Ex-Gay Watch has asserted at various times that Exodus’ flagship live-in program, Love In Action, altered its web site, put new limits on its youth program, and redefined itself from a therapeutic effort into a “ministry” in 2005 after Tennessee state regulators became concerned that unlicensed LIA staff were controlling participant/patient access to prescribed medications.
Specifically, XGW has said: “In 2005, according to Soulforce, Love in Action was investigated by the state of Tennessee for operating a mental health facility without a license. LIA then changed its operating procedures to avoid state regulation.”
LIA disputes Ex-Gay Watch’s assertion. We stand by our opinion, but in the interest of fairness, we wish to share with readers LIA’s official statement to us regarding events that transpired in 2005:
This is inaccurate. On the contrary, when Tennessee commenced its investigation we sued the state for discrimination against our ministry and won. Love in Action was fully exonerated of any wrongdoing and Tennessee was held responsible for all legal costs incurred, using $66,000 of Tennessee taxpayers’ money.
Ex-Gay Watch disagrees with the assertion that LIA was exonerated. In our view, the dispute with Tennessee was settled with assignment of legal costs and mutual agreement that LIA was now a “ministry” exempt from mental-health licensure requirements.
It remains our recollection (supported, we believe, by an analysis of archived copies of LIA’s web site) that LIA altered its web site in 2005 to remove some references to therapy and mental health, and to add new emphasis to spiritual and ministerial aspects of LIA’s counseling programs.
Love In Action has generously provided documentation from the state dispute that can be interpreted both ways:
Love In Action complaint against Tennessee regulators (PDF file)
Dismissal and settlement of Love In Action dispute (PDF file)
In fact, we see no direct conflict between LIA’s claim to have won the better end of the settlement, and XGW’s assertion that LIA changed its public outreach and certain potentially therapeutic aspects of its group-counseling programs in order to bypass regulatory authority and accomplish a settlement.
We leave it to readers to judge for themselves — and to former LIA participants from different years to tell us whether, in a given time period, they were treated as ministry participants or as patients.
Perfect, we need only do a rapid cut-and-paste for this! For the XGW record…
Let’s start at the beginning… (say, July 2005. “TDH” refers to TN Dept of Health)
They were not alone. From a notorious apologist for exgays organisations:
(from conservation at about that time, we understand Throckmorton had reviewed the claims/language etc contained in the LIA website, reviewed “what” was being done with “who” at LIA. Cannot remember if he contacted Smid directly.)
We then look to the details of what was bothering the TDH:
We know full well that LIA did indeed make some dramatic alterations to it’s website at this time, and to the way they operated. But don’t’ trust us — read the words from LIA’s own legal statement:
You’ll observe LIA’s claim about current services and “long-term participants”. This is also important as regards licensing requirements. Current LIA programs extend only for 3 months maximum, but this is a dramatic change from the way they previously operated their live-in services. Past newsletters glowingly mention participants spending much longer times in residence — heck, Peterson Toscano spent 2 years there if you need proof of that!
Under the agreement, LIA also undertook that:
And contrary to LIA’s statement that “we sued the state for discrimination against our ministry and won. Love in Action was fully exonerated of any wrongdoing” …
No finding was made against TDH for “religious discrimination” or such like; a finding that LIA had sought. What TDH agreed was that the current operation of LIA does not fall under it’s control. (well, durh, that’s why LIA altered so much about themself in previous months!)
As regards the settlement, what did LIA actually seek?:
What did they in fact get?: “attorneys fees and expenses”. That’s all, and a fairly routine way to close a case (and avoid ongoing, possibly merely vexatious, litigation expenses). LIA did not receive an award for “damages”, let alone for their “costs and expenses”.
It begs the question:
LIA previously operated outside the legislation, both from their own statements above and from the statements of previous participants. So… if LIA had not scurried around and completely altered both what they were providing and their claims about what they were providing, what would the outcome had been?
My guess, licensure or closure; but it’s crystal clear that they did alter their operations and their claims and thereby avoided either.
I only wish this investigation had been launched many years earlier and forced LIA to clean up their act at that time.
I have no words, only tears and lots of them.
I’m making note of Grantdale’s sources here.
For quotes 1 and 2: Southern Voice and Washington Blade, July 1, 2005
For quote 3: Page 15 of the complaint
Oh crumbs, I didn’t even check if the links were in before posting. That was silly of me.
Thanks Mike!
(I cut and paste from a webpage we started some time ago. I removed all the [#] ref links from the page, but forgot to href them all back again.)