Indiana’s Lieutenant Governor Micah Beckwith is facing scrutiny after requesting an additional $3 million in funding for faith-based initiatives within his office. The proposal has raised questions about how these funds would specifically address mental health issues, especially as Beckwith’s comments about mental health treatment and faith-based approaches appear to blur the lines between therapy and controversial practices like conversion therapy.
Faith-Based Initiatives and Mental Health
During a recent state Senate hearing, Beckwith requested that the state double the funding for faith-based initiatives. He suggested that these initiatives could tackle various social issues, including mental health, homelessness, and crime, by connecting local communities with nonprofits and faith-based organizations that, according to him, are better equipped to address these challenges.
However, when asked how these faith-based initiatives would specifically address mental health concerns, Beckwith avoided providing clear details. Instead, he made an ambiguous comment stating that all therapy could be viewed as “conversion therapy,” a term typically associated with controversial practices aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
“I kind of look at all therapy as conversion therapy,” Beckwith said, suggesting that, in his view, all forms of therapy attempt to bring about some form of change in individuals, such as helping alcoholics become sober through Alcoholics Anonymous. This viewpoint has sparked concerns, as it echoes a mindset that could undermine mental health care that affirms diverse identities, particularly for LGBTQ+ individuals.
Conversion Therapy and Mental Health Risks
Beckwith’s statements regarding conversion therapy are particularly troubling to mental health professionals. Conversion therapy, which attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, has been widely discredited by health organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association (APA), due to its harmful effects. Studies have shown that conversion therapy is linked to increased suicide rates, depression, and self-harm, especially among LGBTQ+ individuals.
Despite these concerns, Beckwith downplayed the practice, saying, “I don’t know why conversion therapy would be targeted at one group of people over another, because I just look at therapy, in general, as conversion in a good way.” His response appears to dismiss the risks associated with conversion therapy, which has been banned in 23 states and Washington, D.C.
Faith-Based Initiatives and LGBTQ+ Mental Health
The idea of using faith-based initiatives to address mental health, particularly for individuals dealing with gender dysphoria or LGBTQ+ issues, has raised concerns about the potential for non-affirming practices. Experts, including Andrew Flores from the UCLA Williams Institute, argue that faith-based approaches could be harmful if they are not affirming of LGBTQ+ identities. Flores pointed out that the framing of mental health issues—especially those related to gender identity and sexual orientation—could influence the type of care provided. Non-affirming approaches could worsen mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ individuals by fostering stigma and invalidating their experiences.
Beckwith’s own social media posts further fuel concerns about the direction of these initiatives. In the past, he has tied gender identity to mental illness, and he recently reposted a message that implied mental illness should not be celebrated. This rhetoric, combined with his belief that mental health treatment is akin to “conversion,” raises questions about how inclusive and supportive these faith-based initiatives will be for vulnerable populations, such as LGBTQ+ individuals.
Dodging Specifics on Mental Health Programs
Beckwith was pressed on whether his initiatives would support individuals struggling with gender dysphoria or other LGBTQ+ issues, but he dodged a direct answer. He acknowledged that gender dysphoria is a mental health concern but failed to clarify how his faith-based programs would address it. Instead, he emphasized that his office would offer help only to those who specifically requested it, underscoring his belief that individuals should define their own needs.
Despite his reluctance to address LGBTQ+ mental health directly, Beckwith emphasized that his office would love all individuals equally, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation. However, he also stated that the initiatives would not advocate for the acceptance of diverse identities as “normal,” which conflicts with widely accepted mental health practices that support and affirm the identities of LGBTQ+ individuals.
Implications for Mental Health Care in Indiana
Beckwith’s $3 million budget request and his statements on mental health have sparked concerns about the future of mental health care in Indiana, especially for marginalized communities. Mental health professionals worry that framing mental health care in terms of “conversion” could lead to harmful practices and undermine efforts to provide affirming, evidence-based care for all individuals, including those from the LGBTQ+ community.
As the Indiana legislature continues to review the state’s biennial budget, questions remain about how these proposed faith-based initiatives will align with the state’s mental health goals. The potential for funding non-affirming programs that could harm vulnerable populations calls for increased scrutiny and transparency in the planning and implementation of these initiatives.
In conclusion, while faith-based programs may play a role in addressing mental health concerns, it is crucial that these efforts are inclusive and grounded in scientifically supported practices. The focus should be on providing compassionate, effective care for all individuals, regardless of their identity, and ensuring that mental health services do not perpetuate harm or discrimination.
