NJ's S1188/A2874 and the Anatomy of the Totalitarian Tip Toe
On February 22, New Jersey’s Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee, chaired by Senator Joe Vitale, voted to advance S1188, a bill that lowers the age at which minors can consent to behavioral health care treatment from 16 to 14, through committee.
Perhaps that doesn’t seem like a big deal to some people, particularly as it is presented as a solution that will provide 14 and 15 year olds access to behavioral health and counseling services that may ultimately prevent them from committing suicide.
And that’s precisely the strategy at work in our legislative process.
Tyranny has been creeping into New Jersey and other states, bill by bill, one small precedent at a time. You can think of it like sneaking in a bomb - benign part by benign part - so the threat goes through undetected.
The Totalitarian Tiptoe operates in sneaky little steps (two steps forward, one step back), stripping away your rights and creating loopholes around our Constitution. While the names of these bills tend to speak to noble causes, the titles often misrepresent the potential real world impact. Most of the damage done is in the fine print that nobody reads.
(For example, NJ’s Freedom to Read Act gives school “library media specialists” immunity from criminal and civil liability arising from “good faith actions” that may involve curating sexually explicit content for kids while also granting them “civil cause of action for emotional distress, defamation, libel, slander, damage to reputation, or any other relevant tort, against any person who harasses the school library media specialist…”)
As a weapon of the totalitarian tiptoe, legislation is a means of cultural and behavioral shifting as it shapes our views around justifiable and criminal behavior. Legislators regularly propose bills that piggyback agendas onto the legitimate concerns of citizens and it’s critical that we, as citizens, learn to distinguish a bill’s stated purpose from it’s underlying goal.
S1188: A Case Study
The proposed bill is an amended version of a current law that allows minors 16 years and older to consent to behavioral health care and other treatments and medical interventions.
According to Senator Joe Vitale’s comments during the Senate Health Committee meeting (22:00), most of our legislature was willing to forgo parental consent and allow ALL children to consent to behavioral health care:
This current law that we’re seeking to change was adopted in 2016 by way of a conditional veto by Gov Christie. But the original bill that established the law today… had no floor at all… The original bill was every minor, regardless of age and also contemplated prescriptions for those services if they were required.
… It passed the Senate 32-0 and it passed the Assembly 59-10. And every legislator who is currently serving today in the legislature voted in favor of that legislation 9 years ago.
(Two steps forward…)
…Governor Christi conditionally vetoed the bill and established a floor at 16, not just any minor, and removed any reference to prescriptions. So that’s what we have today.
(One step back)
A story about the original bill was featured in Teen Vogue in 2016 as a model of how empowered youth can work with legislators to create meaningful change.
Called the Boys & Girls Clubs Keystone Law, it was proposed in 2014 by legislators Carmelo Garcia and Raj Mukherji in response to the demand posed by 15 members of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Hudson County (BGCHC). The coalition was led by then-17-year-old Jordan Thomas, whose request to see a counselor about domestic abuse was rejected because he didn’t have his mother’s permission.
As the president of the BGCHC's Keystone Griffins Club, Jordan told NJ.com that, "If there are other kids who are like me, I don't think that they should have to be subjected to whatever it is that's going on in their household without being able to speak to someone about it and express themselves and release whatever it is that's going on because without a release, you start doing other things that could ultimately ruin your life.” In 2013, Jordan voluntarily left home and entered the foster care system with the help of his network of peers and mentors at the BGCHC. There, he met kids with experiences similar to his…
…The new law specifically targets teens contemplating suicide, because many kids are afraid to tell their parents that they’re depressed or having suicidal thoughts. LGBT teens who may not have come out to their families and kids growing up in households where mental health issues aren’t culturally accepted can now seek treatment they were previously barred from. *emphasis mine
Reading this, it’s hard to imagine why anyone would oppose any legislation that might help kids get the help they need. Most readers are therefore primed to support whatever measure is proposed.
However, it’s the job of our legislators to determine whether reducing or eliminating the age of consent is the most effective way to meet the needs of our vulnerable youth. It’s also their job to ensure that their proposed solution meets the need without unnecessarily infringing on the rights of parents or subjecting young people to additional or alternative harm.
First Do No Harm
There’s a reason so many people showed up to make public comments to oppose the bill. Many New Jerseyans have been paying attention and see how S1188 fits into a bigger picture: one in which parents are increasingly framed as a threat to the wellbeing of their own children.
It’s telling that the same legislature that was willing to pass a bill that would allow minors of any age (until then Governor Christie intervened) to receive mental health treatment without parental consent refused to support S2100, which “declares the rights of a parent to be fundamental and not subject to infringement by the State absent compelling need.” This bill died in committee repeatedly.
For those who have been paying attention, it’s hard not to notice how often legislators try to justify the removal of inalienable rights. Senator Joe Vitale and Assemblyman Herb Conaway, both chairs of their respective health committees, are skilled at removing obstacles to pharmaceutical companies and special interest groups and regularly sponsor and support legislation that imposes on informed consent, religious freedom, parental rights, bodily autonomy and/or medical choice.
This is likely why parents and other advocates felt the need to air their concerns about yet another bill that potentially serves as a loophole around parental consent.
Public Testimony and the Fallacy of Opposing Sides
A sad thing has happened as activism and “social justice” have replaced meaningful conversations that foster understanding and resonance. The sad thing is the loss of meaningful conversation, understanding and resonance. And I feel it deeply each time I witness or provide public testimony at a BOH, BOE or legislative committee meeting.
There’s a courtroom vibe. Instead of working together to address what is often ultimately a shared concern, members of the public are relegated to one side or another and invited (sometimes) to state their case. Everyone seems to understand that someone’s going to win and someone’s going to lose. Someone must be right and someone must be wrong, so each testimony is heard like an argument (if it’s heard at all… because sometimes “listening” to an opponent is an act of box-checking).
Preoccupied with getting legislation/policies/ordinances passed, legislators and board members miss important opportunities to listen and learn in order to better meet the needs of citizens. “Yes” or “No” positions override any curiosity about how best to solve a problem and division is fueled. Concerns and criticisms are dismissed instead of being considered and perhaps integrated to create better laws.
Unsurprisingly, the results are often contentious. And the media add fuel to the fire.
In the case of S1188, support for the bill was clearly and repeatedly framed as the “caring” position. (The phrase “if we can save even one life with this bill” came up more than once.) So it was easy for supporters of the bill to interpret opposition as uncaring or insensitive to the plight of struggling children. However, no one, regardless of whether they favored or opposed the bill, was suggesting that children with mental health needs should have to go without support.
You can listen to the entire hearing here (S1188 discussion begins at about 21:00)
S1188 Supporters
Four people came on behalf of three organizations to testify in favor of the bill.
Mary Abrams, NJ Association of Mental Health Agencies, spoke of a “teen mental health crisis” and an “ongoing suicide crisis” driving a need for access to mental health services. She then offered a brief description of available services and noted:
The family situations can vary greatly, and many children…they may not have much daily interaction with their parents or other family members. And often what’s going on in the home, whether with parents or other members, is part of the problem that youth are seeking help for.
Jordan Thomas and Trinity Campbell represented the Boys and Girls Club of Hudson County’s Keystone Club. Thomas helped create the current version of the mental health counseling law and revisited his story of needing and seeking help. “As a teenager, I could have easily been another statistic of teen suicide.”
He then introduced Campbell, who shared her struggle to get support.
Lauren Albrecht from Garden State Equality made her primary point simply:
What I want you to know is that when more of the total population has access to more mental health resources, 6-12% of the kids that are LGBTQ will have a greater chance of survival. That’s all we want. We want LGBTQ kids to live. That’s it. It’s that easy.
(Oh, how I wish it was that easy)
These testimonies spoke to the stated purpose of S1188 and highlighted the plight of a some young people who may struggle to get access to the support they need.
But Albrecht’s testimony also alluded to deeper underlying issues that many believe warrant further exploration and a much more comprehensive discussion.
I want you to know that no amount of telling LGBTQ kids that they’re confused will change the fact that 6-12% of the whole total and overall population is LGBTQ and will be even if you tell them they’re confused. We know who we are. It's not confusion. And to say otherwise is really a gross mishandling of other people’s identities and other people’s truths… *emphasis mine
..I’m also concerned the the fact that these politically and religiously motivated speakers are so unnaturally fixated on our trans and non-binary youth, which represent less than 2% of the population.
Albrecht’s testimony was, in part, a response to testimony opposing S1188, particularly the testimony of Reverend Gregory Quinlan (covered below), who addressed concerns about gender-affirming care among “gender sexual orientation confused children.”
Senator Angela McNight similarly objected to the assertion that children might be confused:
I just want to put on the record that I’m very disheartened to hear you say that a subgroup of children are confused… We’re here talking about children. And we all struggle with different things that happen in our life, from grief to just trying to figure out who we are as a person. So please if you can not put the word confused next to children, I would appreciate that.
To be clear, I am not advocating telling anyone that they are confused. But Albrecht and Senator McNight both reacted strongly to the suggestion that youth who identify as LGBTQ might be confused. The notion of “gender confusion” seems extremely contentious. We should be curious about why and how this might play out in the application of laws like S1188.
Albrecht cited a conservative estimate of “at least 75,000 people between the ages of 13-17 that identify as LGBTQ” in New Jersey and noted that 41% of LGBTQ youth have considered suicide in the past year and 40% of homeless youth identify as LGBTQ. This indicates that a growing LGBTQ population is struggling disproportionately. It feels important that we better understand these struggles BEFORE we take the measure of removing parental consent to provide mental health care that may be part of an ideological pipeline that funnels children into a medical pipeline.
Here are a few questions that came up for me:
Why should we expect children to be any less confused than the rest of the population as we experience what feels like a seismic cultural shift?
Does Garden State Equality recommend that children be validated for their gender identity assertions at any age as a matter of course?
Will mental health counselors be prohibited from considering the possibility that a child might be confused with regard to gender identity?
What aspects of gender-affirming care are bleeding into mental health protocols?
What are the consequences of refusing to consider that children might legitimately be confused about gender identy during a time of often dramatic and uncomfortable change?
Is it in service to young people to simply validate their gender identities without considering the possibility that they may be struggling to assimilate what they’re learning and experiencing in school, which is vastly different than what generations before them have learned and experienced in school?
Are there other ways of compassionately addressing potential gender dysphoria along with other mental and emotional issues?
With regards to why “speakers are so unnaturally fixated on our trans and non-binary youth, which represent less than 2% of the population,” I suspect that some of the fixation is linked to how much of the cultural climate has shifted to accommodate the worldview of this 2%. The rapidly changing rules around acceptable speech and behavior have arguably led to misunderstandings between parents and children that rival Babel. And there’s no evidence that these changes have produced a positive impact on mental health.
Which leads us to opposing testimony…
S1188 Opposition
A report from NJ.com framed it this way:
But the 2-1/2-hour hearing was dominated by bitter opposition from parents and religious and community leaders, who unloaded their frustrations on state lawmakers with accusations of alienating children from their families. They remain resentful since the forced school closures and mask mandates during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, the approval of controversial sexual education standards four year ago and school board policies that require districts to accept a student’s asserted gender identity without the consent of a parent.
Here is a sampling of opposition testimony…
Former Senator Ed Durr, testifying as a parent, provided a comprehensive list of things minors are NOT permitted to do without parental consent and added…
It doesn’t get any simpler than this: the parents/guardians should always be involved in all decisions made about their children and their welfare…
This has been an ongoing attempt to separate the parent from the child. These bills have decided that we, the parents, are the enemy, that we are bad for the children – the complete opposite of what is true in most families.
Rev. Gregory Quinlan, representing the Center for Garden State Families, suggested that S1188 is “another instrument to advance the special interests of LGBTQ++” and noted, “if there’s evidence of an unsafe home we already have the things to take care of that in our state by law.”
Alienating parents with this kind of policy from their children is not the answer. The answer is just the opposite. Parents not only have the right to know, government schools have a moral obligation to let them know. The vast majority of parents love their children and want what is best for them.
As most of you already know… the area of the brain that includes risk aversion and reasoning is not fully formed until a person is in their mid-20s. A minor child in any school, whether it be government or private, does not have the capacity, mentally or emotionally, to make these dangerous, life-altering, irreversible decisions. Minor children cannot consent. That was the long-standing legal standard until a decade ago…. We’re one of the 5 states that allow children to consent.
The comments made by some legislators insist that parents are guilty until proven innocent. This is a judgement on all parents without having any evidence that the home the child lives in is unsafe.
Sean Highland, representing the NJ Family Policy Center, emphasized the importance role of parental involvement in positive mental health outcomes.
“Well documented evidence that for teenagers facing mental health struggles, to have a successful outcome of treatment, more parental involvement is necessary, not less. The Society for the Prevention of Teen Suicide, located in Freehold, NJ clearly states that suicide is more preventable when parents are involved in their child’s life.”
Jeryl Maglio of the Dolores Turco Foundation reminded legislators that separating children from their parents makes them more vulnerable to predators, noting that half of all sex trafficked victims are children with an average age of entry of 12 years old. She also addressed her concerns about Policy 5756, which establishes the BOE’s expectations for addressing the needs of transgender students, and the role it plays in the background of S1188:
I’m pointing out about the transgender industry only because these policies are currently enacted in most of the schools in NJ. And the protocol for the transgender is to transition the children beginning with pronouns, followed by drugs, experimental drugs that can cause sterilization, and then proceed to surgeries, when 85% of gender-confused children will accept their biological sex by the time they reach adulthood.
Maglio makes a valid point here. Laws and policies in New Jersey are now heavily weighted towards gender-affirming care, making it increasingly difficult to address gender dysphoria, dysmorphia, or other mental/emotional conditions in any other way.
New Jersey’s Policy 5756 asserts, “For grades 6 through 8, the school district shall accept a student’s asserted gender identity; parental consent is not required.”
New Jersey’s Executive Order 326 “establishes New Jersey as a safe haven for gender-affirming health care.”
Under EO 326, all State departments and agencies are directed to protect all people, including health care professionals and patients, against potential repercussions resulting from providing, receiving, assisting in providing or receiving, seeking, or traveling to New Jersey to obtain gender-affirming health care services.
Maglio also asked legislators to consider the possible consequences of another bill she warned about 10 years ago:
Ten years ago I testified before this very committee against the Death with Dignity Act, because legalizing assisted suicide, once it becomes accepted as dignified death, vulnerable young people, especially those who are seriously depressed and emotionally troubled, would see this as a dignified solution to their feelings of hopelessness. And today we see that suicide is one of the leading causes of death in NJ.
(Who could have seen that coming?)
A number of other parents and advocates made similar thoughtful appeals, pointing to the trend towards removing parents and placing minors in decision-making roles that they may not be adequately prepared to take on.
During my testimony I challenged the notion of legislation that was willing to assume the worst of parents while putting their vulnerable children in the care of therapists and social workers with the blanket assumption that they are safe with them.
We can’t assume the worst of one group of people and not be concerned that we might put kids in the hands of another group of people that might be equally neglectful, predatory, criminal. I just think it’s something to think about.
“Like a social worker?” Senator Vitale snarked.
Yes. Like a social worker.
An Iowa social worker has been charged with perjury for delivering false testimony that helped convince a judge to remove four children from their parents, investigators said Tuesday.
Former Department of Human Services employee Chelsie Gray is charged with knowingly giving false information during a December 2017 hearing in which she recommended a judge terminate the parental rights of a mother and father
…Despite the ruling, Gray continued to work for DHS…
..despite school staffers being actively involved in Sage’s desire to become a boy and knowing about the repeated bullying she suffered, they “deliberately concealed” the gender change and didn’t get her parents involved until it was too late and Sage ran away. She then ended up being raped by multiple men for months in four different states, the suit claims.
I’m not suggesting that all social workers are dangerous any more than I would assume that all parents are. But I’ll pick parents over strangers any day.
Like I said, First Do No Harm.
Now is the time to do some serious thinking about where all of this legislation is leading us. It’s not too late to change course.
Feel free to check out these related articles:
On the contrary, children are confused. That's why lgbtqm+ attacks them in adolescence, while they are confused about there identity on a whole and there are not socially aware. The preadolescent children are simply unaware. This subject comes down to one thing. The parents said, NO! Who has the power to raise the children?