Editor’s note: Inside Analysis features conversations with the Focus on the Family Action team of issue experts. These analysts update Dr. James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus Action, on political developments threatening the family.

In the next few months, the American Psychological Association (APA) might be moving against therapy for homosexuality, even when it’s an unwanted same-sex attraction. What’s happening there, and how concerned are you?

We are very concerned about the APA’s latest action on this issue. The group recently appointed a task force to update and revise the organization’s policy on therapy involving sexual orientation. Qualified conservatives applied for membership but they were all rejected — which isn’t surprising because members had to be approved by the APA’s Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns.

The greatest fear is that the task force will recommend and the APA will adopt a policy declaring any therapy that does not affirm homosexuality — regardless of client desires — as unethical. That impact could go far beyond APA members, eventually affecting states’ codes of ethics for any licensed psychologist. Thus, non-compliant practitioners would risk state sanction, smear campaigns in professional and mainstream media and perhaps even revocation of their right to practice. 

But the biggest loss would be for clients who experience unwanted same-sex attraction and desire therapy in order to live consistent with a biblical sexual ethic. This approach threatens to penalize clients who — based on deeply held religious beliefs — do not wish to affirm same-sex attractions.
If therapists and counselors can only offer these clients responses affirming homosexuality or face sanctions, the client is penalized. The APA should not dictate how people should behave; instead, it should respect religious freedom and diversity. 

The direction of this task force is such a concern that more than 260 denominations, churches, organizations and individual practitioners recently signed an open letter to the APA urging it to expand the task force assignment to include respect for religious identity — either that, or to create a new and separate group to provide guidelines for psychologists who work with these clients. 

 The signers of this letter represent more than 20 million people — all urging the APA to be more tolerant and open minded of other views.  These include the Southern Baptist Convention, Assemblies of God, Church of the Nazarene, Focus on the Family and Exodus International. The question is, will the APA listen? We hope so, but it looks like they’ve got a lot of biases in their ranks to overcome first.

In fact, hasn’t the head of the APA’s group overseeing the panel admitted that it won’t consider ideas outside its “worldview”?

Yes, and he was very blunt about it. The director of the APA’s Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns office, Clinton Anderson, told The Associated Press, “We cannot take into account what are fundamentally negative religious perceptions of homosexuality — they don’t fit into our worldview.”

That’s dangerously closed-minded, especially when many clients who face this issue want to honor religious traditions that view homosexual behavior as negative. But I think it reveals some of the opposition we face in encouraging the APA to be more tolerant.

Bias in the mental-health professions isn’t just limited to homosexuality, is it? What about abortion?

It’s interesting that you would ask about abortion because there’s a similar situation going on with the APA on that issue. 

The APA has another task force under way, this one studying the mental-health factors associated with abortion and research recently published on this topic. Just like the task force on same-sex attraction, this one failed to include professionals who believe abortion can harm women. 

While that’s disappointing, it’s not surprising considering that in 1969 the APA adopted a resolution stating that abortion is a “civil right” of expectant mothers. However, since that time, research linking abortion to mental health problems has been published.

The question is whether this task force will give it an honest look, or if the APA will continue to close its eyes to female clients who want to examine how abortion damaged their lives.
 
Let’s talk about a broader trend. In his confirmation hearings, James Holsinger — President Bush’s nominee for surgeon general — was assailed for once suggesting that male homosexual sex is unhealthy. Under fire, he distanced himself from that position. Do you see a climate building where any criticism of homosexuality is unacceptable, regardless of what research shows?

The Holsinger example is certainly one for concern, because it’s so high-profile and blatant.

The debate stems from a 1991 paper Dr. Holsinger wrote for a church panel in which he stated that some sexual practices among homosexual men have resulted in “a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma.”  That’s a statement backed up by decades of medical research. Yet, his political critics — chief among them homosexual activists — demanded he deny the science or face losing his nomination for surgeon general. 

It’s a sad day when medical professionals are given such an ultimatum: Either lie to the public and say that men having sex with men is healthy or else. That type of discrimination puts politics above science.

And the saddest part is: When it comes to unwanted same-sex attraction, we know that people can change. It’s not an easy road and the causes of same-sex attraction are complex. Yet, change is possible and groups like the APA do not appear to want that message to be part of the debate on issues dealing with homosexuality — whether that’s redefining marriage or adoption. In fact, the APA lists the influence of this factor in shaping public opinion about homosexuality as one of its concerns for the task force to consider.

Ironically, the Bush administration is accused of “politicizing science” when it comes to issues like destructive embryonic stem-cell research or funding abstinence-based sex education. Yet, when social conservatives argue in the policy arena using medically accurate data, we’re discounted. I think we need to get the word out that some people really are trying to deny scientific evidence — and some of the worst examples of that are coming from the politically correct side.