Franks Follows Gay Agenda Again

There’s a bill on the gay agenda this year that just passed.

House Bill 217 forbids “gay conversion therapy” by mental health professions.  It was defined as attempts to change a young person’s sexual orientation from gay to straight by State Senator Daniel Bliss, a Democrat from Evanston.

Jack Franks

Jack Franks

Of local legislators, all three Republican State Senators,

  • Pam Althoff
  • Dan Duffy
  • Karen McConnaughay

voted against the restriction on medical practices.

In the House, the GOP State Representatives opposing the legislation were

  • Steve Andersson
  • David McSweeney
  • Mike Tryon
  • Barb Wheeler

Democrat Jack Franks went along with most of his Democratic Party colleagues, just as he did when he voted to legalize gay marriage and civil unions.

House vote on House Bill 217.

House vote on House Bill 217.

Senate vote on House Bill 217.

Senate vote on House Bill 217.


Franks Follows Gay Agenda Again — 44 Comments

  1. Gay conversion is not supported by a SINGLE medical study.

    Cal, to call it a medical practice is a joke.

    Don’t get me wrong, I understand that many of you believe that America will be the recipient of Gods wrath for supporting homosexuality.

    You know who else says that?

    The Westboro Baptist Church. Sure it’s a straw man, but it’s true.

    Opposition to same sex marriage is a dead issue.

    Go to church.

    Love your family and love your neighbors.

    Who cares who they love?

    It’s ironic that conservative who are against regulations are FOR limiting the freedom for people to love who they want.

    What is the gay agenda?


    Why are you against love?

  2. Exactly Wow

    these are civil rights.

    I am a long time republican and I support socially moderate candidates.

    This is another distraction.

    I would like to see nothing pass until they have figured out how to balance the budget, get IL on the right track.

  3. I was under the impression it had more to do with it not being substantiated by the medical community and above and beyond that they actually said it causes psychological trauma, which sort of makes sense.

    Republican Governor Chris Christie signed a conversion ban by the way.

  4. Why do we need a law to stop something that is described as being impossible?

    “Gay conversion is not supported by a SINGLE medical study.”

    Answer: More government interference in our daily lives.

    Those of you who support Jack Franks support government control of our daily lives.

    Jack may not vote for most tax increases but he has no problem insinuating government in your daily lives.

    The lack of posts in support of the Republican votes indicates the real FEAR there is in our society!

  5. I’m so glad to see the responses here that I do.

    I hope the fight against the “gay agenda” is a dead issue and stops even coming my up someday.

  6. Questioning, this is not a partisan issue.

    It’s an issue of what solid medical science has proven to cause undo harm.

    The lack of posts may have just prove that there was a blackhawks game on yesterday and people were busy.

  7. The bill stops crackpots from trying this so-called conversion therapy on minors.

    The law prohibits many sorts of harms to minors, which adults are free to bring upon themselves.

  8. Gay agenda?

    Careful Cal, you never now when a “gay” mob may break into your house and redesign it without warning.


  9. The republicans missed the boat on this one!

    This bill is because of a young transgender Leela Alcorn that committed suicide because of these wacko christian so called therapist.

    check out this link

    Suicide deaths of the young transgenders is over 15 this year.

    This has to stop!

    they need help from certified medical therapist.

    I am glad this bill passed just sad to see the votes against it.

    The republicans need to open there eyes and the umbrella.

    The GLBT group is getting bigger and like the seniors they get out and vote.

    Not all the religious right things are bad.

    But this party needs to look at these bills some are just hate and fear.

    The knuckle head governor from Indiana found out the hard way a few months ago, after millions of dollars threatened to leave the state over an anti gay law!

  10. There are many futile medical treatments.

    Should government ban those as well?

    Should we ban Alzheimer’s pills?

    So-called nootropics surely are useless.

    Should we ban knee arthroscopy in the setting of arthritis?

    Should we ban cardiac stents that are done for stable angina?

    Should we ban mammograms? There is compelling statistics that says they do more harm than good.

    Why do our legislators feel compelled to stick their noses into everything?

    How about the psychotherapist. Suppose that the psychotherapist believes in what he or she is doing. Does freedom of speech not apply to him or her?

  11. Nameless you crack me up.

    Ann Coulter said on How To Talk To A Liberal If You Must that liberals constantly try change the focus of an argument to better suit their position instead of addressing the argument.

    Are you liberal? Lol

  12. I hate to say it, but it does not matter if I am a liberal or conservative.

    Is what I say correct?

    And why do you imply that I changed “the focus”?

    The focus was still the same, the banning of a “therapy” by legislators.

    I gave examples of other “therapies” that perhaps should be banned based on the logic of those who advanced the bill in question (“futility” and “harm” caused by such “therapy”).

    I assume that there are not many people who would want to interfere in this manner in the “doctor patient” relationship. So why interfere when it comes to “gay conversion therapy”?

    As to my political inclinations, I am what you would call a “balanced budget” conservative.

    I care not about gayness, abortion, etc., but I would like to see the bills paid.

    I guess I am just like Rauner, except not as rich.

  13. Nameless,

    While I’m sure you would love to have a conversation about anything but what Cal’s post is talking about, I challenge you to find a single reputable study that supports gay conversion therapy.

    Additionally, I challenge you to look through the DSM IV and kindly find what axis of disorder you believe gayness falls on That it would othereise warrant therapy.

    The job of the government is to protect the people from unsound medical science and conversion therapy falls under that umbrella.

    In other news, I have some gay conversation oil that if you put it in your family member or friend’s food once a day, they will stop being gay.

    Care to buy any?

    It’s not regulated by the government, so should be right up your alley. 😉

  14. Wow. Love your kind of conservatism. It is the job of government to do that, not.

  15. Nameless, maybe we have differing ideologies – maybe your gripe lies with regulation, maybe you are a libertarian, maybe you truly believe like you say that you don’t care about same sex marriage or what gays do.

    Maybe that’s true.

    It still doesn’t change the simple fact that this therapy is scientificly invalid and states allowing such practices to continue is immoral and unethical.

    Your libertarianism is the opposite side of communism on the same coin.

    I’ll stick to the middle.

    It’s a lot more cooperative and realistic here 😉

  16. name less, re-read some of the comments.

    It’s not just about it being ineffective, it’s something that actually causes harm.

    One of the most basic functions of the government is to protect people from harm.

  17. The point I am making is simple: the legislature has no business deciding whether this or that treatment is valid or not.

    My question is “do you really want your legislature to decide which treatments are valid?”

    If your answer is “yes,” you have to reconcile that with the principle of “limited government” and with the generally problematic behavior of this state’s legislators.

  18. Joe, plenty of common treatments cause actual “harm” – so the possibility of causing harm should not be used to ban just one particular treatment.

    So are you prepared to have the legislature ban, say breast implants in teenage girls?

    Is this the type of decision that we want the legislature to make for us, free citizens, of this state?

  19. Nameless, yes, I want a government that has the power to regulate – especially when a therapist is charging clients money for a treatment that scientifically does not work.

    Have you found those studies yet?

    Did you find gayness in the DSM-IV?

  20. Anyone that has to depend on the cabal and their DSM is already lost.

    You will accept any lie that is fomented upon you.

    (Nice try at derailing the conversation, though.)

    If you actually had any love for your neighbor you would actually try to help them.

  21. Studies?

    I am tempted to answer with the simple truth that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Or figures lie and liars figure.

    Or DSM has more fiction and is less fun to read than the Bible.

    But I will go back to my prior point instead: the state’s legislature is not the place to decide such questions.

    Try the Ad Council instead.

  22. A few things.

    The “absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”.

    Actually, if we’re going to talk about evidence based medicine and if there is no proof of said treatment being effective, then most people would deduce that treatment is ineffective and thus not the appropriate intervention.

    Second, it’s kind of sad we assume people need intervention for being gay in the first place.

    People need to stop denying that being gay, for most people, is not their choice any more than your choice for being heterosexual, white, or tall.

    Comparing this to a teen boob job is a lot different.

    People do cosmetic surgeries to make themselves feel better.

    Is there evidence that these surgeries cause damage like there is in regard to gay conversion therapy?

    I’m not talking about a botched surgery.

    There is potential for harm in any medical treatment.

    I was not talking about potential harm, I was talking about actual psychological damage that children suffer from due to these conversion therapies.

    Another important concept to remember is consent.

    Are you suggesting that teens are being forced against their will to have boob jobs?

    I have never heard of that before and my guess is most doctors wouldn’t perform an operation like that.

    There is a big difference between a kid wanting to get such a surgery and their parents okaying it and being forced into conversion therapy.

    Based on your rhetoric, I’d say you sound like you may be a strict conservative or libertarian.

    Assuming I’m correct, how does sending your kid to a conversion camp fit into the concept of consent which is an extremely important component of those political philosophies?

    But moving beyond the issue of consent, as I’ve already considered some of the responses you might have for that, let’s go back to what I said about harm.

    If you were to say, “well they’re a child so they don’t have full rights yet and adults have to intervene to do what’s best for the child because he/she doesn’t know better”, I would say that makes the argument for banning conversion therapy even stronger.

    If you are going to have a legal structure where you disregard consent, then why the heck would you be for forcing that child, against their will, to do something that is actually harmful?

    I’m not sure you have thought this thing out very well, and again the concept of protecting people from harm is one of the most critical and basic functions of the government.

    This is why most conservatives and libertarians who believe in a very limited government are fine with laws criminalizing theft, battery, etc.

    You do not have a right to harm someone, and this is a sentiment shared by many influential thinkers in conservative and libertarian circles including Locke, Burke, and Mill.

    Here’s a question that may make you rethink this.

    Would you support the right of a parent to treat their kids’ illnesses through bloodletting?

  23. Everything is a choice, Joe.

    Beyond all the faulty arguments based on pure emotions, the government has no business in any of this.

  24. Cindy, if that’s true, please file a court case.

    See how far you get.

  25. You are truly a fool if you believe anything can be settled in the kabuki court system we now how.

  26. We are going in circles here, so this will be my last posting on the topic.

    1 First bloodletting: bloodletting has not been banned by the legislature, but by advancement of our understanding of human pathology. Bloodletting was discredited by Pasteur and others and for good reasons. My wild guess here is that if bloodletting had become the subject of the Illinois legislature, we would still be fighting a culture war about it.

    Another point related to bloodletting: there is one disorder where bloodletting is standard and perfect treatment to this day. Google “haemochromatosis”

    2. I am not arguing for or against having, or not having, a choice in being gay. I do not know enough about it to say. I do not wish to force treatment on nonconsenting adults.

    What I am saying is that it is not the job of the legislature to determine effectiveness or not of “gay conversion” or any other treatment. To use the example you kindly gave, I do not want the Illinois legislature to outlaw bloodletting.

    3. It is a child’ parents who have the kid’s best interest in mind. If the parents do not have the kid’s best interest in mind, that kid is doomed anyway. I know this will provoke outcries from the do-gooders, but such is reality. And so, if there is scope for improving parenting skills, it can perhaps from education, not from legislation.

  27. Gusss we will agree to disagree nameless – though I have a sneaking suspicion you are actually Kelly Liebmann.

    Cindy, you are just flat wrong – love Ya babe – but you are patently incorrect from a constitutional perspective.

    Your God may agree with you and you can continue to believe that unmolested.

  28. Jack will do anything for votes, even come out as a transgender.

    Kaitlyn Franks?

  29. Just curious, Wow.

    What am I flat out wrong about?

    I said nothing but truth.

    Is truth wrong?

  30. Oh, never mind.

    I see now; – you’re a “millennial”.

    That explains your condescending attitude toward your elders.

  31. What’s the constitutional basis you are grounding your opinion that the government – state or federal – does not have the ability to regulate conversion ‘therapy’

    I will answer your question when I’m off of work and at a computer, but until then, would you kindly, in 5 sentences or more, explain how you think you are right in assuming your opinion?

  32. Because you missed my salient points…

    You do realize that the constitution no longer exists, right?

    That all of government and all of the courts are kabuki theater?

  33. You sure do like to jump to a myriad of different conclusions.

    I never said any of the things you intimated.

    But, don’t feel too bad.

    Not many understand me.

  34. . We’ve spent enough time on this blog.

    Do you have availability for a call this afternoon?

    I’d be truly interested in the basis for your opinion.

    I’m not asking for all day, merely 30 minutes max.

    What say you?

  35. I’d say, “You’re not adroit at reading between the lines much.”

  36. Well, can’t say I didn’t try to understand you from a humanistic level 😉 catch you on the flip side.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *