last part that talks
about counseling with respect to sexual orientation is
just general sexual orientation.
I have your arguments on religion. I'm on
religion at this point. Is there anything that was
not in your papers that you wanted to address to me
today?
MR. STAVER: No, I don't think so.
I would say just a couple of things.
Talking about the First Amendment, one thing I
didn't get a chance to mention but we mentioned it in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
the brief, I'll just point it out briefly, is that if
this statute identifies harm, it's certainly
under-inclusive, which I don't think there is real
harm. But to force these individuals who are
currently in counseling to go to an unlicensed
counselor actually creates the very harm that the
statute allegedly tries to prevent, and, at a minimum,
it's under-inclusive under a First Amendment analysis.
With regard to the rational basis, that may be
true under the First Amendment if in fact there is
absolutely no speech directly or even incidentally
related, which we contest, but that doesn't ultimately
address the issue of free exercise or parental rights,
and the parents in this particular case clearly have
their rights prohibited from trying to provide the
counsel to their sons or daughters that they seek is
best.
THE COURT: All right. If you want to switch
now to parental rights, I think, one, you would
concede that there is no Third Circuit case law that
deals with whether parents have a constitutional right
to choose for their child a particular medical or
psychological treatment that the State has determined
may be ineffective and harmful. Right? You don't
have a case that says that.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
MR. STAVER: Right, there is no case either
way.
THE COURT: Right. And there certainly are
many situations where even with an individual for
their own treatment may have certain beliefs that
would not coincide with a certain kind of medical
treatment being provided, and, nonetheless, the
decision is made that if it is in the best interest
that that medical treatment be provided even if it may
do violence to a religiously-held belief or otherwise,
you would agree that there is plenty of law to that
effect. Correct?
MR. STAVER: With respect to the Jehovah
Witnesses, yes, but that's in a life and death
situation, blood transfusions.
THE COURT: I understand it is in that
context, and I think that there are cases that talk
about certain kinds of treatment, whether it is a
medication or other kind of treatment, and decisions
being made for children if it is in their medical
interest, and the decisions of the parents are not
consistent with that, but that can be overridden.
Correct?
MR. STAVER: Well, I don't think as a general
matter. It may be in certain cases, but it's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
57
certainly not across the board a general proposition.
I think Troxel says that when a parent is fit,
and there is no evidence that there is not, and in the
absence that they have abused, and there is no
evidence that they are, that the State cannot
generally interfere with the parental rights. Here we
have parents who are fit. Their children are getting
counsel that benefits them from --
THE COURT: Well, you start with that premise
that you think that it's benefiting them. The State
has made a determination, and also the literature
certainly has not indicated that there is anything
scientifically or empirically that's been found that
this kind of therapy has a beneficial impact. I know
it's all anecdotal, but there is nothing.
MR. STAVER: I don't think that's true. Jones
and Yarborough, which is actually cited in the APA
report, although in a footnote, it's a 2009
longitudinal study, shows significant benefits. It's
the only longitudinal study of recent time that's ever
been conducted.
THE COURT: I think there was some criticism
of what that study was, but, okay. Put that aside.
We have a lot of issues that perhaps the
premises may not be borne out as to the position that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
you are taking. But they also are not prevented these
parents from seeking out whether it's a religious
leader or someone else that they think could provide
this kind of therapy or counseling to them.
It doesn't say no parent can go anywhere and
travel outside of the state if they would like to get
it, or anywhere else, or to find someone else who
engages in this who is not a licensed individual. I
understand the problems you have with that. But it is
not preventing them from doing so if they would like
to do so.
Now, one last thing. I have all of these
motions about striking on both sides. I think Garden
State Equality started it, and I don't know if it was
tit for tat, and you chimed in on your next motion
about trying to object to certain of their reports.
I'm not dealing with any of that argument today.
Frankly, if you get past whether this is
either rational basis or some intermediate review, and
you have to get down to what all of the literature is
out there and experts, it wouldn't be ripe for summary
judgment. We would have to actually take discovery
and get these people deposed or hear testimony.
So all of this stuff in saying what's in a
declaration, and whether it's right or wrong isn't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
going to go anywhere anyway. I've already said I'm
going to do an opinion. I'm not making any rulings
today.
If I would determine it's rational basis, you
basically look at what was before the Legislature at
that point and did they have a rational basis for
acting, a legitimate purpose, and I don't get into all
these other declarations that have been submitted
anyway. We never reach that. So I'm not taking any
argument on all of these myriad objections to
declarations.
Is there anything else that any party wishes
to add that's not in your briefing that you wanted to
make a point of before leaving here today?
I guess I've had Mr. Staver on the floor for
so long, let me turn to the defendants and see if you
want to respond.
MS. SCOTT: No, your Honor.
MR. STOLL: We don't, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Staver, anything else?
MR. STAVER: No, your Honor. But I would as
it relates to the declarations, I think the
declarations of our clients are clearly relevant to
the challenge here.
THE COURT: I didn't say I couldn't consider a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
declaration. I was talking about when we start
getting into all these other experts providing
declarations.
To the extent that your clients provided
something saying what their injury is, explaining what
they do, they are absolutely relevant. I have them.
They were part of what you submitted as to also
establishing there is some injury here.
MR. STAVER: Right. And it also addresses
what they do in counseling.
THE COURT: Yes. That's fine. And, frankly,
they are plaintiffs. I'm taking their declarations.
If I find there is something in there that shouldn't
be considered, I'll make a note of it.
Anything else, counsel?
You are going to submit to me those citations
on the Eleventh Amendment issues as well as to the
State. At that point, if you wanted to submit a
one-page letter, if you want to respond to those
cases, feel free. I don't want more than that. I can
read them, too.
MS. SCOTT: Understood. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Then I think I have
everyone's argument.
Excuse me one second.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
61
(Pause.)
THE COURT: My clerk reminded me, Mr. Staver,
you wanted to address the standing of Garden State.
Let's do that now. You did want to go back to that.
Correct?
MR. STAVER: Yes, that's correct. Thank you,
your Honor.
The case that I mentioned earlier, I'm not
sure I gave the name, is Frempong v. National City
Bank of Indiana, 452 F. Apps 167, 172, Third Circuit,
2011, and it simply stands for the proposition or it
simply states that "The analysis of the issue of
standing is, as Frempong suggests, different from the
analysis of the issue of intervention under Rule
24(a)(2)." So our previous decision in Mann does not
completely control the outcome of this case.
It's not a fully decided issue, I don't
believe, in the Third Circuit, and different circuits
do different matters with regard to standing. But
it's our argument that Garden State Equality must have
standing in order to bring the case, in addition to
the argument as to whether it's as of right or
permissive, which is a different argument as to
whether they have to have standing. And if someone is
to have standing, they have to have an injury in fact,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
and we don't believe that Garden State Equality can
show an injury in fact.
They have to have the traceability and they
have to have redressability that the injury is
traceable to the statute and that can be redressed by
the statute. But I think the problem is that Garden
State Equality doesn't itself have an injury in fact
in this particular litigation and therefore does not
have standing.
THE COURT: Mr. Stoll.
MR. STOLL: Well, your Honor, I'm a bit
hamstrung as to how to respond since that case wasn't
cited in the papers, and so I can't really speak to
that case specifically.
But as to the issue of standing in general,
there is a division among the Federal Courts about
whether an Intervenor even needs third-party standing
independently of the parties that are already in the
case. But even assuming that it does here, Garden
State Equality has associational standing on behalf of
its members who include both individuals who went
through SOCE as youths or as adults and also include
the parents of children who might potentially be
subjected to SOCE.
That's the basis for standing here.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
THE COURT: Why don't I do the following,
because I know what I did is I permitted you to come
into the case basically through a conference call
without giving an opportunity to Mr. Staver.
Mr. Staver, if you would like, submit a
five-page, no more than a five-page brief as to your
issues as to the standing of Garden State Equality to
be an Intervenor, and then you may respond in no more
than five pages as well.
MR. STOLL: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: And then I will address the issue
more fully in the opinion that I will issue.
MR. STAVER: When would you like this, your
Honor?
THE COURT: What's your ability to get it in?
MR. STAVER: End of the week.
THE COURT: That's fine.
And then you by the end of next week?
THE COURT: Hopefully, we are still working by
then. So by Friday, and then you by the following
Friday.
Thank you for all your arguments, all of your
papers, very interesting, and I'll await the last
submissions and then hopefully get an opinion out to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
you not too long thereafter.
Thank you.
THE CLERK: All rise.
(Proceedings concluded.)
///
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
65
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Vincent Russoniello, Official United States
Court Reporter and Certified Court Reporter of the
State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate transcript of the
proceedings as taken stenographically by and before me
at the time, place and on the date hereinbefore set
forth.
I do further certify that I am neither a relative
nor employee nor attorney nor counsel of any of the
parties to this action, and that I am neither a
relative nor employee of such attorney or counsel and
that I am not financially interested in this action.
S/Vincent Russoniello
Vincent Russoniello, CCR
Certificate No. 675
Date: November 25, 2013
66
I N D E X
Proceedings Page
General Discussion re
Eleventh Amendment Claims 5
By Mr. Staver 5
Question of standing 8
First Amendment claim 9
By Mr. Staver 10, 14, 26, 34, 42
By Mr. Scott 14, 23, 39, 41
Vagueness Challenges 47
Freedom of Religion 47
By Mr. Staver 49
Parental Rights 55
Standing on Garden State
By Mr. Staver 60
By Mr. Stoll 62
'
'the [1] - 34:24
0
08608 [1] - 1:10
1
1 [2] - 1:6, 49:24
10 [3] - 3:9, 16:21, 66:8
12-year-old [1] - 27:14
13-5038 [1] - 1:2
14 [4] - 3:9, 3:9, 66:8,
66:8
14-year-old [1] - 27:14
14-year-olds [1] - 27:15
167 [1] - 61:10
172 [1] - 61:10
2
2 [1] - 53:13
2000 [2] - 5:22, 5:24
2009 [2] - 28:11, 57:18
2011 [2] - 11:18, 61:11
2012 [1] - 29:8
2013 [1] - 1:6
21st [1] - 33:21
226 [1] - 5:23
23 [2] - 3:9, 66:8
24(a)(2) [1] - 61:15
247 [2] - 5:18, 5:23
251 [1] - 5:23
25th [2] - 33:3, 33:17
26 [2] - 3:9, 66:8
28 [1] - 2:10
3
34 [2] - 3:9, 66:8
39 [1] - 66:8
3rd [1] - 5:23
4
402 [1] - 1:10
41 [2] - 3:9, 66:8
42 [2] - 3:9, 66:8
435 [1] - 5:18
452 [1] - 61:10
47 [6] - 3:10, 3:11, 3:12,
66:9, 66:10, 66:11
48 [2] - 3:11, 66:10
49 [2] - 3:12, 66:11
5
5 [4] - 3:5, 3:5, 66:5, 66:6
50,000 [1] - 48:24
55 [4] - 3:13, 3:14, 66:12,
66:13
56 [2] - 3:14, 66:13
6
60 [2] - 3:15, 66:14
609)588-9516 [1] - 1:25
62 [2] - 3:16, 66:15
675 [1] - 65:23
7
753 [1] - 2:10
8
8 [3] - 3:6, 3:7, 66:6
9
9 [2] - 3:8, 66:7
A
AACC [2] - 40:22, 48:24
ability [1] - 63:15
able [7] - 11:22, 19:18,
38:10, 42:14, 42:24,
44:17, 45:12
ABOVE [1] - 2:13
ABOVE-ENTITLED [1] -
2:13
absence [3] - 6:2, 29:4,
57:4
absent [1] - 10:19
absolute [1] - 6:1
absolutely [2] - 55:11,
60:6
abused [1] - 57:4
Academy [1] - 29:9
accept [2] - 31:4, 38:4
acceptance [1] - 52:7
ACCURATE [1] - 2:11
accurate [3] - 22:8,
53:15, 65:9
accurately [1] - 15:20
acknowledged [1] - 12:5
acting [1] - 59:7
ACTION [1] - 1:2
action [2] - 65:15, 65:17
activities [1] - 20:7
actual [1] - 49:20
add [2] - 53:4, 59:13
added [1] - 13:21
addiction [2] - 22:22,
41:6
adding [2] - 13:5, 13:20
addition [2] - 30:18,
61:21
address [9] - 8:9, 21:8,
47:4, 47:8, 47:18, 54:20,
55:13, 61:3, 63:11
addressed [1] - 20:5
addresses [2] - 5:19,
60:9
adds [1] - 10:16
adequate [1] - 48:4
adequately [1] - 32:18
Adolescent [1] - 29:9
adopted [3] - 13:22,
36:1, 36:2
adults [3] - 52:8, 52:18,
62:22
advance [1] - 6:25
advise [1] - 15:23
affect [1] - 37:6
affecting [1] - 48:15
affiliation [1] - 26:10
affirm [2] - 38:4, 52:6
affirmation [3] - 27:19,
37:19, 54:4
affirming [1] - 20:9
afoul [3] - 24:23, 24:24,
24:25
ago [1] - 20:24
agree [5] - 9:15, 29:23,
45:8, 51:19, 56:11
agrees [1] - 8:21
ahead [1] - 25:10
aimed [3] - 30:5, 37:2,
46:14
AL [1] - 5:23
al [2] - 1:4, 1:7
AL-Hafeez [1] - 5:23
Allah [1] - 5:23
allegedly [1] - 55:7
allow [1] - 44:1
allowable [1] - 23:10
allowed [2] - 48:4, 48:5
allowing [1] - 5:19
almost [1] - 31:3
alter [1] - 29:15
Amendment [24] - 3:5,
3:8, 5:11, 5:18, 5:21,
67
6:8, 6:14, 8:4, 9:24,
25:9, 30:18, 30:19,
30:21, 32:22, 34:18,
34:23, 35:4, 44:1, 54:24,
55:8, 55:10, 60:17, 66:5,
66:7
American [1] - 29:9
AN [1] - 2:11
analysis [11] - 12:2,
27:25, 31:12, 32:12,
34:3, 34:22, 35:8, 36:11,
55:8, 61:12, 61:14
ANDREW [1] - 1:20
Andrew [1] - 4:19
anecdotal [3] - 28:20,
28:22, 57:15
answer [1] - 27:23
answering [1] - 18:10
anyway [3] - 7:25, 59:1,
59:9
APA [8] - 22:17, 28:11,
28:13, 29:1, 29:6, 49:21,
51:4, 57:17
apart [2] - 9:6, 16:13
Appeals [1] - 33:18
appearances [1] - 4:4
applicability [1] - 49:7
applicable [1] - 48:18
application [1] - 52:8
applies [2] - 40:11, 53:17
apply [1] - 35:7
appreciate [2] - 46:10,
47:17
appropriate [7] - 6:18,
17:2, 17:4, 17:19, 17:21,
26:1, 32:15
appropriately [1] - 4:25
Apps [1] - 61:10
area [8] - 6:12, 29:2,
30:24, 38:19, 41:23,
45:10, 48:23, 48:25
areas [3] - 41:18, 44:21,
50:23
argue [7] - 6:11, 25:5,
31:11, 31:16, 33:13,
35:21
argued [4] - 12:10, 28:8,
31:18, 31:21
arguing [2] - 4:23, 8:11
argument [25] - 4:12,
8:4, 9:7, 9:13, 9:18,
9:22, 11:25, 14:6, 14:13,
25:19, 27:9, 31:24,
32:24, 33:14, 40:6,
44:25, 53:2, 53:4, 53:22,
58:17, 59:10, 60:24,
61:20, 61:22, 61:23
arguments [7] - 5:7,
23:8, 31:15, 46:10,
46:23, 54:18, 63:23
arise [1] - 45:25
article [1] - 29:8
articles [1] - 29:19
aside [8] - 9:19, 17:21,
31:14, 39:1, 49:5, 50:20,
54:11, 57:23
aspect [1] - 10:25
aspects [1] - 54:4
assert [1] - 8:18
asserted [1] - 28:13
asserting [1] - 9:11
assist [1] - 18:1
assistance [4] - 17:1,
17:3, 17:18, 17:22
association [1] - 40:25
associational [1] - 62:20
assume [1] - 24:10
assuming [1] - 62:19
assumption [1] - 10:5
ATA [1] - 22:17
attention [1] - 48:7
Attorney [1] - 4:16
ATTORNEY [2] - 1:17,
1:18
attorney [3] - 22:3,
65:14, 65:16
attraction [2] - 17:12,
50:2
attractions [3] - 16:24,
16:25, 42:19
available [1] - 16:9
aversion [5] - 14:18,
14:22, 20:19, 21:6, 21:7
await [1] - 63:24
award [1] - 6:2
aware [1] - 15:17
B
ban [1] - 30:23
banc [1] - 33:20
Bank [1] - 61:10
banned [1] - 53:20
bans [1] - 12:11
bar [1] - 8:5
barred [4] - 6:13, 24:6,
39:1, 43:11
barring [1] - 48:11
based [5] - 19:8, 29:20,
38:21, 44:14, 44:15
basis [16] - 29:22, 30:6,
30:15, 30:23, 31:2,
31:12, 31:22, 46:18,
46:21, 55:9, 58:19, 59:4,
59:6, 62:25
battle [1] - 31:13
BAYER [2] - 1:20, 4:18
Bayer [1] - 4:19
BE [1] - 2:11
becomes [3] - 8:17,
27:11, 32:2
begin [2] - 5:9, 43:6
begins [1] - 20:3
behalf [10] - 1:16, 1:18,
1:22, 4:7, 4:12, 4:16,
4:19, 4:23, 8:19, 62:20
behavior [2] - 17:13,
50:2
behaviors [6] - 16:24,
17:1, 17:2, 17:4, 17:19,
49:14
belief [2] - 50:11, 56:10
beliefs [8] - 49:23, 49:25,
50:1, 50:9, 50:15, 50:16,
50:18, 56:5
beneficial [2] - 29:15,
57:14
benefit [5] - 28:3, 28:5,
28:18, 28:23, 29:1
benefiting [1] - 57:10
benefits [2] - 57:8, 57:19
best [2] - 55:17, 56:8
better [1] - 15:19
between [7] - 10:25,
13:16, 20:10, 21:6, 31:6,
40:18, 42:15
bind [2] - 22:12, 22:14
bit [3] - 5:7, 46:25, 62:11
blood [1] - 56:15
board [1] - 57:1
borne [1] - 57:25
bottom [1] - 31:11
bound [4] - 11:8, 21:11,
32:9, 34:2
brief [3] - 11:4, 55:1, 63:6
briefed [1] - 14:10
briefing [13] - 8:1, 9:25,
11:2, 15:14, 32:4, 33:13,
46:24, 47:7, 47:8, 47:10,
47:19, 52:21, 59:13
briefly [4] - 8:9, 32:25,
47:18, 55:1
bring [2] - 7:16, 61:21
bringing [1] - 7:10
brings [1] - 51:10
brought [2] - 8:5, 47:22
burden [1] - 31:3
burdening [2] - 48:17,
49:7
BY [5] - 1:14, 1:15, 1:18,
1:20, 1:21
C
C.C.R [1] - 1:24
California [11] - 10:3,
10:6, 10:13, 10:17,
10:20, 12:22, 13:11,
13:23, 26:17, 27:14,
53:9
cannot [8] - 21:15, 21:19,
22:8, 22:11, 24:17,
39:19, 52:13, 57:5
Carey [2] - 5:18, 5:25
carry [1] - 29:16
carrying [1] - 37:7
case [30] - 5:22, 5:25,
6:19, 7:4, 10:20, 12:6,
15:15, 18:22, 21:2,
30:25, 32:6, 32:8, 32:14,
32:18, 32:22, 36:16,
40:11, 50:4, 55:14,
55:20, 55:25, 56:1, 61:8,
61:16, 61:21, 62:12,
62:14, 62:19, 63:3
cases [10] - 6:4, 6:11,
6:17, 6:22, 32:7, 32:11,
35:13, 56:17, 56:25,
60:20
category [1] - 49:8
cater [1] - 26:10
Catholic [1] - 26:18
causing [1] - 18:4
CCR [2] - 2:18, 65:22
center [1] - 51:12
CENTER [1] - 1:21
Center [1] - 4:22
certain [12] - 5:25, 18:15,
26:8, 34:8, 36:22, 36:23,
52:17, 56:5, 56:6, 56:18,
56:25, 58:16
certainly [14] - 5:7, 11:9,
12:5, 26:7, 26:10, 35:10,
68
44:12, 46:18, 52:11,
53:9, 55:2, 56:3, 57:1,
57:12
Certificate [1] - 65:23
CERTIFIED [1] - 2:11
Certified [1] - 65:7
certify [2] - 65:8, 65:13
challenge [1] - 59:24
challenges [1] - 47:20
Challenges [2] - 3:10,
66:9
chance [1] - 54:25
change [43] - 10:15,
10:23, 12:12, 12:15,
12:17, 12:25, 13:6,
18:23, 18:25, 19:1, 19:2,
19:4, 19:5, 19:20, 20:4,
22:23, 23:1, 27:19,
37:18, 38:1, 38:3, 38:5,
38:6, 38:15, 38:18,
39:22, 42:19, 43:5, 44:8,
45:20, 46:6, 49:14,
50:18, 51:5, 51:22,
52:23, 52:24, 53:14,
53:20, 54:9
changes [1] - 12:1
changing [5] - 13:10,
18:16, 19:25, 46:8,
53:25
characteristics [3] -
17:3, 17:5, 17:19
Child [1] - 29:9
child [1] - 55:22
children [7] - 27:12,
28:2, 28:16, 50:13,
56:20, 57:7, 62:23
chilled [1] - 44:2
chimed [1] - 58:15
choices [1] - 31:8
choose [1] - 55:22
Christian [2] - 26:14,
26:15
CHRISTIE [1] - 1:6
Christopher [1] - 4:21
CHRISTOPHER [2] - 1:6,
1:21
Cir [1] - 5:23
Circuit [20] - 5:22, 10:2,
11:7, 11:8, 11:18, 12:5,
15:8, 15:14, 21:17, 22:8,
31:1, 32:5, 32:7, 32:10,
33:3, 33:17, 34:2, 55:20,
61:10, 61:18
circuits [1] - 61:18
citations [3] - 6:19, 7:4,
60:16
cite [2] - 30:22, 49:21
cited [4] - 6:23, 22:16,
57:17, 62:13
cites [2] - 38:8, 51:9
City [1] - 61:9
CIVIL [1] - 1:2
claim [6] - 3:8, 6:24, 9:1,
9:20, 9:24, 66:7
claiming [2] - 31:22,
50:13
claims [9] - 5:11, 6:14,
7:7, 7:11, 7:13, 7:16,
8:5, 8:18, 9:11
Claims [2] - 3:5, 66:5
CLARKSON [1] - 1:9
clear [6] - 12:3, 12:21,
12:24, 13:23, 14:11,
45:3
clearly [9] - 13:11, 19:23,
20:20, 22:8, 40:17, 46:2,
53:12, 55:14, 59:23
CLERK [3] - 4:2, 61:2,
64:3
clerk [2] - 33:12, 61:2
client [19] - 15:17, 16:14,
16:23, 17:12, 18:3,
21:14, 23:5, 23:20, 26:6,
27:3, 37:17, 38:18,
42:17, 43:7, 44:10,
45:17, 45:18, 46:2
client's [1] - 44:6
cliental [1] - 26:11
clients [24] - 12:6, 12:7,
13:18, 14:17, 15:15,
16:17, 17:7, 20:20,
26:17, 26:19, 35:2,
38:10, 38:12, 38:13,
38:14, 38:17, 43:24,
48:1, 48:14, 49:11,
51:25, 59:23, 60:4
close [1] - 9:9
closed [1] - 29:3
Code [6] - 22:17, 22:18,
23:14, 23:16, 45:14
code [1] - 25:3
codes [1] - 21:12
coincide [1] - 56:6
coming [4] - 19:15,
22:21, 51:22
communicative [1] -
47:15
compensatory [2] - 6:3,
6:6
competent [2] - 23:3,
44:23
completely [3] - 29:3,
30:23, 61:16
component [1] - 34:25
Conant [13] - 16:7, 32:8,
32:19, 32:22, 36:16,
37:3, 38:7, 38:17, 38:19,
38:20, 43:20, 43:21
concede [3] - 16:6,
42:12, 55:20
conceded [1] - 39:14
concern [2] - 22:12,
52:15
concerned [1] - 48:2
concerning [1] - 16:23
concluded [1] - 64:4
conduct [14] - 15:9,
29:20, 30:1, 30:4, 30:5,
30:15, 31:23, 37:7,
37:12, 37:13, 46:14,
47:4, 47:13, 49:8
conduct-based [1] -
29:20
conducted [1] - 57:21
conference [1] - 63:3
confidence [1] - 19:18
confident [1] - 19:18
conflict [1] - 49:25
conflicted [1] - 44:14
conflicts [3] - 26:21,
26:23, 50:13
connection [1] - 15:13
connotation [1] - 17:20
consent [5] - 17:15, 27:6,
27:16, 27:21, 28:7
consequently [1] - 37:20
consider [2] - 17:20,
59:25
considered [1] - 60:14
consistent [2] - 15:7,
56:22
consists [1] - 16:22
constitution [1] - 7:24
constitutional [7] - 6:1,
7:7, 12:2, 40:3, 40:5,
53:18, 55:21
contemporaneous [1] -
7:24
contend [1] - 34:21
content [6] - 36:14,
36:18, 36:20, 36:24,
37:20, 38:20
contest [1] - 55:12
context [4] - 34:16, 35:7,
35:8, 56:17
continue [4] - 22:1, 29:4,
43:2, 45:24
continued [2] - 33:22,
46:1
Continuing [1] - 14:21
continuing [1] - 22:4
contra [1] - 29:18
contra-indicated [1] -
29:18
contrary [2] - 30:10,
50:10
control [2] - 34:6, 61:16
conversion [11] - 16:11,
16:15, 18:1, 18:17,
23:12, 24:1, 37:1, 37:10,
48:11, 48:12, 49:4
cope [2] - 50:7, 50:11
coping [2] - 19:19, 25:23
Correct [1] - 7:21
correct [17] - 8:13, 8:14,
9:1, 10:6, 15:18, 15:24,
26:13, 33:15, 33:16,
35:11, 35:23, 47:22,
47:23, 56:12, 56:23,
61:5, 61:6
counsel [28] - 4:8, 13:4,
13:14, 13:21, 15:3,
15:23, 19:8, 19:10,
19:11, 20:11, 21:21,
26:6, 38:5, 42:3, 43:6,
43:13, 43:19, 43:24,
44:9, 52:2, 52:3, 52:5,
55:16, 57:8, 60:15,
65:14, 65:16
COUNSEL [1] - 1:15
Counsel [1] - 4:10
counseled [1] - 11:4
counseling [57] - 10:12,
10:18, 10:22, 12:8,
12:16, 12:18, 12:19,
13:6, 13:10, 14:2, 14:11,
14:23, 16:22, 19:22,
20:1, 20:3, 20:15, 21:16,
22:2, 22:22, 22:24, 23:2,
27:15, 27:18, 29:4,
30:24, 32:21, 34:7,
34:18, 36:25, 39:1, 39:3,
69
40:18, 40:20, 40:23,
41:8, 41:15, 41:16,
41:17, 41:18, 44:22,
45:8, 45:10, 45:22,
45:23, 45:24, 46:1, 46:3,
46:5, 47:15, 53:13,
53:20, 54:16, 55:5, 58:4,
60:10
counselor [25] - 21:19,
21:22, 21:23, 22:1, 22:6,
22:10, 23:2, 23:6, 26:24,
37:17, 41:6, 41:7, 41:23,
42:17, 43:9, 43:11, 44:7,
44:19, 45:9, 45:13,
45:17, 45:20, 46:6, 55:6
counselors [10] - 21:9,
21:10, 21:11, 21:18,
27:1, 45:15, 48:22,
51:24, 52:7, 54:7
couple [5] - 5:9, 10:8,
11:14, 21:3, 54:23
course [7] - 11:7, 27:5,
28:18, 31:4, 31:21, 32:9,
47:11
Court [12] - 3:6, 5:24,
31:8, 31:9, 33:9, 33:17,
34:17, 34:24, 46:13,
51:7, 65:7
court [3] - 4:1, 7:11, 10:2
COURT [93] - 1:1, 2:18,
4:3, 4:14, 4:24, 6:9,
6:16, 7:3, 7:10, 7:14,
7:19, 8:3, 8:16, 9:6,
9:18, 10:10, 11:1, 11:5,
11:23, 12:24, 13:5,
13:25, 14:14, 14:21,
15:4, 16:1, 16:3, 17:17,
18:10, 18:25, 19:3,
19:19, 20:14, 21:2,
22:11, 22:15, 23:7,
23:22, 24:24, 25:8,
25:15, 25:18, 26:3, 26:7,
27:4, 27:20, 28:15, 29:6,
30:2, 30:25, 33:4, 33:7,
33:11, 34:1, 34:15,
35:12, 35:24, 36:19,
38:22, 39:11, 39:16,
39:25, 40:17, 41:1,
41:10, 41:19, 43:13,
44:10, 46:10, 47:6,
47:11, 47:24, 49:2,
49:16, 50:5, 52:11,
53:21, 54:14, 55:18,
56:3, 56:16, 57:9, 57:22,
59:20, 59:25, 60:11,
60:23, 62:10, 63:1,
63:11, 63:15, 63:17,
63:20
COURTHOUSE [1] - 1:9
Courts [1] - 62:16
courts [1] - 5:2
cover [2] - 41:21, 42:13
covered [4] - 24:20, 41:3,
41:22, 49:1
covers [2] - 41:13, 42:12
created [1] - 19:13
creates [1] - 55:6
criteria [2] - 9:6, 9:8
criticism [1] - 57:22
cross [1] - 40:15
cure [1] - 34:22
curious [1] - 38:22
current [2] - 39:6, 39:9
D
dad [5] - 20:6, 20:7, 20:8,
20:10
damaged [1] - 19:9
damages [7] - 5:19, 6:2,
6:3, 6:5, 6:6, 6:7, 6:13
DANIEL [1] - 1:16
Daniel [1] - 4:9
date [1] - 65:11
Date [1] - 65:23
daughters [1] - 55:16
deal [5] - 6:5, 9:25,
45:25, 50:8, 50:16
dealing [4] - 12:20,
31:24, 39:2, 58:17
deals [1] - 55:21
death [1] - 56:14
decades [1] - 20:24
decided [1] - 61:17
decides [1] - 46:4
decision [6] - 32:19,
46:12, 52:15, 56:8,
61:15
decisions [4] - 27:8,
52:14, 56:19, 56:21
declarants [1] - 51:11
declaration [3] - 48:23,
58:25, 60:1
declarations [11] -
16:21, 19:23, 20:18,
21:3, 51:6, 59:8, 59:11,
59:22, 59:23, 60:3,
60:12
deemed [2] - 25:2, 35:10
deems [1] - 21:21
defend [1] - 21:10
Defendant [1] - 1:22
defendants [7] - 4:17,
8:6, 8:11, 31:17, 31:21,
36:21, 59:16
Defendants [2] - 1:7,
1:18
defense [1] - 5:12
defined [1] - 41:2
defines [1] - 13:25
defining [1] - 14:2
definitely [1] - 35:12
definition [4] - 10:14,
41:10, 41:13, 48:4
DEMETRIOS [2] - 1:13,
1:14
Demetrios [1] - 4:7
deposed [1] - 58:23
depression [1] - 35:1
Deputy [1] - 4:16
DEPUTY [1] - 1:18
deserves [1] - 34:22
designed [1] - 40:12
desired [1] - 30:14
desperate [1] - 51:23
determination [8] -
11:19, 24:3, 29:23, 34:3,
43:8, 45:19, 48:13,
57:11
determinative [1] - 13:7
determine [2] - 9:3, 59:4
determined [5] - 27:24,
27:25, 29:20, 30:4,
55:23
determiner [1] - 44:4
determines [1] - 46:13
developing [2] - 17:4,
17:18
diagnostic [1] - 13:16
difference [8] - 10:11,
10:25, 11:6, 11:12, 12:1,
13:20, 14:5, 42:14
differences [2] - 10:9,
10:10
different [9] - 11:19,
24:12, 24:13, 36:17,
47:12, 61:13, 61:18,
61:19, 61:23
difficult [2] - 20:12, 32:2
difficulties [1] - 46:11
direct [1] - 48:16
directed [3] - 10:1,
13:24, 32:5
directly [3] - 37:13,
51:23, 55:11
disagree [2] - 29:24,
29:25
disagreement [1] - 36:1
disconnect [1] - 20:10
discovery [1] - 58:22
discussion [3] - 11:6,
11:11, 38:2
Discussion [2] - 3:4,
66:4
discussions [2] - 16:22,
36:18
dismiss [1] - 7:16
distinction [3] - 15:6,
36:21, 40:17
distinguish [1] - 21:6
distinguishable [1] -
13:16
distinguishes [1] - 11:13
distinguishing [1] -
52:19
distressed [1] - 19:16
District [1] - 34:24
DISTRICT [2] - 1:1, 1:1
division [1] - 62:16
doctor [2] - 13:13, 37:3
doctors [1] - 38:9
documented [2] - 28:2,
28:18
documents [1] - 29:1
done [6] - 11:9, 15:7,
28:17, 29:3, 32:16
door [1] - 29:3
down [4] - 5:1, 27:2,
47:14, 58:20
Dr [2] - 16:21, 48:23
draw [2] - 46:12, 47:1
drawn [3] - 15:6, 40:18,
45:5
Drescher [1] - 51:11
drop [2] - 45:22, 45:24
drop-out [1] - 45:22
drops [1] - 46:3
drug [5] - 22:22, 41:6,
44:19, 45:8, 45:9
drugs [1] - 22:24
70
E
EAST [1] - 1:10
easy [1] - 14:19
ED.D [1] - 1:3
educational [2] - 34:8,
34:12
effect [4] - 31:18, 47:13,
51:19, 56:12
effecting [1] - 37:12
effective [2] - 29:15,
48:14
effectuate [1] - 37:1
efficacy [1] - 28:22
efforts [11] - 10:15,
12:12, 12:15, 20:4,
22:23, 29:14, 38:2, 38:3,
38:15, 39:23, 52:23
either [2] - 56:1, 58:19
Eleventh [9] - 3:5, 5:11,
5:17, 5:20, 6:7, 6:14,
8:4, 60:17, 66:5
eliminate [2] - 37:16,
38:2
emotional [1] - 35:1
emphasize [1] - 17:11
empirical [2] - 29:13,
31:10
empirically [1] - 57:13
employ [1] - 35:2
employee [2] - 65:14,
65:16
en [1] - 33:20
encourage [1] - 20:6
end [4] - 11:16, 31:12,
63:16, 63:18
ends [2] - 30:14, 31:6
engage [22] - 13:19,
14:18, 14:22, 16:10,
16:11, 16:18, 17:15,
18:23, 19:6, 19:8, 20:7,
20:17, 20:20, 21:12,
21:13, 22:9, 22:11,
23:12, 23:19, 24:6,
37:12, 40:7
engaged [7] - 12:6, 12:7,
14:12, 15:10, 16:16,
40:22, 41:14
engagement [1] - 22:4
engages [2] - 24:1, 58:8
engaging [8] - 12:11,
18:1, 20:25, 21:4, 25:2,
35:19, 37:24, 43:5
entitle [1] - 35:3
ENTITLED [1] - 2:13
entity [1] - 5:20
entrance [1] - 34:7
Equality [9] - 4:20, 4:23,
23:9, 58:14, 61:20, 62:1,
62:7, 62:20, 63:7
equipped [1] - 44:20
Eric [1] - 48:23
especially [2] - 19:14,
22:20
ESQUIRE [5] - 1:14,
1:15, 1:16, 1:20, 1:21
essentially [4] - 5:5,
10:4, 17:6, 25:22
established [1] - 6:12
establishing [1] - 60:8
esteem [1] - 19:12
et [2] - 1:4, 1:7
etc [2] - 1:3, 1:7
ethical [5] - 21:11, 23:6,
24:25, 25:3, 44:7
ethically [2] - 22:12,
22:14
Ethics [6] - 22:17, 22:18,
23:14, 23:16, 45:14
ethics [1] - 25:7
event [2] - 6:21, 44:20
everywhere [1] - 31:1
evidence [6] - 28:25,
29:13, 29:14, 31:10,
57:3, 57:5
exactly [3] - 6:23, 10:6,
35:22
example [7] - 13:13,
19:7, 20:10, 22:21,
45:21, 53:24, 54:2
except [2] - 12:16, 13:25
excluded [1] - 51:13
excuse [1] - 60:25
exemption [1] - 52:5
exemptions [4] - 51:17,
52:1, 52:9
exercise [3] - 30:20,
48:9, 55:13
experience [1] - 26:24
experienced [2] - 41:14,
45:9
expert [1] - 41:24
experts [4] - 20:21, 41:5,
58:21, 60:2
explaining [2] - 50:12,
60:5
explore [1] - 18:2
express [1] - 39:8
expression [2] - 53:7,
53:12
extent [2] - 16:25, 60:4
F
F.3d [1] - 5:23
face [7] - 12:21, 12:22,
24:4, 30:22, 47:16,
49:20, 52:9
faced [1] - 54:7
facial [1] - 47:21
fact [14] - 10:1, 10:13,
25:15, 26:16, 27:13,
31:9, 38:9, 43:6, 50:9,
51:10, 55:10, 61:25,
62:2, 62:7
fact-finding [1] - 31:9
factor [1] - 50:22
facts [1] - 31:10
fall [4] - 16:6, 36:10,
41:10, 41:12
falls [1] - 38:19
familial [1] - 19:9
familiar [1] - 6:11
families [1] - 50:8
Family [1] - 22:18
family [2] - 41:7, 50:15
far [2] - 43:17, 43:25
fashioned [1] - 10:5
Federal [1] - 62:16
federal [4] - 5:1, 7:11,
7:13, 7:25
feelings [2] - 17:13,
18:15
ferret [1] - 46:25
few [1] - 15:5
field [1] - 40:19
fields [1] - 41:8
figured [1] - 18:14
file [2] - 44:10, 46:4
filed [4] - 33:5, 33:9,
33:15, 51:6
files [1] - 44:6
financially [1] - 65:17
findings [2] - 25:16,
46:18
fine [6] - 9:21, 14:6, 18:8,
47:10, 60:11, 63:17
First [15] - 3:8, 9:24,
25:9, 30:18, 30:19,
30:21, 32:21, 34:18,
34:23, 35:3, 44:1, 54:24,
55:8, 55:10, 66:7
first [5] - 8:22, 17:24,
32:14, 41:25, 49:10
FISHER [1] - 1:9
fit [5] - 31:6, 31:7, 51:15,
57:2, 57:7
five [3] - 63:6, 63:9
five-page [2] - 63:6
floor [1] - 59:15
FLW [1] - 1:2
focus [4] - 7:25, 9:12,
18:11, 35:5
focussing [1] - 41:1
following [2] - 63:1,
63:21
FOLLOWING [1] - 2:11
footnote [1] - 57:18
FOR [2] - 1:1, 1:21
Force [5] - 28:11, 28:13,
49:21, 51:4, 51:12
force [1] - 55:4
foregoing [1] - 65:9
forth [5] - 11:2, 15:13,
20:19, 53:7, 65:12
forum [1] - 39:8
forward [3] - 5:3, 7:12,
8:8
fostering [3] - 17:3,
17:18, 17:23
four [1] - 10:12
framing [1] - 5:5
frankly [10] - 11:1, 13:5,
14:5, 16:5, 44:19, 46:24,
49:2, 54:6, 58:18, 60:11
FREDA [1] - 1:11
free [4] - 30:20, 48:9,
55:13, 60:20
Freedom [1] - 66:11
freedom [1] - 48:8
Freedon [1] - 3:12
Frempong [2] - 61:9,
61:13
Friday [2] - 63:21, 63:22
front [1] - 51:12
full [2] - 6:19, 7:4
fully [2] - 61:17, 63:12
fuzzy [1] - 27:11
G
gamut [1] - 41:13
71
Garden [13] - 3:15, 4:20,
4:23, 11:21, 23:9, 58:13,
61:3, 61:20, 62:1, 62:6,
62:19, 63:7, 66:14
gay [5] - 17:14, 18:8,
21:15, 48:12, 49:4
geared [1] - 13:12
gender [9] - 10:19, 17:2,
17:4, 17:18, 52:6, 53:6,
53:7, 53:12, 54:13
general [13] - 24:19,
40:10, 41:8, 43:1, 48:12,
49:7, 53:11, 53:24, 54:3,
54:17, 56:24, 57:1,
62:15
GENERAL [2] - 1:17,
1:18
General [3] - 3:4, 4:16,
66:4
generalizations [1] -
31:5
generalized [1] - 52:1
generally [2] - 48:18,
57:6
generically [1] - 38:12
given [5] - 5:8, 29:14,
31:1, 36:7, 36:25
GLUCK [1] - 1:19
Gluck [1] - 4:19
goal [2] - 42:25, 43:9
God [2] - 19:13, 25:24
governing [1] - 39:6
government [5] - 5:1,
5:20, 6:13, 6:15, 6:20
granted [1] - 8:7
great [1] - 9:25
grievance [2] - 44:6, 46:4
GSE [1] - 1:22
guess [3] - 4:25, 10:5,
59:15
guessing [1] - 25:25
guide [1] - 44:18
H
Hafeez [1] - 5:23
hamstrung [1] - 62:12
hand [2] - 20:3, 28:19
hard [3] - 6:22, 30:16,
49:2
hard-pressed [1] - 6:22
harder [1] - 30:17
harm [11] - 24:8, 25:4,
28:4, 28:6, 28:19, 28:21,
29:17, 55:2, 55:4, 55:6
harmed [2] - 28:24,
44:12
harmful [6] - 21:22, 24:4,
25:2, 25:16, 48:14,
55:24
harms [1] - 46:19
health [5] - 24:17, 28:3,
28:5, 36:3, 36:9
hear [1] - 58:23
heard [2] - 25:22, 53:2
hearing [2] - 7:2, 11:16
heart [1] - 50:4
held [2] - 21:23, 56:10
help [4] - 19:5, 39:18,
42:24, 43:9
helpful [2] - 32:11, 35:10
helpless [1] - 19:16
hereby [1] - 65:8
hereinbefore [1] - 65:11
heterosexual [4] - 52:2,
52:4, 54:1, 54:8
high [1] - 45:22
history [1] - 51:9
hold [1] - 11:23
homosexual [4] - 52:3,
52:4, 54:1, 54:9
Honor [40] - 4:6, 4:15,
4:18, 5:16, 5:17, 6:4,
6:10, 7:1, 7:23, 8:14,
8:15, 9:5, 9:16, 9:17,
11:15, 12:4, 14:9, 15:25,
16:20, 23:16, 25:14,
26:2, 33:2, 36:12, 37:15,
42:16, 47:3, 48:19, 49:9,
51:3, 51:19, 54:12,
59:18, 59:19, 59:21,
61:7, 62:11, 63:10,
63:14, 63:19
HONORABLE [1] - 1:11
hope [1] - 21:2
hopefully [2] - 63:20,
63:25
huge [1] - 41:13
hypothetical [1] - 44:24
hypothetically [1] -
43:18
I
idea [3] - 13:12, 48:1,
53:11
ideas [2] - 20:23, 39:8
identical [2] - 10:4, 10:7
identified [5] - 17:13,
28:19, 28:20, 28:22,
30:7
identifies [1] - 55:2
identify [1] - 21:15
identifying [2] - 18:8,
20:15
identity [6] - 16:25, 17:1,
49:15, 50:3, 50:25, 53:6
ideology [2] - 21:14,
21:16
immunity [3] - 6:8, 6:14,
6:24
impact [5] - 12:2, 28:2,
29:13, 51:23, 57:14
impacted [1] - 31:23
imperfect [1] - 31:6
impermissible [1] -
40:15
implementing [1] - 40:8
implicate [1] - 6:7
implicated [2] - 22:6,
37:17
implicating [1] - 5:20
implication [1] - 12:21
important [1] - 36:3
impose [2] - 21:13, 21:16
IN [1] - 2:12
incidental [3] - 30:3,
31:18, 47:13
incidentally [2] - 30:1,
55:11
include [3] - 10:22,
62:21, 62:22
included [2] - 53:5,
53:13
includes [3] - 15:11,
53:10
including [3] - 27:18,
52:21, 52:25
inclusive [2] - 55:3, 55:8
inconsistent [1] - 38:8
indeed [2] - 28:3, 31:3
independently [1] -
62:18
Indiana [1] - 61:10
indicate [1] - 51:4
indicated [8] - 14:17,
17:7, 19:24, 20:21,
20:22, 29:18, 46:17,
57:12
indicates [1] - 26:9
individual [3] - 18:20,
56:4, 58:8
individuals [4] - 34:10,
34:11, 55:4, 62:21
ineffective [1] - 55:24
information [6] - 36:23,
43:1, 43:3, 46:7, 46:8,
49:24
informative [1] - 16:8
informed [4] - 17:15,
27:6, 27:20, 28:6
informing [1] - 16:14
infringe [1] - 25:9
inimicable [1] - 36:9
initiate [1] - 27:1
injury [10] - 6:3, 8:23,
9:4, 9:14, 60:5, 60:8,
61:25, 62:2, 62:4, 62:7
inquiry [5] - 8:20, 8:25,
47:12, 47:14, 47:17
instance [3] - 13:22,
23:11, 35:16
instruction [1] - 33:12
insurmountable [1] -
31:4
intended [1] - 47:15
intentionally [1] - 13:10
interest [4] - 30:7, 52:12,
56:8, 56:21
interested [1] - 65:17
interesting [2] - 10:8,
63:24
interfere [1] - 57:6
intermediate [2] - 31:20,
58:19
internship [2] - 34:8,
34:14
interpret [2] - 40:4, 45:4
interpreted [1] - 10:3
intervene [1] - 11:20
Intervenor [7] - 1:22,
4:20, 38:24, 51:6, 53:16,
62:17, 63:8
Intervenors [1] - 11:17
intervention [1] - 61:14
interventions [1] - 29:17
intrusive [1] - 13:15
involved [5] - 22:1, 22:7,
23:4, 39:2, 39:12
involvement [1] - 22:5
IS [1] - 2:11
Islam [1] - 26:16
Islamic [1] - 26:17
72
issue [31] - 8:9, 8:16,
11:16, 11:18, 11:21,
12:4, 13:9, 17:9, 19:22,
19:23, 24:13, 24:22,
27:5, 30:21, 32:22, 37:3,
39:22, 42:18, 47:4, 48:3,
51:7, 51:10, 52:15,
52:20, 55:13, 61:12,
61:14, 61:17, 62:15,
63:11, 63:12
issued [1] - 33:18
issues [17] - 5:9, 18:2,
19:24, 20:5, 22:23, 41:7,
45:25, 46:5, 46:25,
47:16, 47:19, 47:24,
48:8, 51:21, 57:24,
60:17, 63:7
itself [8] - 13:8, 19:25,
30:21, 50:21, 51:8,
51:12, 51:16, 62:7
J
Jehovah [1] - 56:13
jeopardy [1] - 44:3
JERSEY [1] - 1:1
Jersey [6] - 5:2, 10:4,
10:5, 27:13, 36:5, 65:8
Jones [1] - 57:16
Journal [1] - 29:8
Judaism [1] - 26:16
judgment [4] - 7:13,
7:15, 8:1, 58:22
K
key [1] - 34:24
kids [1] - 19:15
kind [19] - 12:18, 13:15,
16:11, 21:21, 24:3,
28:17, 29:12, 36:11,
37:25, 40:22, 41:14,
41:16, 45:23, 46:22,
52:12, 56:6, 56:19,
57:14, 58:4
kinds [4] - 18:5, 21:12,
23:10, 56:18
King [1] - 48:22
KING [1] - 1:3
L
language [4] - 13:22,
35:9, 35:14, 50:17
largely [1] - 31:21
last [4] - 17:17, 54:15,
58:12, 63:24
law [8] - 6:12, 7:10, 7:16,
30:25, 33:12, 49:6,
55:20, 56:11
LAW [1] - 1:13
lead [1] - 19:25
leader [2] - 44:17, 58:3
least [3] - 25:4, 35:25,
40:2
leaving [1] - 59:14
legal [3] - 7:20, 7:22,
25:1
legislative [1] - 31:8
Legislature [8] - 27:24,
29:10, 30:12, 36:7,
46:19, 49:17, 49:23,
59:5
Legislature's [1] - 31:5
legitimate [3] - 30:7,
46:21, 59:7
lenient [1] - 46:20
lesbian [3] - 17:14, 18:9,
21:15
Lesbian [1] - 4:22
LESBIAN [1] - 1:21
less [1] - 48:7
letter [2] - 7:3, 60:19
level [1] - 46:15
liability [4] - 22:13, 24:5,
24:10, 24:13
LIBERTY [1] - 1:15
Liberty [1] - 4:10
license [1] - 44:3
licensed [16] - 13:2,
14:1, 21:10, 21:18,
21:22, 23:6, 24:16,
35:17, 37:22, 39:6, 41:2,
41:4, 41:22, 42:6, 45:12,
58:8
licensing [5] - 34:15,
35:7, 35:8, 35:25, 39:10
life [1] - 56:14
limited [4] - 52:22, 52:25,
53:6, 54:13
line [6] - 31:11, 43:18,
44:1, 45:5, 46:12, 47:1
lines [1] - 40:15
listed [1] - 53:10
listen [1] - 43:4
lists [1] - 10:22
literally [1] - 44:3
literature [5] - 15:22,
37:11, 42:20, 57:11,
58:20
litigation [2] - 44:7, 62:8
LLP [1] - 1:19
local [1] - 4:8
longitudinal [2] - 57:19,
57:20
look [14] - 6:17, 6:24,
28:9, 30:22, 30:25,
32:12, 32:13, 32:15,
34:2, 36:22, 42:21,
42:22, 59:5
looked [1] - 35:6
looking [4] - 5:6, 11:10,
29:21, 30:9
low [1] - 19:11
M
main [3] - 9:13, 9:22,
53:19
maintain [1] - 22:20
major [1] - 31:13
majority [1] - 51:21
Mann [1] - 61:15
manner [1] - 32:5
mannerisms [1] - 53:11
marijuana [3] - 37:4,
38:10, 38:11
marriage [1] - 41:6
Marriage [1] - 22:18
mathematical [1] - 31:7
MATHEW [1] - 1:15
Matt [1] - 4:11
MATTER [1] - 2:13
matter [6] - 5:8, 6:21,
7:7, 7:11, 34:1, 56:25
matters [1] - 61:19
mean [7] - 12:16, 15:12,
17:17, 17:22, 23:18,
47:25, 52:22
meaning [1] - 40:3
means [8] - 12:15, 12:16,
31:6, 40:20, 42:5, 49:4,
49:5, 52:23
mechanisms [1] - 25:23
medical [7] - 13:13,
13:15, 25:4, 55:22, 56:6,
56:9, 56:20
medication [1] - 56:19
medicinal [1] - 38:11
members [4] - 40:22,
48:24, 51:14, 62:21
memo [1] - 8:1
memorandum [1] - 7:3
mental [1] - 24:17
mention [2] - 37:4, 54:25
mentioned [3] - 11:3,
54:25, 61:8
mentioning [1] - 37:5
merits [1] - 9:20
message [1] - 38:1
method [3] - 36:6, 36:8,
36:24
methodologies [1] -
41:24
methods [4] - 35:18,
35:20, 37:23, 37:24
might [5] - 24:25, 30:12,
42:16, 54:12, 62:23
minimum [1] - 55:7
minister [1] - 44:16
minor [4] - 15:17, 16:14,
28:2, 50:24
minors [14] - 8:19, 8:20,
19:11, 27:4, 27:7, 28:14,
28:24, 36:10, 45:21,
52:12, 52:13, 52:16,
52:17
modality [1] - 12:19
mode [1] - 20:22
modified [1] - 50:1
moment [7] - 11:24,
14:14, 27:21, 32:13,
36:20, 52:15
moments [1] - 15:5
monetary [1] - 6:12
monitoring [1] - 39:24
morning [4] - 4:6, 4:12,
4:15, 4:18
most [2] - 26:14, 49:13
motion [3] - 33:9, 33:19,
58:15
MOTIONS [1] - 1:4
motions [1] - 58:13
motivated [3] - 49:8,
49:18, 51:2
motivating [1] - 50:22
move [3] - 5:3, 8:8, 43:25
moving [2] - 7:12, 7:15
MR [77] - 4:6, 4:18, 5:16,
7:1, 7:9, 7:12, 7:22,
8:15, 9:17, 10:7, 10:11,
11:3, 11:14, 12:3, 13:4,
13:7, 14:20, 15:2, 16:2,
16:20, 18:2, 18:18, 19:1,
73
19:7, 19:21, 20:17, 21:8,
22:14, 22:16, 26:2, 26:5,
26:13, 27:13, 28:10,
28:20, 29:25, 30:17,
33:1, 33:5, 33:9, 33:15,
34:4, 35:11, 35:23,
36:12, 37:15, 39:21,
40:10, 40:21, 41:4,
41:12, 42:16, 43:16,
45:7, 47:3, 47:9, 47:23,
48:19, 49:9, 49:19, 51:3,
53:5, 54:12, 54:22, 56:1,
56:13, 56:24, 57:16,
59:19, 59:21, 60:9, 61:6,
62:11, 63:10, 63:13,
63:16, 63:19
MS [19] - 4:15, 6:10,
7:18, 8:14, 9:5, 9:16,
14:9, 15:25, 23:16,
24:12, 25:5, 25:14,
25:17, 39:5, 39:14,
39:20, 41:21, 59:18,
60:22
must [2] - 8:22, 61:20
MY [1] - 2:12
myriad [1] - 59:10
N
N.J [1] - 1:17
NAAP [16] - 32:8, 32:19,
32:20, 34:4, 34:5, 34:6,
34:10, 34:17, 35:6,
35:10, 36:11, 36:17,
37:21, 38:8
name [1] - 61:9
names [1] - 26:9
National [2] - 4:22, 61:9
NATIONAL [1] - 1:21
nature [2] - 16:23, 26:15
necessarily [2] - 15:11,
51:18
necessary [3] - 29:5,
29:16, 47:6
need [4] - 30:7, 30:8,
30:14, 50:1
needs [1] - 62:17
negatives [1] - 29:11
neutral [2] - 48:17, 49:7
never [3] - 10:13, 46:1,
59:9
NEW [1] - 1:1
New [6] - 5:2, 10:4, 10:5,
27:13, 36:5, 65:8
Newman [1] - 48:22
next [5] - 8:9, 33:22,
42:23, 58:15, 63:18
niceties [1] - 31:7
Nicolosi [1] - 16:21
Ninth [14] - 10:2, 11:7,
11:8, 12:5, 15:8, 15:14,
21:17, 22:7, 32:5, 32:7,
32:10, 33:3, 33:17, 34:2
NJ [1] - 1:10
NO [1] - 1:2
nobody [1] - 20:23
nominal [4] - 5:19, 6:2,
6:5, 6:7
non [1] - 21:7
non-aversion [1] - 21:7
none [1] - 42:1
nonetheless [1] - 56:7
note [1] - 60:14
noted [1] - 34:24
NOTES [1] - 2:12
nothing [6] - 35:16,
35:20, 49:19, 50:18,
53:24, 57:15
number [4] - 22:16,
47:24, 51:16, 52:9
O
O'Brien [4] - 30:3, 31:19,
31:24, 47:4
object [1] - 58:16
objections [1] - 59:10
objective [4] - 18:6, 18:7,
18:22, 42:24
objectives [1] - 18:21
obligation [5] - 22:19,
23:17, 23:19, 25:1, 40:4
obstacles [1] - 9:11
obtain [1] - 23:20
obviously [12] - 8:6,
8:21, 9:25, 15:6, 15:11,
17:20, 21:3, 21:5, 31:16,
32:11, 32:20, 48:3
occur [1] - 30:13
occurred [1] - 34:17
OCTOBER [1] - 1:6
October [1] - 33:21
odd [1] - 27:17
OF [5] - 1:1, 1:4, 1:13,
1:17, 2:12
offers [1] - 28:3
OFFICE [1] - 1:17
OFFICES [1] - 1:13
OFFICIAL [2] - 1:25, 2:18
Official [1] - 65:6
once [2] - 17:14, 39:22
one [38] - 10:11, 10:19,
10:23, 11:3, 11:14,
12:10, 14:25, 16:19,
16:20, 20:21, 23:8,
26:16, 26:19, 27:22,
29:7, 31:15, 33:1, 33:5,
34:11, 34:13, 40:2, 40:3,
42:18, 48:20, 50:23,
50:25, 51:1, 51:11,
51:12, 51:17, 53:8,
53:12, 54:24, 55:19,
58:12, 60:19, 60:25
one-page [1] - 60:19
ones [2] - 40:24, 44:11
open [1] - 4:1
operating [1] - 5:2
opinion [5] - 6:21, 15:14,
59:2, 63:12, 63:25
opportunity [1] - 63:4
opposed [2] - 37:13,
46:14
opposition [4] - 7:19,
7:21, 8:3, 20:18
options [1] - 27:22
oral [2] - 4:12, 33:14
order [2] - 33:18, 61:21
ordered [1] - 33:3
ordinarily [1] - 31:3
orientation [30] - 10:15,
12:12, 12:14, 12:17,
20:2, 20:4, 22:23, 23:1,
27:18, 29:15, 38:1, 38:3,
38:15, 39:22, 42:18,
46:9, 47:25, 49:4, 49:15,
49:25, 50:10, 51:20,
52:23, 52:25, 53:14,
53:23, 54:3, 54:5, 54:16,
54:17
otherwise [2] - 16:7,
56:10
outcome [2] - 11:13,
61:16
outdated [1] - 20:22
outset [1] - 14:1
outside [1] - 58:6
overlay [1] - 35:24
overridden [1] - 56:22
oversee [1] - 23:17
overseeing [1] - 24:19
oversight [1] - 22:20
own [7] - 21:14, 21:16,
29:1, 34:3, 50:15, 52:13,
56:5
P
page [6] - 9:20, 32:3,
33:22, 60:19, 63:6
Page [2] - 3:3, 66:3
pages [1] - 63:9
paper [1] - 5:7
papers [10] - 5:13, 9:23,
14:8, 14:10, 16:19,
32:25, 53:4, 54:20,
62:13, 63:24
paragraph [1] - 16:21
parameters [1] - 45:3
parent [3] - 26:17, 57:2,
58:5
Parental [2] - 3:13, 66:12
parental [4] - 52:14,
55:13, 55:19, 57:6
parenteral [1] - 30:20
parents [12] - 8:19,
16:14, 18:23, 19:10,
19:15, 27:7, 55:14,
55:21, 56:21, 57:7, 58:2,
62:23
parents' [1] - 27:16
part [14] - 8:22, 14:18,
14:22, 17:17, 17:24,
20:16, 25:3, 28:15, 40:6,
41:7, 41:17, 54:15, 60:7
particular [15] - 30:24,
36:6, 37:16, 40:22,
40:23, 42:7, 42:15,
42:25, 45:16, 48:16,
50:9, 52:1, 55:14, 55:22,
62:8
parties [4] - 9:13, 15:15,
62:18, 65:15
party [7] - 8:18, 8:25, 9:9,
9:10, 22:13, 59:12,
62:17
passing [2] - 46:21,
50:21
past [2] - 18:6, 58:18
path [2] - 27:2
pause [1] - 61:1
peers [1] - 20:12
people [18] - 14:3, 14:12,
21:4, 26:1, 26:14, 26:18,
35:18, 37:23, 40:19,
74
41:13, 41:15, 42:12,
42:13, 45:23, 49:3,
49:12, 49:13, 58:23
per [1] - 51:18
perception [1] - 44:6
performs [1] - 14:1
perhaps [4] - 5:10, 6:18,
30:10, 57:24
permissible [1] - 40:16
permission [1] - 33:7
permissive [1] - 61:23
permitted [2] - 16:9, 63:2
person [12] - 10:18,
14:1, 17:8, 17:10, 23:3,
23:5, 23:25, 42:23,
42:25, 43:7, 50:2, 51:5
person's [1] - 52:24
perspective [5] - 26:19,
26:25, 32:17, 51:13,
51:23
persuasive [1] - 11:10
pick [1] - 35:14
Pickup [2] - 32:6, 32:18
Piphus [1] - 5:18
place [4] - 36:25, 41:25,
42:1, 65:11
placed [1] - 45:15
plaintiff [1] - 9:9
Plaintiffs [3] - 1:4, 1:16,
7:9
plaintiffs [11] - 4:7, 4:10,
4:13, 8:12, 8:23, 8:24,
9:1, 15:16, 34:5, 34:21,
60:12
plaintiffs' [2] - 32:17,
42:3
planning [1] - 7:23
plenty [2] - 46:24, 56:11
point [14] - 8:10, 10:2,
11:22, 18:12, 37:11,
47:3, 48:6, 49:11, 53:19,
54:19, 55:1, 59:6, 59:14,
60:18
pointed [2] - 33:1, 36:13
points [1] - 15:25
poses [1] - 28:3
position [11] - 5:15, 7:8,
7:20, 7:22, 9:2, 28:7,
30:16, 38:23, 38:25,
39:25, 57:25
positive [1] - 20:8
possibility [1] - 29:16
potential [2] - 18:5,
29:12
potentially [1] - 62:23
practice [11] - 12:11,
12:18, 14:3, 20:16, 41:9,
42:5, 42:7, 46:14, 48:23,
48:25, 52:24
practices [2] - 15:10,
15:11
practicing [6] - 24:21,
35:20, 41:25, 42:2,
42:10, 42:15
predicted [1] - 30:13
premise [4] - 29:24,
29:25, 30:2, 57:9
premises [1] - 57:25
prescribe [1] - 37:6
present [2] - 11:22, 26:8
presentation [1] - 5:6
presented [1] - 9:23
pressed [1] - 6:22
presumption [1] - 31:2
pretty [1] - 48:1
prevent [4] - 9:11, 37:22,
37:23, 55:7
prevented [3] - 37:5,
53:25, 58:1
preventing [2] - 25:13,
58:10
prevents [3] - 35:17,
35:18, 35:20
previous [1] - 61:15
priest [1] - 44:16
prime [1] - 26:20
prioritize [1] - 26:22
problem [10] - 19:22,
28:10, 28:16, 34:5,
35:13, 36:15, 43:17,
45:16, 48:10, 62:6
problems [4] - 25:11,
25:12, 50:25, 58:9
proceed [1] - 9:22
Proceedings [1] - 64:4
proceedings [3] - 3:3,
65:10, 66:3
profession [5] - 14:4,
25:4, 34:7, 35:3, 39:7
professional [4] - 23:21,
23:24, 24:10, 42:7
professionals [2] -
40:19, 41:22
prohibited [4] - 16:5,
39:5, 42:1, 55:15
prohibiting [1] - 36:7
prohibits [4] - 24:14,
24:15, 36:6, 37:25
prong [1] - 9:14
proper [1] - 24:2
proposition [4] - 6:23,
28:12, 57:1, 61:11
protecting [2] - 36:3,
52:13
protection [2] - 34:23,
35:4
protections [2] - 52:17,
52:18
provide [4] - 24:17, 52:6,
55:15, 58:3
provided [4] - 29:7, 56:7,
56:9, 60:4
provider [1] - 24:17
providers [1] - 8:12
providing [3] - 24:18,
39:7, 60:2
provision [3] - 10:17,
27:14, 27:15
psychiatrist [1] - 13:1
Psychiatry [1] - 29:9
psycho [1] - 34:21
psychoanalysis [3] -
34:25, 35:19, 36:15
psychoanalysts [1] -
35:2
psychoanalytical [3] -
35:18, 36:2, 37:23
psychological [1] -
55:23
psychologist [1] - 13:1
psychotherapist [1] -
12:25
psychotherapy [1] -
20:25
public [1] - 36:3
pure [7] - 13:12, 13:17,
13:24, 20:25, 31:16,
31:25, 34:23
purpose [2] - 36:3, 59:7
PURSUANT [1] - 2:10
put [11] - 9:18, 17:21,
31:14, 36:25, 39:1, 49:5,
50:6, 50:20, 51:7, 54:10,
57:23
puts [2] - 50:3, 51:11
Q
qualified [1] - 22:25
quandary [1] - 45:14
questions [3] - 5:5,
47:10, 50:24
quite [1] - 28:8
R
raise [2] - 11:16, 17:8
raised [6] - 5:12, 5:17,
11:18, 17:15, 47:24,
48:8
raising [1] - 27:6
rate [1] - 45:22
rational [13] - 29:21,
30:5, 30:6, 30:15, 30:23,
31:2, 31:12, 31:22,
46:18, 55:9, 58:19, 59:4,
59:6
rationally [1] - 30:12
re [2] - 3:4, 66:4
reach [4] - 18:22, 42:24,
43:9, 59:9
reaction [1] - 30:13
read [6] - 5:7, 32:25,
33:8, 33:11, 50:6, 60:21
readily [1] - 42:6
reading [1] - 16:4
real [3] - 32:14, 54:6,
55:3
realized [1] - 24:8
really [18] - 8:11, 9:12,
11:2, 12:24, 14:8, 15:9,
27:23, 28:16, 30:6,
32:21, 35:5, 36:15,
46:25, 49:2, 52:20, 54:8,
54:10, 62:13
reason [3] - 26:20, 36:6,
46:3
reasoning [1] - 32:10
reasons [2] - 21:20,
26:20
recent [1] - 57:20
recognize [1] - 14:9
recognized [1] - 5:24
recommend [9] - 38:11,
38:13, 38:18, 39:12,
39:17, 39:21, 40:14,
43:21
recommendation [1] -
24:5
recommending [1] -
40:15
reconcile [1] - 32:19
reconciling [3] - 32:7,
32:22, 50:8
75
record [5] - 4:25, 13:19,
20:21, 49:11, 49:16
redressability [1] - 62:4
redressed [1] - 62:5
refer [13] - 15:24, 21:18,
21:25, 22:5, 23:1, 23:11,
23:24, 39:18, 44:13,
45:11, 45:12, 45:13,
45:15
referral [4] - 23:18,
24:18, 24:19, 45:12
referred [1] - 23:19
referring [5] - 22:4,
24:16, 25:1, 44:22,
53:23
refers [3] - 21:22, 22:19,
53:6
reflect [1] - 5:1
regard [12] - 5:10, 7:6,
8:17, 8:21, 38:1, 47:20,
48:8, 51:3, 52:11, 53:3,
55:9, 61:19
regarding [3] - 28:21,
34:6, 38:2
regards [1] - 11:21
regulate [2] - 36:14,
36:18
rehearing [2] - 33:19
rejecting [1] - 48:11
relate [1] - 20:11
related [1] - 55:12
relates [3] - 21:17, 34:4,
59:22
relationship [3] - 9:10,
22:20, 41:15
relationships [1] - 19:9
relative [3] - 11:17,
65:13, 65:16
relevant [2] - 59:23, 60:6
relied [2] - 29:10, 49:23
relies [1] - 28:12
Religion [2] - 3:12, 66:11
religion [13] - 19:12,
48:9, 48:16, 48:17, 49:6,
49:21, 50:3, 50:21,
50:25, 51:9, 54:18,
54:19
religious [29] - 26:1,
26:9, 26:15, 26:19,
26:23, 26:25, 44:14,
44:15, 44:17, 48:15,
49:12, 49:13, 49:15,
49:20, 49:22, 49:25,
50:1, 50:8, 50:16, 50:18,
51:10, 51:13, 51:14,
51:18, 51:21, 51:22,
51:24, 51:25, 58:2
religious-based [2] -
44:14, 44:15
religiously [4] - 49:8,
49:18, 51:2, 56:10
religiously-held [1] -
56:10
religiously-motivated
[2] - 49:8, 49:18
rely [2] - 7:23, 29:19
relying [1] - 31:22
reminded [1] - 61:2
repairing [1] - 19:8
replied [1] - 5:13
report [6] - 29:2, 29:6,
50:5, 50:6, 50:19, 57:18
reported [1] - 32:14
Reporter [2] - 65:7
REPORTER [2] - 1:25,
2:18
reports [3] - 28:21,
28:22, 58:16
represented [1] - 40:24
representing [1] - 4:10
requests [1] - 17:10
required [1] - 34:8
requirements [3] - 34:9,
34:13, 34:14
research [4] - 28:14,
28:25, 29:2, 29:3
resolve [1] - 46:1
respect [3] - 20:1, 54:16,
56:13
respond [8] - 14:7, 16:2,
33:19, 42:16, 59:17,
60:19, 62:12, 63:8
response [1] - 33:20
responsible [1] - 21:24
restrict [1] - 53:17
restriction [1] - 38:21
result [3] - 21:24, 24:8,
46:15
reverse [1] - 53:23
review [4] - 31:20, 32:1,
46:15, 58:19
reviewed [1] - 32:6
RIGHTS [1] - 1:21
Rights [2] - 3:13, 66:12
rights [8] - 4:22, 6:1,
7:25, 30:20, 55:13,
55:15, 55:19, 57:6
ripe [1] - 58:21
rise [2] - 4:2, 64:3
risk [3] - 28:4, 28:6,
29:16
rule [1] - 40:10
Rule [1] - 61:14
ruled [2] - 11:8, 33:10
rules [3] - 22:12, 22:14,
22:15
Ruling [1] - 3:6
rulings [1] - 59:2
run [3] - 24:22, 24:24,
24:25
RUSSONIELLO [2] -
1:24, 2:18
Russoniello [4] - 2:17,
65:6, 65:22, 65:22
S
S/Vincent [2] - 2:17,
65:22
safety [2] - 36:3, 36:9
satisfy [1] - 9:8
Scalise [1] - 48:24
scant [1] - 28:15
scheme [2] - 34:16, 36:1
SCHMID [1] - 1:16
Schmid [1] - 4:9
scientifically [1] - 57:13
Scott [5] - 3:9, 4:16, 6:9,
41:20, 66:8
SCOTT [20] - 1:18, 4:15,
6:10, 7:18, 8:14, 9:5,
9:16, 14:9, 15:25, 23:16,
24:12, 25:5, 25:14,
25:17, 39:5, 39:14,
39:20, 41:21, 59:18,
60:22
scrutiny [2] - 30:9, 46:16
se [1] - 51:18
seat [2] - 4:24, 47:2
seated [1] - 4:5
second [2] - 47:2, 60:25
secondly [2] - 21:17,
21:25
SECTION [1] - 2:10
section [3] - 11:3, 12:14,
36:13
see [3] - 8:3, 14:5, 59:16
seek [12] - 10:23, 12:17,
26:18, 27:15, 27:17,
27:19, 49:12, 49:13,
51:22, 53:14, 53:20,
55:16
seeking [6] - 6:6, 10:18,
26:24, 38:18, 52:24,
58:2
seem [3] - 26:3, 26:7,
48:1
self [2] - 19:12, 43:8
self-esteem [1] - 19:12
send [1] - 24:6
sending [1] - 22:9
sense [1] - 19:2
sent [1] - 6:17
separate [1] - 12:19
September [2] - 33:3,
33:17
serious [1] - 11:20
served [2] - 30:8, 30:14
services [1] - 16:10
serving [1] - 4:8
session [1] - 42:23
set [4] - 11:2, 15:13,
16:7, 65:11
sets [1] - 34:11
several [1] - 34:12
sex [7] - 12:11, 16:24,
17:12, 49:14, 51:20,
52:3, 54:5
sexual [35] - 10:14,
12:12, 12:14, 12:17,
16:24, 17:12, 20:2, 20:4,
22:23, 22:25, 27:18,
29:15, 38:1, 38:3, 38:15,
39:22, 42:18, 42:19,
46:9, 47:25, 48:11, 49:4,
49:14, 49:25, 50:10,
50:24, 51:20, 52:23,
52:24, 53:14, 53:23,
54:2, 54:5, 54:16, 54:17
shall [1] - 14:18
show [2] - 29:5, 62:2
showing [1] - 6:2
shows [2] - 49:17, 57:19
shut [1] - 5:1
side [1] - 33:18
sides [1] - 58:13
significant [4] - 10:8,
10:24, 29:17, 57:19
similar [1] - 37:8
similarly [1] - 7:6
simply [9] - 15:2, 16:8,
18:18, 24:16, 38:3, 38:5,
76
40:13, 61:11, 61:12
situation [6] - 27:17,
30:3, 34:6, 37:9, 39:3,
56:15
situations [1] - 56:4
six [1] - 51:14
slightly [1] - 47:11
SOCE [17] - 14:19,
14:25, 15:18, 15:21,
16:11, 16:22, 17:9,
24:19, 24:21, 27:25,
37:10, 39:4, 41:5, 41:24,
47:25, 62:22, 62:24
social [1] - 13:1
someone [29] - 15:24,
18:13, 19:4, 19:24,
19:25, 22:4, 22:9, 22:19,
22:21, 23:11, 24:1, 24:7,
24:16, 24:19, 25:1,
39:18, 44:13, 44:23,
45:11, 50:9, 52:2, 52:4,
52:5, 54:1, 54:7, 54:13,
58:3, 58:7, 61:24
sometimes [2] - 20:3,
20:4
somewhat [1] - 48:7
son [2] - 20:9, 20:11
sons [1] - 55:16
sorry [1] - 6:10
sort [3] - 24:4, 26:9, 32:1
sought [1] - 26:6
source [2] - 49:24, 50:3
sovereign [2] - 6:8, 6:24
speaks [2] - 49:21, 49:22
special [2] - 34:22, 35:3
specific [1] - 37:25
specifically [8] - 10:14,
10:23, 12:13, 13:24,
50:17, 51:9, 54:13,
62:14
speech [26] - 12:4, 12:9,
12:19, 12:20, 12:21,
13:9, 13:12, 13:17,
13:24, 15:9, 15:12, 16:6,
29:21, 30:5, 31:16,
31:23, 32:1, 34:23, 35:1,
35:2, 37:14, 46:15, 47:5,
47:13, 53:10, 55:11
spend [1] - 20:7
spent [1] - 31:25
Stachura [1] - 5:25
standard [4] - 31:17,
31:19, 31:22, 46:20
standing [26] - 3:7, 4:9,
4:11, 8:10, 8:13, 8:20,
8:24, 8:25, 9:13, 9:19,
11:17, 11:19, 11:21,
61:3, 61:13, 61:19,
61:21, 61:24, 61:25,
62:9, 62:15, 62:17,
62:20, 62:25, 63:7, 66:6
Standing [2] - 3:15,
66:14
stands [1] - 61:11
start [5] - 5:10, 14:16,
32:9, 57:9, 60:1
started [1] - 58:14
starting [1] - 16:13
state [8] - 7:6, 7:10, 7:16,
7:24, 23:13, 28:24, 30:7,
58:6
STATE [1] - 1:10
State [37] - 1:18, 3:15,
4:17, 4:20, 4:23, 5:12,
8:5, 11:21, 20:22, 21:21,
23:7, 23:9, 25:2, 28:13,
29:2, 30:23, 34:7, 38:23,
38:25, 43:18, 44:4, 51:6,
52:12, 53:15, 55:23,
57:5, 57:10, 58:14,
60:18, 61:3, 61:20, 62:1,
62:7, 62:20, 63:7, 65:8,
66:14
State's [2] - 8:4, 44:2
states [1] - 61:12
STATES [2] - 1:1, 1:9
States [1] - 65:6
statute [76] - 10:3, 10:4,
10:6, 10:12, 10:13,
10:16, 10:17, 12:1,
12:12, 12:22, 12:23,
13:8, 13:11, 16:4, 21:6,
24:3, 24:11, 24:13,
24:14, 24:15, 24:21,
24:22, 24:25, 25:6, 25:9,
25:12, 28:12, 29:21,
30:8, 32:6, 32:15, 35:21,
36:5, 36:14, 37:15,
37:21, 37:25, 38:6,
38:16, 39:6, 39:10,
39:23, 40:2, 40:12, 41:2,
41:3, 41:11, 42:1, 42:4,
42:12, 43:10, 45:4, 45:5,
45:16, 46:14, 46:22,
47:21, 48:16, 48:17,
49:18, 50:21, 51:8,
51:16, 51:18, 52:2,
52:10, 52:22, 53:19,
54:15, 55:2, 55:7, 62:5,
62:6
statutes [5] - 10:25,
25:16, 35:17, 41:22,
52:16
Staver [26] - 3:5, 3:9,
3:11, 3:12, 3:14, 3:15,
4:11, 5:14, 14:15, 18:10,
23:8, 25:18, 32:24, 47:2,
48:10, 59:15, 59:20,
61:2, 63:4, 63:5, 66:6,
66:8, 66:10, 66:11,
66:13, 66:14
STAVER [70] - 1:15,
5:16, 7:1, 7:9, 7:12,
7:22, 10:7, 10:11, 11:3,
11:14, 12:3, 13:4, 13:7,
14:20, 15:2, 16:2, 16:20,
18:2, 18:18, 19:1, 19:7,
19:21, 20:17, 21:8,
22:14, 22:16, 26:2, 26:5,
26:13, 27:13, 28:10,
28:20, 29:25, 30:17,
33:1, 33:5, 33:9, 33:15,
34:4, 35:11, 35:23,
36:12, 37:15, 39:21,
40:10, 40:21, 41:4,
41:12, 42:16, 43:16,
45:7, 47:3, 47:9, 47:23,
48:19, 49:9, 49:19, 51:3,
53:5, 54:12, 54:22, 56:1,
56:13, 56:24, 57:16,
59:21, 60:9, 61:6, 63:13,
63:16
steer [1] - 43:17
STENOGRAPHIC [1] -
2:12
stenographically [1] -
65:10
still [10] - 8:25, 9:14,
14:13, 22:24, 23:2,
24:20, 36:10, 47:13,
49:1, 63:20
Stoll [5] - 3:16, 4:21,
4:22, 62:10, 66:15
STOLL [7] - 1:21, 8:15,
9:17, 59:19, 62:11,
63:10, 63:19
stop [1] - 36:19
Stratis [1] - 4:7
STRATIS [3] - 1:13, 1:14,
4:6
STREET [1] - 1:10
stress [1] - 18:4
stressors [4] - 18:5,
45:23, 50:12, 50:14
striking [1] - 58:13
strong [1] - 31:2
struggle [1] - 19:17
studies [4] - 28:17,
28:21, 28:23, 29:5
study [4] - 13:16, 57:19,
57:20, 57:23
stuff [1] - 58:24
subject [1] - 31:8
subjected [1] - 62:24
submissions [1] - 63:25
submit [4] - 6:19, 60:16,
60:18, 63:5
submitted [2] - 59:8,
60:7
subsequent [1] - 36:16
substantive [2] - 11:6,
11:11
suffered [2] - 8:23, 9:3
suffering [1] - 35:1
suggests [1] - 61:13
summary [4] - 7:12,
7:15, 8:1, 58:21
supplemental [1] - 7:2
supplemented [1] -
31:24
support [2] - 18:22,
28:12
supposed [1] - 21:13
Supreme [2] - 5:24, 31:9
surgical [1] - 13:15
surreply [2] - 33:2, 33:4
SUSAN [1] - 1:18
Susan [1] - 4:16
switch [1] - 55:18
T
talks [4] - 15:8, 35:19,
52:23, 54:15
tapes [1] - 43:3
TARA [1] - 1:3
Task [5] - 28:11, 28:13,
49:21, 51:4, 51:12
tat [1] - 58:15
technique [1] - 16:10
techniques [5] - 14:18,
14:22, 14:24, 25:3,
77
25:21
term [1] - 49:3
terms [3] - 18:19, 47:4,
48:21
test [1] - 8:22
testimony [1] - 58:23
THE [99] - 1:1, 1:11,
1:17, 2:10, 2:12, 4:2,
4:3, 4:14, 4:24, 6:9,
6:16, 7:3, 7:10, 7:14,
7:19, 8:3, 8:16, 9:6,
9:18, 10:10, 11:1, 11:5,
11:23, 12:24, 13:5,
13:25, 14:14, 14:21,
15:4, 16:1, 16:3, 17:17,
18:10, 18:25, 19:3,
19:19, 20:14, 21:2,
22:11, 22:15, 23:7,
23:22, 24:24, 25:8,
25:15, 25:18, 26:3, 26:7,
27:4, 27:20, 28:15, 29:6,
30:2, 30:25, 33:4, 33:7,
33:11, 34:1, 34:15,
35:12, 35:24, 36:19,
38:22, 39:11, 39:16,
39:25, 40:17, 41:1,
41:10, 41:19, 43:13,
44:10, 46:10, 47:6,
47:11, 47:24, 49:2,
49:16, 50:5, 52:11,
53:21, 54:14, 55:18,
56:3, 56:16, 57:9, 57:22,
59:20, 59:25, 60:11,
60:23, 61:2, 62:10, 63:1,
63:11, 63:15, 63:17,
63:20, 64:3
themselves [5] - 8:12,
9:12, 26:8, 26:14
theories [1] - 36:2
theory [1] - 15:21
therapies [2] - 20:14,
40:8
therapist [6] - 24:10,
37:9, 37:22, 38:25, 39:3,
41:2
therapists [4] - 14:25,
35:17, 40:23, 41:4
Therapists [1] - 22:18
therapy [25] - 12:7,
13:15, 13:20, 16:12,
16:15, 16:17, 18:1,
18:17, 20:19, 21:7,
23:12, 24:1, 24:4, 29:12,
37:1, 37:10, 37:12,
37:16, 39:8, 42:15,
47:14, 48:12, 57:14,
58:4
thereafter [1] - 64:1
therefore [6] - 6:6, 8:24,
28:17, 53:17, 53:18,
62:8
they've [8] - 15:17, 16:4,
18:5, 18:12, 23:19,
25:25, 45:25
Third [6] - 5:22, 11:18,
31:1, 55:20, 61:10,
61:18
third [8] - 8:18, 8:25, 9:9,
9:10, 9:13, 22:13, 62:17
third-party [6] - 8:18,
8:25, 9:9, 9:10, 22:13,
62:17
three [2] - 8:22, 34:10
three-part [1] - 8:22
throw [1] - 24:7
Thursday [1] - 33:6
tied [1] - 8:25
tit [1] - 58:15
TITLE [1] - 2:10
TO [2] - 2:10, 2:11
today [8] - 11:16, 14:19,
45:1, 46:25, 54:21,
58:17, 59:3, 59:14
tough [1] - 31:17
towards [2] - 13:12, 20:9
traceability [1] - 62:3
traceable [1] - 62:5
traditional [1] - 17:2
transcript [1] - 65:9
TRANSCRIPT [2] - 1:4,
2:11
TRANSCRIPTION [1] -
2:12
transfusions [1] - 56:15
transition [2] - 10:18,
52:5
travel [1] - 58:6
treat [1] - 35:2
treating [1] - 40:9
treatment [16] - 14:12,
24:17, 24:18, 24:20,
34:25, 39:7, 39:17, 42:8,
42:9, 47:15, 55:23, 56:5,
56:7, 56:9, 56:18, 56:19
treatments [1] - 40:8
TRENTON [1] - 1:10
tried [1] - 46:6
tries [1] - 55:7
triggered [2] - 38:6,
39:23
Troxel [1] - 57:2
true [4] - 38:16, 55:10,
57:16, 65:9
try [2] - 18:21, 51:5
trying [4] - 19:8, 46:8,
55:15, 58:16
turn [4] - 14:14, 23:7,
48:6, 59:16
two [8] - 6:11, 9:6, 10:25,
21:8, 21:19, 31:15, 32:7,
48:22
type [3] - 26:6, 26:9,
31:20
U
U.S [2] - 2:18, 5:18
U.S.COURT [1] - 1:25
ultimate [3] - 18:6, 18:21,
46:12
ultimately [13] - 18:3,
18:23, 19:25, 20:6,
28:23, 29:20, 32:8,
36:17, 44:6, 45:18,
46:17, 55:12
unconstitutional [1] -
43:22
under [23] - 16:4, 23:14,
24:3, 24:11, 24:21, 25:6,
25:7, 30:17, 31:2, 38:16,
39:6, 41:2, 42:1, 43:10,
44:2, 51:17, 53:11,
53:13, 55:3, 55:8, 55:10,
61:14
under-inclusive [2] -
55:3, 55:8
underlying [4] - 19:23,
19:24, 20:5, 46:5
understandable [1] -
42:6
understood [2] - 6:16,
60:22
undisputed [1] - 49:10
uniquely [1] - 19:13
UNITED [2] - 1:1, 1:9
United [1] - 65:6
unless [2] - 17:9, 26:6
unlicensed [19] - 21:9,
21:10, 21:19, 21:23,
21:25, 22:5, 22:9, 23:2,
23:5, 23:13, 23:20,
23:24, 23:25, 24:9,
35:18, 37:23, 45:13,
52:7, 55:5
unnecessary [1] - 28:1
unrebutted [1] - 13:19
unsupported [1] - 31:10
unwanted [8] - 16:24,
17:11, 25:25, 42:19,
49:14, 50:2, 50:14
up [8] - 31:12, 38:6,
39:23, 41:7, 41:16,
41:23, 42:19, 45:11
uphill [1] - 31:13
USC [1] - 2:10
USDJ [1] - 1:11
uses [6] - 10:12, 10:13,
10:14, 10:24, 11:4,
20:23
utilizing [2] - 35:17,
37:22
V
vagueness [3] - 47:20,
47:21, 48:21
Vagueness [2] - 3:10,
66:9
validity [1] - 31:2
value [1] - 19:14
values [1] - 26:23
variety [1] - 41:17
vast [1] - 51:21
verbatim [1] - 13:23
versa [1] - 40:16
versus [3] - 21:6, 27:2,
40:14
vice [1] - 40:16
videos [1] - 43:4
view [3] - 39:4, 44:2,
51:15
viewpoint [3] - 37:21,
38:21, 39:11
viewpoint-based [1] -
38:21
viewpoints [1] - 39:9
views [2] - 48:15, 51:14
Vincent [2] - 65:6, 65:22
VINCENT [2] - 1:24, 2:18
vindicated [1] - 6:1
violates [1] - 39:9
violation [1] - 23:6
violence [2] - 53:22,
78
56:10
virtue [1] - 12:8
W
Walrath [1] - 4:19
WALRATH [1] - 1:19
wants [4] - 18:3, 21:15,
27:3, 46:3
warranting [1] - 6:3
watch [1] - 43:4
website [1] - 42:21
week [2] - 63:16, 63:18
welfare [2] - 36:4, 36:9
well-established [1] -
6:12
whereas [1] - 27:16
whole [5] - 19:22, 27:5,
27:9, 42:9, 47:12
wide [1] - 41:17
wife [1] - 26:18
wishes [1] - 59:12
Witnesses [1] - 56:14
WOLFSON [1] - 1:11
word [8] - 10:12, 10:24,
11:4, 11:12, 13:5, 13:9,
13:10, 13:21
words [1] - 51:15
worker [1] - 13:2
world [1] - 51:15
worth [1] - 19:14
written [2] - 6:21, 16:16
Y
Yarborough [1] - 57:17
youths [1] - 62:22
YouTube [1] - 43:4

13-4429 #41

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

13-4429 #41

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

CASE NO.

También podría gustarte