2somehow less harmful when administered by
counselors. The sources
they rely upon for the proposition that SOCE is “harmful”
say no such thing,
there are no scientifically rigorous studies of recent SOCE that would enable usto make a definitive statement about whether recent SOCE is safe or harmful and for whom
(APA Task Force report Exh. C, p. 83) (emphasis added). Since there is
empirical evidence of harm that may be caused by SOCE, and there
substantial evidence of immediate harm that
befall Plaintiffs if SOCE issuddenly halted in less than two weeks, maintaining the status quo by issuing aninjunction pending appeal is necessary to prevent irreparable injury.
AN INJUNCTION WILL PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO.
Defendants and Interve
nors argue that the “status quo” is not the state of
thelaw as it presently exists, but the fact that SB 1172 will become law on January 1,2013.
(Intervenors’ Brief, p. 1;
’ Brief, p.
8). However, it is theimplementation of SB 1172 on January 1, not an injunction suspending itsimplementation,
that will be a “shocking disturbance” to the s
tatus quo, includingto the well-being of the minors undergoing counseling. (Exh. F, p. 3). If noinjunction is issued, in less than two weeks approximately 60 percent of the 135clients that Plaintiff Joseph Nicolosi counsels every week will have the status quoof their ongoing, voluntary, beneficial, therapeutic relationship abruptly halted.
Case: 12-17681 12/18/2012 ID: 8444179 DktEntry: 9 Page: 3 of 13