All of Wisconsin now awaits the decision from U.S. Western District Court Judge William Conley on whether Joy Buchman of Kinsman Redeemer Counseling will win the lawsuit against the city of La Crosse where she alleges that its ordinance banning conversion therapy is unconstitutional and prevents counselors and doctors from helping minor clients change their unwanted same sex attractions or resolve their gender dysphoria issues by working toward aligning their identity with their biological sex. Buchman also awaits a decision on if an injunction will be granted to her that would prevent the city from enforcing its ordinance until the case is complete.

After almost a hundred minutes of testimony from Buchman and cross examination of her by not only Judge Conley but by the defense counsel for the city of La Crosse and counsel for the plaintiff, Judge Conley refrained from making a decision and took the matter under advisement. This means Judge Conley has no imposed deadline in which a decision on the case is made.

The evidentiary hearing took place via Zoom on June 1, 2023 and once again attempted to zero in on whether Buchman's counseling methods will violate the city of La Crosse's ordinance that banned conversion therapy and what exactly constitutes a violation. At issue was the specific wording in the ordinance that prohibits any counselor from "seeking to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity including efforts... to eliminate or reduce a child's sexual or romantic attractions or feelings towards individuals of the same gender."

During testimony, Buchman explained that when dealing with children who came to her for help with those issues, because of her religious beliefs, she will only counsel a child towards helping them to align their feelings with their biological sex. Buchman said if a child was interested in changing or aligning their feelings in that way, the two would agree to a plan and begin the process. At first, Judge Conley said this meant that Buchman would not be in violation of the ordinance because the child was directing his or her own counseling path. However, the counsel for the city of La Crosse rejected that premise saying that Buchman's type of counseling would still be illegal because according to the wording in the ordinance, an attempt to "change" the child's feelings is being made. Therefore, it does not matter if the parent, child and counselor all agree to try to change the child's same sex attractions to a heterosexual attraction, because the wording in the ordinance outlaws counseling for that kind of a change.

The counsel for the defense during the hearing explained that they believe counseling with the intent to change a child's gender identity or to change their same sex attractions is not allowed because the child is too young to understand or know if they are being harmed during the course of the counseling. There was, however, no discussion or concerns expressed by the judge or the city's defense about applying this same standard of concern for the opposite type of counseling. In other words, is a child also too young to know if they are being harmed when they receive counseling to believe that they can be a gender that is opposite their biological sex, or that same sex attraction might be harmful to them?

So, while it is legal in La Crosse for a child and counselor to explore or encourage same sex attractions and a gender identity that is opposite the child's biological sex, it is illegal for that same parent, child and counselor to work together toward realigning or changing the child's gender identity to align with their biological sex or attempting to diminish or reduce unwanted same sex attractions or feelings.

It is this clear favoring of only one way to counsel a child, despite both child and parent seeking this type of help through counseling, that Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty points out is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. WILL's lawsuit alleges that the city of La Crosse is practicing viewpoint discrimination because it seeks to dictate acceptable versus unacceptable forms of counseling. This is also a violation of the 14th amendment, which protects the rights of the parents to raise their children according to their beliefs, because the ordinance prevents a parent and child from receiving the type of counseling they desire.

The Save Your Rights Coalition points out that the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law which violates what the First Amendment is written to protect. This restriction is imposed on all governmental entities which includes La Crosse. According to the lawsuit from WILL, this ordinance does violate the First Amendment.

The judge, near the end of the hearing, voiced doubt that the city of La Crosse would actually try to enforce this ordinance. According to the ordinance, any allegations would require a referral to the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS), which regulates therapy services and professional counseling in Wisconsin. It would conduct an investigation and "other actions it deems appropriate". Conley based his doubt on recent failed attempts by the Wisconsin Marriage and Family Therapy Board to receive approval for a so-called ban on conversion therapy by the state "Rules Committee" otherwise known as the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR), a committee of the legislature, which can veto rules. Conley doubted that the city, through the DSPS, could enforce a ban on conversion therapy when the JCRAR vetoed it in January of 2023. Representatives from the Wisconsin assembly sit on the JCRAR and voted 6-4 in January 2023 to NOT ban conversion therapy. The six who voted against the ban are Republicans, while the four who voted for a ban on conversion therapy are Democrats.

Counsel for WILL, Luke Berg, disagreed with Judge Conley pointing out that even though the Rules Committee voted down a ban on conversion therapy, the Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board demonstrated its view that so-called conversion therapy should be prohibited and they could still pursue an enforcement action based on that view. The Save Your Rights Coalition, who listened to the live Zoom hearing, also points out that besides legislative outcome being irrelevant to deciding the legality of this ordinance, the fact that the city of La Crosse is fighting back in court, clearly demonstrates their intention to enforce the ordinance.

The judge did not address the other enforcement option the city has which is to issue a citation and impose a fine ranging from between $50 and $1,000.

In the judge's final few minutes with Ms. Buchman, Conley pointed out that if she moves her practice outside the city limits of La Crosse, she will not be harmed by the ordinance. To this, Berg pointed out that having to physically move a business to escape the reach of the ordinance IS evidence of harm. And as Berg pointed out during the previous hearing, when there is a violation of one's First Amendment rights, harm is presumed to occur.

Save Your Rights Coalition will continue to update on this situation. If anyone has any concerning situations in their community to report or governmental infractions to share, please feel free to give us this information via our email at saveyourrightscoalition@gmail.com. You can also review our history and stay informed by visiting our website at saveyourrightscoalition.org. We are also on Facebook at Save Your Rights Coalition.

The Save Your Rights Coalition also encourages everyone to donate to Joy Buchman to assist her in her financial and health struggles during this time. Please visit her at https://www.givesendgo.com/G9U64.

The Save Your Rights Coalition is visiting churches to give informational presentations on helping people to understand the ban on conversion therapy, the ordinance, and the lawsuit. Please contact us if you would like to learn more or for us to visit your church. These presentations have been well received.