Originally published: . Volume 8, No. 8. Source pages: 3.
[Editor’s Note: In our February issue we reported on the issues in Texas involving a lawsuit (Texas Psychology Practice Act Set for Major Overhaul after TFC and Serafine) by Mary Louise Serafine and also published an editorial. Dr. Serafine recently wrote thanking us for the news coverage and sent a Letter to the Editor.]
Dear Editor:
I appreciate your February articles regarding my case, Serafine v. Branaman, which resulted in a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion on the licensing of psychologists. (810 F.3d 354).
The heart of this federal opinion is that psychologists’ licensing laws are to be analyzed under the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. People are free to speak, listen, and think as they wish, and nowhere is that more important than in the area of the mind and how we live our lives. In Serafine v. Branaman the Court struck down as unconstitutional the major parts of the Texas Psychologists’ Licensing Act—the part that defined the “practice of psychology” and the part that placed a ban on the use of “psychologist,” “psychology,” and “psychological” without a license- –that is, a permission slip from the government.
Equally, the Court found that the “practice of psychology,” as Texas defined it, violated the freedom of speech.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has signed into law HB 3808, a new bill that attempts to redefine the practice of psychology to make it constitutional. At this it fails. It protects from prosecution people who are not acting in a “professional relationship.” What this is, no one knows. Can the law possibly mean that if you acted “unprofessionally”—say, cracking jokes and missing appointments—you might not be breaking the law?
My view is that the new law is as bad or worse than the old one, and will lead to further litigation as soon as it is enforced.
The way out of this quagmire is for states to certify psychologists, not license them. Certification would merely put the state’s stamp of approval on those psychologists it recommends without punishing people who give advice without that approval. The public would then be free to choose.
This article is part of a historical newspaper archive. Read the original issue for its original layout, photographs and graphics.