We are the Liberal Blog From Hollywood
L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

L.A.'s Premier Post Facility

Photographer in L.A.

Hot Pics & Gossip.

Archive for June 8th, 2011

Spirit Airlines Mocks Weiner

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on June 8th, 2011 4:47 am by HL

Spirit Airlines Mocks Weiner
Spirit Airlines has unveiled a new deal mocking Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). “The Weiner sale with fares too HARD to resist,” touts the airline, offering flights for $9 each way on its website. “We can confirm with certitude that the photo is in fact our weiner,” said airline spokesperson Misty Pinon. “The ad is ours, and we sent it.”



Not-for-Profit Hospitals unfairly receiving Tax Exemptions

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on June 8th, 2011 4:46 am by HL

Not-for-Profit Hospitals unfairly receiving Tax Exemptions
In this era of tight public funds afflicting virtually every state in the nation, there is one revenue source that has been all but neglected in the public debate: the subsidy of “not for profit” private hospitals by exemption from sales and property taxes being the typical form. This has been reexamined by the remarkable Illinois supreme court decision in the Provena Covenant case: the Court ruled that the Provena hospital group failed to meet the charitable health care provision required to enjoy the property ands sales tax freedom they had enjoyed.

In this era of tight public funds afflicting virtually every state in the nation, there is one revenue source that has been all but neglected in the public debate: the subsidy of “not for profit” private hospitals by exemption from sales and property taxes being the typical form.

This has been reexamined by the remarkable Illinois supreme court decision in the Provena Covenant case: the Court ruled that the Provena hospital group failed to meet the charitable health care provision required to enjoy the property ands sales tax freedom they had enjoyed.

Illinois law requires non profit hospitals to provide charity care (free or reduced care) which eases the financial toll on government- and nothing less- to qualify for property tax exemption. When non profit hospitals fail to provide charity, some poor, uninsured, and underinsured patients find themselves in public hospitals funded by public dollars and stretched beyond capacity. This failure to meet legal requirements results in the loss of tens of billions of tax dollars across the nation at a time of great national need.

Other patients afraid to incur debt they can’t repay, delay their medical treatment, adding to its eventual cost and jeopardizing their health outcomes if not their lives.

In the current recession, budgets at every level of government are strained and people are in peril. The Illinois Supreme Court has decided that non profit hospitals must deploy the public funds they are given to support the public health safety net both the poor and the taxpaying public deserve.

Beyond Banality
Our nation’s usual military policy of overkill, once again seems to reach the point of tragic farce.

pic via 10b travelling at flickr.com

The whole point of the Libya military incursion, helping the rebels, long ago ceased to be particularly relevant it would seem.

That was the point, wasn’t it? I cannot remember whether I’m suppose to actually remember.

Yes, Gaddafi is a terrible person, murderous asshole and a flamboyant dresser. His added bellicosity just makes the farce greater than ever [second only to the tragedy].

But one does start to wonder if we’re also batting two out of three?

Nato warplanes repeatedly pounded targets in and around [Gaddafi’s] Bab al-Aziziya compound in Tripoli. Reporters counted at least 27 air strikes by Tuesday afternoon.

Some of the bombs hit a military barracks near the compound, officials said. Others hit the compound itself, Libyan television reported.

The New York Times said what appeared to be bunker-busting bombs had destroyed six or seven buildings, including a reception house and VIP guesthouse where South African President Jacob Zuma was received last week.

Officials told the newspaper that 10 to 15 people had died in the attack, but the figure could not be verified.

But we don’t target specific individuals…as long as it involves bunker busters.

Because then it’s totally moral.


The Grim Grocer

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on June 8th, 2011 4:45 am by HL

The Grim Grocer

By Taylor Jones, Cagle Cartoons, El Nuevo Dia, Puerto Rico

Mr. Fish's Cartoon

Related Entries



Jared Bernstein: What Went Wrong With the Economy and What to Do About It

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on June 8th, 2011 4:44 am by HL

Jared Bernstein: What Went Wrong With the Economy and What to Do About It
I’m not ready to go gentle into that good night without a fight for the American economy. So instead of depression, I recommend common sense, fueled by a little bit of genuine anger about how screwed up our economic policy debate has become.

One GOP Presidential Candidate’s Star Is On The Rise
Once again, Herman Cain was in Iowa Monday, brimming with confidence as he pitched his presidential candidacy to voters. â??This is where the vetting process…

Robert Scheer: The Bernanke Scandal: Full-Frontal Cluelessness
How I wish that Ben Bernanke would get caught emailing photos of his underwear-clad groin. Otherwise we don’t stand a chance of reversing this administration’s…


NY Times Slurs American-Born Children Of Foreign Nationals As “Anchor Babies”

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on June 8th, 2011 4:43 am by HL

NY Times Slurs American-Born Children Of Foreign Nationals As “Anchor Babies”

In an article on New York businesses that cater to new immigrant women from China who have recently given birth, The New York Times used the term “anchor babies” in referring to women who “come to the United States to give birth so that the children would be American citizens.” The term “anchor babies” has been identified, among other things, as “derogatory,” “racist,” “ugly,” and “derisive”; moreover, data show “anchor babies” to be a myth.

NY Times Publishes Article With “Derogatory, Even Racist” Term “Anchor Babies”

NY Times: “So-Called Anchor Babies” Are Children Of Women Who “Come To The United States To Give Birth So That The Children Would Be American Citizens.” In a June 3 article on centers catering to new immigrant women from China who have recently given birth, The New York Times reported that the “centers largely fly below the radar of English-language authorities,” but that in March, California officials “shut down what they said was a home for women who had come to the United States to give birth so that the children would be American citizens — so-called anchor babies.” The article also quoted Jessica Vaughan, director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, (CIS) discussing “so-called maternity tourism”:

To Western ears, confinement sounds like something out of a Victorian novel, but in some traditional Asian cultures, women still spend the month after a baby’s birth in pampered seclusion. Typically, a woman’s relatives would care for her, but more recently, the practice has been outsourced to postpartum doulas and confinement centers, like the one Ms. [Katy] Lu operates. In the United States, they cater to middle-class immigrant women separated from their families. Business is steady enough in New York City to support at least four postpartum centers, tucked away in the heavily Asian-immigrant neighborhoods of Flushing and Bayside, Queens.

The centers largely fly below the radar of English-language authorities — they advertise online or in Chinese-language publications. They make up such a niche market that city and state authorities did not know they even existed. Jeffrey Hammond, a spokesman for the state Health Department, said that as long as the centers were not offering medical services, they would not require a license. A spokeswoman for the city Health Department said that it had no information on the centers.

But they made a brief appearance in the news when, in March, officials in San Gabriel, Calif., shut down what they said was a home for women who had come to the United States to give birth so that the children would be American citizens — so-called anchor babies.

It’s unclear whether New York’s confinement centers cater to that market. Generally they practice a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding their clients’ origins.

[…]

There are no hard numbers on how many women might be using the New York centers for so-called maternity tourism. And nationwide, “we really have no way of knowing,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that seeks tougher immigration laws. Government agencies and immigration advocacy groups said they did not track such numbers. [The New York Times, 6/3/11]

NY Times Previously Quoted CIS’ Krikorian To Spread Fears About “Maternity Tourists” And Their Allegedly Dangerous Offspring. From a March 28 New York Times article on a center in California catering to new immigrants from China:

The State Department, which grants tourist visas, is not permitted to deny visa applications simply because a woman is pregnant.

“These people aren’t doing anything in violation of our laws,” said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates tougher immigration controls. “But if anything, it is worse than illegal immigrants delivering a baby here. Those kids are socialized as Americans. This phenomenon of coming to the U.S. and then leaving with people who have unlimited access to come back is just ridiculous.” [The New York Times, 3/28/11]

“Anchor Baby” Term Has Been Blasted As “Racist,” “Ugly,” “Derogatory,” “Pejorative”

Civil Rights Lawyer: Term “Plays To Coarse Racial And Gender Stereotypes.” In a piece responding to remarks by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for the Spring edition of The Public Eye Magazine, Sherrilyn Ifill, a civil rights lawyer and law professor at the University of Maryland, wrote that the term “anchor babies” is part of “[r]eactionary rhetoric,” a “catchy phrase that insult[s] immigrant families.” She further wrote:

The crude use of the term “anchor baby” to describe a child born to an undocumented Mexican mother in the United States is part of a long tradition of the successful deployment of imagery that plays to coarse racial and gender stereotypes.

[…]

It both demonizes Mexican mothers, who allegedly use their newborns as tickets to welfare and other citizenship benefits, and dehumanizes their children as just so much immigration baggage. The thin logic behind this notion is illustrated by Lindsey Graham’s claim that the process of coming to the U.S. to have “anchor babies” is called “drop and leave.” Either Mexican women are crossing the border to have their babies in the U.S. to obtain welfare benefits, or they are having babies and leaving for Mexico. Both cannot be true.

[…]

Of course, no empirical data has ever been presented to support the existence of “anchor babies.” Instead the same anecdotes are circulated as right-wing talking points: hotels that offer “birth holidays” in the U.S.; pregnant Mexicans who time their dilation precisely and show up at hospitals across the border. In fact, the Mexican-national parent of a U.S. born infant could not even apply for citizenship until the child was  21 years old. [vii] Thereafter, the average wait time for the successful processing of a citizenship application is ten years. This means that a Mexican-national mother would have to wait at least 31 years for her baby to provide her with the reward of citizenship — an unlikely motivation for her to give birth in the U.S.

Mexicans come to the United States for the same reason that millions of immigrants have traveled to the U.S. over the past 200 years: economic survival. The impending birth of a child can make the need for employment and a chance at a better life even more urgent than usual. Irish, Scottish, Italians, Norwegians, Russians, and others were assisted by U.S. immigration policies that until the 1960s discriminated in favor of European immigrants. This “affirmative action” ensured that millions of White children born in the U.S. to newly arrived families would never be labeled “anchor babies.” [The Public Eye Magazine, Spring 2011]

Fox News’ Juan Williams: Term Is “Derisive, Ugly.” On Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, contributor Juan Williams called the term “anchor baby” “derisive” and “ugly”:

WILLIAMS: When you hear Republicans Lindsay Graham, John Boehner, John McCain saying that we’ve got to look at the 14th Amendment, and it may be what — you know, I think it’s a rather derisive, ugly term, but “anchor baby” — that people are coming to this country, illegal immigrants, having babies so that they become American citizens. [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 8/12/10, via Media Matters]

Hispanic Republican Group: Term “Is Equivalent To Other Defamatory Terms Such As ‘Wetback,’ ‘Pickaninny’ And ‘Tar Baby.’ “ In a press release demanding that Fox News apologize for using the “anchor baby” term in reference to the child of Spanish actors Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem, Somos Republicans — which bills itself as “the fast growing and largest Hispanic Republican group in the nation” — stated:

Fox News Latino is being insensitive and their actions are reprehensible. The term “anchor baby” is equivalent to other defamatory terms such as “wetback”, “pickaninny” and “tar baby”. Media outlets should never use these demeaning terms in connection with precious babies, and it is unfortunate that we have to inform FOX News of this when they are typically viewed as conservative.

Penelope Cruz is admired world-wide, and comparing her unborn child to an inanimate object is demeaning. The Latino community is deeply offended by the increasingly popular usage of these defamatory terms. Our outrage sparked a letter to the National Right to Life praying for their support to not endorse any candidate in the nation that uses these offensive terms. In fact, our group launched a national campaign that will make a concerted effort to curtail the use of this offensive language. [Somos Republicans, 12/10/10]

Rocky Mountain News: Term “considered by many to be derogatory, even racist.” In an August 2006 article, the Rocky Mountain News reported:

She was 16 years old and scared, but Maria Guadalupe Valdez made the two-day trek through the desert to come to the U.S.

Twelve years later, the 28-year- old illegal immigrant is caught up in the debate over illegal immigration, and that frightens her, too.

She and her husband live in a tidy two-bedroom mobile home in Greeley with their four U.S.-born children, ages 9, 7, 6 and 1.

Their youngsters — three boys and a girl — motivate the couple to work long hours to build a better life for their family.

But these American children also are a symbol of controversy. Opponents of illegal immigration call them “anchor babies” — a term considered by many to be derogatory, even racist, because it implies that Hispanics are having children as a way to stay in the U.S.

The thinking is that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants help “anchor” the parents in the country and keep them from being deported. The refrain is that “anchor babies” help their parents tap into a gamut of free or low-cost social services, burdening taxpayers with millions of dollars in medical care and services.

The reality is that having a child does little to help an illegal immigrant avoid deportation, achieve legal status or gain government services for themselves, experts say. [Rocky Mountain News, 8/29/06]

San Diego Union-Tribune, Reno Gazette-Journal: Term is “pejorative.” An April 2006 San Diego Union-Tribune article stated that an anti-immigration activist “dismissed teens marching in Los Angeles as ‘probably part of the anchor baby-boom of the late 1980s and 1990s,’ using a pejorative term for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants.” [San Diego Union-Tribune, 4/2/06]

  • Likewise, an October 2008 Reno Gazette-Journal article reported that “[s]ome opponents of illegal immigration call such children ‘anchor babies,’ a pejorative term that implies the child will serve as an ‘anchor’ for his or her illegal immigrant parents, preventing the parents’ deportations and acting as a pathway to citizenship for the whole family.” [Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/19/08, accessed via Nexis]

Journalist: Term is “loaded language.” In an August 2006 blog post titled, “Sinking ‘anchor babies,’ ” Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn wrote that he received complaints for his prior use of the term “anchor babies.” Zorn responded:

I defended myself — the term has appeared regularly in news stories since 1997, usually softened by quotations as in my column, and refers to the practice/hopes of illegal immigrants that if their children are born in the U.S. they will serve as an anchor that will help allow their parents to say here. And Doug Rivlin, spokesman for the National Immigration Forum, a leading immigrants’-rights group, said he does not consider the term particularly offensive.

However, Rivlin said, it’s a “politically charged term” originated and favored by those who are opposed to liberalized immigration laws.  And a quick check through various sources confirms this.

“They use it to spark resentment against immigrants,” Rivlin said of his ideological foes. “They use it to make these children sound non-human.”

To me, that’s good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future.

Sound arguments don’t need loaded language. [Chicago Tribune, 8/18/06]

Data Show Claim That Pregnant Women Are Systematically Coming To The U.S. To Deliver “Anchor Babies” Is A Myth

Pew Hispanic Center: 91 Percent Of Undocumented Immigrants Who Gave Birth In 2009-2010 Came To U.S. Before 2007. In an study examining the unauthorized immigrant population, the Pew Hispanic Center examined “year-of-arrival patterns for unauthorized immigrant parents of babies born from March 2009 to March 2010, to see how long the parents had been in the United States before their children were born. If year of arrival was available for both parents, the analysis used the most recently arrived parent.” The study found that “9% of these unauthorized immigrants who had babies in 2009-2010 had arrived in the U.S. in 2008 or later. An additional 30% arrived from 2004 to 2007, and the remaining 61% arrived in the United States before 2004.” [Pew Hispanic Center, 2/1/11]

Pew Analyst: Of Babies Born To Undocumented Immigrants In 2008, “85 Percent Of The Parents Had Been In The Country For More Than A Year.” In an article headlined, ” ‘Birth Tourism’ A Tiny Portion Of Immigrant Babies,” the Associated Press reported: “While a recent Pew Hispanic Center study shows 8 percent of the 4.3 million babies born in the U.S. in 2008 had at least one illegal parent, a closer examination shows that most children of illegal immigrants are born to parents like Garcia who have made the United States their home for years.” The article continued:

Out of 340,000 babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States in 2008, 85 percent of the parents had been in the country for more than a year, and more than half for at least five years, Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer for Pew, told The Associated Press.

And immigration experts say it’s extraordinarily rare for immigrants to come to the U.S. just so they can have babies and get citizenship. In most cases, they come for economic reasons and better hospitals, and end up staying and raising families.

Garcia’s husband has been deported and she earns a living selling tamales to other immigrants who live in fear of being deported from the slapdash, impoverished colonias that dot the Texas-Mexico border.

“I think that children aren’t at fault for having been born here,” Garcia said. “My children always have lived here. They’ve never gone to another country.”

Under current immigration law, Garcia and others like her don’t get U.S. citizenship even though their children are Americans. [Associated Press, 9/3/10]

PolitiFact: “Having A Baby To Secure Citizenship For Its Parents Is An Extremely Long-Term, And Uncertain, Process.” In an article examining Sen. Graham’s claim that “People come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child. It’s called ‘drop and leave,” PolitiFact wrote:

It’s important to note that having an “anchor baby” won’t do much to help a Mexican mom become a U.S. citizen. Because citizen children cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until they turn 21 — and because if the parents were ever illegal, they would have to return home for 10 years before applying to come in — having a baby to secure citizenship for its parents is an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process.

However, having a citizen child can produce some short-term benefits, said Marc Rosenblum, a senior policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute. Pregnant women and nursing mothers could be eligible for certain benefits under the Women-Infants-Children (WIC) program, which provides food and nutrition vouchers, and their children could enroll in Medicaid, although the undocumented parents could not. Having a child can also help an undocumented parent qualify for relief from deportation, but only 4,000 unauthorized immigrants can receive such status per year, and the alien has to have been in the U.S. for at least 10 years. That means very long odds, Rosenblum said.

Most of the benefits of citizenship accrue over the much longer term. The child will be able to work here legally once he or she is old enough, said Roberto Suro, a communications and journalism professor at the University of Southern California who specializes in Hispanic issues, and when they’re ready for college, they’ll qualify for in-state tuition at most public colleges. “It is a hell of a lot of deferred gratification at best,” he said. [PolitiFact, 8/6/10]

PolitiFact: Data Show “Undocumented Men Significantly Outnumber Undocumented Women” Of Child-Bearing Age. PolitiFact further reported:

There’s something else you don’t see, [Roberto] Suro [communications and journalism professor at the University of Southern California who specializes in Hispanic issues] said. If having a baby was a significant driving factor in illegal immigration, you would expect to see a higher percentage of women of child-bearing age in the U.S. illegally compared to men of the same age. In fact, just the opposite is the case. Numbers from the Pew Hispanic Center show that in four separate age ranges between 20 and 40, undocumented men significantly outnumber undocumented women. [PolitiFact, 8/6/10]

CIS Has Issued Dubious Study On “Birth Tourism” Hinting At “National Security Problem” Of Birthright Citizenship

CIS Report Speculates That Children Born To Women Admitted To U.S. As Visitors Could Grow Up To Be Terrorists. Though CIS stated in the June Times article that there is “no way of knowing” how many women are using the New York centers for “so-called maternity tourism,” a March CIS study dubiously estimated that “nearly 200,000 children are born here annually to foreign women admitted as visitors.” The report also made the discredited claim that there is “a national security dimension to the issue,” because such children could grow up to become terrorists. [Center for Immigration Studies, March 2011, Media Matters, 3/22/11]


Evan Bayh Joining Chamber Of Commerce Anti-Regulation ‘Road Show’

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on June 8th, 2011 4:42 am by HL

Evan Bayh Joining Chamber Of Commerce Anti-Regulation ‘Road Show’
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has hired former Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) to participate in a regulatory reform “road show” of speeches, events and media appearances, according to a memo obtained by iWatch News.


Indiana And Planned Parenthood Take Defunding Battle To Federal Court
A District Court judge in Indiana is now considering whether to grant a preliminary injunction against a new law that strips Indiana Planned Parenthood of all of its federal funding.


Anthony Weiner: What Was He Thinking?

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on June 8th, 2011 4:39 am by HL

Anthony Weiner: What Was He Thinking?


Romney Opens Lead for GOP Nomination

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on June 8th, 2011 4:38 am by HL

Romney Opens Lead for GOP Nomination
A new Quinnipiac poll finds Mitt Romney leads in the race for the Republican nomination with 25%, followed by Sarah Palin at 15%, Herman Cain at 9%, Newt Gingrich and Rep. Ron Paul at 8%, Rep. Michele Bachmann at 6% and Tim Pawlenty at 5%.

Said pollster Peter Brown: “Whether it’s because of the media coverage of his recent formal announcement, or the fact that Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee have dropped out, Gov. Romney has surged ahead of the Republican field. Until now Quinnipiac University’s polls have shown many candidates bunched together in the mid-teens, now he has opened up some daylight on the field and is within six points of the president.”

However, in trial heats against President Obama, Romney still trails by six points, 47% to 41%, while every other candidate trails by double-digits.

Weiner Struggles for Political Survival
Although he pledged to stay and fight, Rep. Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) political survival was in question “as the leaders of his own party continued to distance themselves from the disgraced New York lawmaker and as Republicans persisted in calling for his resignation,” the Washington Post reports.

“Weiner became more and more isolated as the fallout settled from his admission a day earlier that he had engaged in sexually explicit exchanges with women he met online. While the means by which he committed his transgressions represent a new frontier for Washington scandal, the questions and challenges ahead of him are as old as controversy itself. Scandals move quickly in the Internet era. Weathering them takes a combination of personal resolve, crisis-management skills and the right political circumstances.”

Howard Kurtz notes “a slow-motion ethics probe could be his lifeline — unless the humiliation proves too great.”


Presented By:

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on June 8th, 2011 4:37 am by HL

Presented By:

Sderot: Nostalgia For The Future
You would think Prime Minister’s Netanyahu’s insistence that Israel could never go back to the “indefensible” borders of 1967 would play at least as well in bombarded Sderot as it did in the Congress. He certainly thought it would, or…


AIPAC’s Unrivalled Power
Not surprisingly, my recent column on an ugly 1988 experience with AIPAC, the Israeli government, and late New York Times columnist William Safire elicited some controversy. I knew it would. There aren’t that many first-person accounts of encounters with the…


Part 1 Of ?The Sissy Boy Experiment?: The Consequences Of Ex-Gay Therapy

Posted in Main Blog (All Posts) on June 8th, 2011 4:36 am by HL

Part 1 Of ?The Sissy Boy Experiment?: The Consequences Of Ex-Gay Therapy
Tonight, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 aired the first part of a three-part series called, “The Sissy Boy Experiment,” examining the effects of government-funded gender-normalizing therapy on a five-year old boy named Kirk Murphy in 1970. The therapy was carried out by disgraced Family Research Council co-founder George Rekers, whose three decade career in the conservative […]

Tonight, CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 aired the first part of a three-part series called, “The Sissy Boy Experiment,” examining the effects of government-funded gender-normalizing therapy on a five-year old boy named Kirk Murphy in 1970. The therapy was carried out by disgraced Family Research Council co-founder George Rekers, whose three decade career in the conservative social movement came to an end last year, after reporters from the Miami New Times caught him traveling with a gay escort.

After ten months of treatment, Rekers pronounced that Kirk’s feminine behavior was “gone” and he used the case to launch his career. Kirk, meanwhile, struggled for the remainder of his life. His “outgoing personality changed and he began to behave in the way he knew his parent and George Rekers wanted him to,” his brother Mark recalls. “He had no idea how to relate to people. It was like somebody came up to him and turned his light-switch off.” Kirk eventually came out as gay in 1985 and after one unsuccessful attempt at 17, committed suicide at the age of 38.

“I used to spend so much time thinking why would he kill himself at the age of 38? It doesn’t make any sense to me. What I now think is, how did he make it that long,” his sister Maris asks.

Box Turtle Bulletin’s Jim Burroway has published a full series of posts investigating Kirk’s story and the harmful effects of ex-gay therapy. Read his blog here and watch the first part of CNN’s series below:

Rekers’ research and the purported success of Kirk’s therapy are still being touted by ex-gay organizations as evidence that homosexuality is a mutable characteristic, despite that obvious tragic consequences of such therapies. Both the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association — among other groups — have ruled that efforts to change sexual orientation have no scientific credibility and can cause psychological harm to patients. As Cooper will likely explore in his series, the ex-gay movement is guided less by research and more by a political and social agenda that opposes gay equality.