001. at the Pennsylvania General Assembly page "Regular Session 2015-2016 House Bill 516", we're linked to here [2016 archived], which is a PDF dated 2016-10-18, which states:
first, I must note that there is an AMAZING amount of strike-through in this document. In that sense, a lot has been gutted. For instance, the root "homeop" is in there at least five times and all of those words are crossed out now. That's really ODD.
the bill states:
"relating to the practice of naturopathic medicine; providing for the issuance of licenses and the suspension and revocation of licenses [...] this act shall be known and may be cited as the naturopathic doctor registration act […] 'naturopathic doctor': an individual who holds an active registration issued under this act […] it shall be unlawful for an individual to use the title of 'naturopathic doctor' or 'doctor of naturopathic medicine' unless that person is registered as a naturopathic doctor with the board […]";
the bill seems to not know what it wants to be, licensure or registration? And I'll add, overall, 'science or belief system'? If you know naturopathy...
and you must "pass a competency-based national naturopathic licensing examination administered by the North American Board of Naturopathic Examiners or a successor agency that has been nationally recognized to administer a naturopathic examination that represents federal standards of education and training, or has graduated prior to 1986 and has passed a state naturopathic licensing examination […]";
so that's the NPLEX, which falsely labels homeopathy a "clinical science." Now, I'd argue that the education background that the bill requires to sit for that exam is academically bogus.
one must "be of good moral character […] making misleading, deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of naturopathic medicine or practicing fraud or deceit, either alone or as a conspirator, in obtaining a registration or in obtaining admission to a medical college […] being guilty of immoral or unprofessional conduct [...]";
with naturopathy claiming that what's patently not science as science, and what's patently a belief as science, well, HOW is it possible to BE a naturopath under this bill? It's crazy.
"unprofessional conduct shall include departure from or failing to conform to an ethical or quality standard of the profession […] the ethical standards of a profession are those ethical tenets that are embraced by the professional naturopathic medicine community in this commonwealth [...] a naturopathic doctor departs from, or fails to conform to, a quality standard of the profession when the naturopathic doctor provides a medical service at a level beneath the accepted standard of care […]";
well, since anything goes in naturopathy, this is a quite hollow stringency. With homeopathy falsely labeled science, bad can be falsely labeled good, in such a realm of reversed values.
002. now, I thought I'd take a look at the State organization behind the bill. The PANP states:
002.a1. here's the PANP coding naturopathy's science-ejected central premise while falsely stating it survives scientific scrutiny;
002.a2. here's another categorical label of "science" upon naturopathy when naturopathy isn't categorically science;
002.b. so, overall:
Pennsylvania naturopathy is already in violation of the bill they've proposed! But once the bill is passed, I'm sure they'll be regulating themselves and will have no problem with this inconsistency.