https://ktla.com/2018/07/12/adoption-agencies-could-refuse-same-sex-couples-under-measure-approved-by-house-panel/
The House Appropriations Committee passed an amendment on Wednesday that, if implemented, would allow adoption agencies to refuse gay couples based on their moral or religious beliefs.
The amendment, which was introduced by GOP Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama, would allow child welfare providers to decline to “provide a service that conflicts with its sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions,” according to the congressman.
Because of this provision, the amendment would allow more religious organizations, such as Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services — examples Aderholt provided — to operate child welfare agencies.
“The reason for this is simply because these organizations, based on religious conviction, choose not to place children with same-sex couples,” he said in a statement.
He continued: “The amendment I introduced seeks to prevent these (state) governments from discriminating against child welfare providers on the basis that the provider declines to provide a service that conflicts with its sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions,” he said in a statement.
The amendment could have consequences for LGBTQ-friendly states. It would require the US Department of Health and Human Services to withhold 15 percent of the federal funds for child welfare services from states and localities don’t meet the same standards for protecting religious adoption groups.
Progressive Democrats in the House are speaking out against the amendment, saying it would deny same-sex couples the right to adopt.
“Same-sex couples are six times more likely to foster and four times more likely to adopt. Denying kids loving parents is wrong,” Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan, a gay congressman from Wisconsin, said in a tweet.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the amendment a “disgusting, deeply immoral and profoundly offensive effort.”
“House Republicans chose to sacrifice the well-being of little children to push a bigoted, anti-LGBTQ agenda, potentially denying tens of thousands of vulnerable children the opportunity to find a loving and safe home,” the California Democrat said in a statement.
The office of House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Pizzagate related because Govt. trying to regulate the placement of orphaned children into homes run by religious organizations.
Because of this provision, the amendment would allow more religious organizations, such as Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services — examples Aderholt provided — to operate child welfare agencies.
This Is Just What We Do NOT Need. This Will Increase The Number of Religious Agencies. They are responsible for so much of the abuse
caused by agencies that CPS and religious agencies use to hold many of the foster care children until they are placed.
view the rest of the comments →
septimasexta ago
THE SNAKES CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THE ROCK "Progressive Democrats in the House are speaking out against the amendment, saying it would deny same-sex couples the right to adopt.
“Same-sex couples are six times more likely to foster and four times more likely to adopt. Denying kids loving parents is wrong,” Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan, a gay congressman from Wisconsin, said in a tweet.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the amendment a “disgusting, deeply immoral and profoundly offensive effort.”
“House Republicans chose to sacrifice the well-being of little children to push a bigoted, anti-LGBTQ agenda, potentially denying tens of thousands of vulnerable children the opportunity to find a loving and safe home,” the California Democrat said in a statement."
In a fallen world, there is no perfect solution for abandoned/orphaned children. I know someone who, in a state that forbid gay adoption at the time, became a surrogate for her and her gay brother's partner...TWICE. The fertility clinic was in on it, as well as the judge that presided over her and her husband "giving up their child" to her brother for a single parent adoption. The fertility clinic had a data base of egg donors and their bios/physical description. The donor egg was selected for features that approximated the brother's features, and the sperm was donated by the brother. The sister gave birth to her own nephew...TWICE. She had 3 young children of her own at the time. She also provided child care for the babies, so her children were forced to deal with this unnatural relationship at an early age. A changed heart with no desire to harm children, or turn them from God is the only lasting solution.
carmencita ago
It's all Beyond Sick. Pocan is THE SNAKE THAT CRAWLED OUT FROM UNDER THE ROCK. I propose that these should not be called Progressives, but Deep State. Were there Republicans that voted against this? I can't imagine a Deep State Rep. voting for this. There are politicos off all stripes that are in favor of this, behind the scenes. Notice McCain and Flake speaking out against Trump, they should be backing THEIR President. Pullleeeezzze. Pocan marches to the Drum of Brown the Gov. and Jesuit Priest. What would we expect?
septimasexta ago
REPOST "The amendment, which appears in a new funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, would cut 15% of federal adoption funding for states that penalize adoption agencies that reject same-sex parents-to-be on religious grounds. It would also bar the federal government from refusing to work with those agencies."
So, the Feds couldn't refuse to work with the Church of Satan adoption agency? Scientology Adoption Agency?
We really need to see the exact wording of this amendment. Things might go from bad to worse.
carmencita ago
I agree it sounds shaky. By that I mean that it is sneaky wording, and the outcome yes, could be the exact opposite of what we would want.
septimasexta ago
OOPS! Should read "that approximated the brother's partner's features"
septimasexta ago
Sorry! My above post was confusing. Let me simplify: There is a husband and wife with 3 children. The wife's gay brother and partner want 2 children. The gay brother talks his married sister into being a surrogate, because in their state it was illegal for a same sex couple to adopt, but law did allow for a single parent to adopt. She went to a gay friendly fertility clinic with her brother and using a descriptive data base, selected a donor egg that might have similar features to her brother's partner. Her brother was the sperm donor. The sister carried the baby (a boy) and gave birth to her nephew. Technically, the baby belonged to the sister and husband, so they arranged an adoption with her brother, which was approved by a gay friendly judge. This sequence was repeated later for the second son. The sister provided daycare for the 2 babies/toddlers and so her own children were aware of the unnatural relationships, and had no choice but to accept it.