“All young people in foster care, including those who happen to be LGBTQ, deserve affirming, supportive environments to call home,” declared Kasey Suffredini from the Trevor Project, while praising the recent announcement from the White House that proposes new regulations mandating training for foster parents to care for LGBTQ youth.
The idea behind this rule might sound positive, but it raises constitutional concerns and could worsen the shortage of foster families across the nation.
Firstly, child welfare issues fall within the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal government. Placing foster children should be based on what’s in their best interests, a definition that varies from state to state. This rule, however, “interferes with traditional local authority and could override state discretion,” according to Jon Scruggs, a lawyer at the Alliance Defending Freedom.
To understand the motivation behind this policy and its supporters, it’s worthwhile to examine the recent case of Michael and Kitty Burke in Massachusetts. The Catholic couple was denied a foster-care license because they expressed reservations about supporting gender-affirming medical procedures and hormone therapy for transgender youth, referring to the latter as “chemical castration.” They also hesitated to use a child’s “preferred pronouns.”
Their application was rejected by the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families.
Another example is Jessica Bates, a single mother of five in Oregon who was denied the opportunity to adopt a child from foster care. She refused, as a matter of principle, to take a child for hormone shots or refrain from attending religious services that did not support gender transition, which went against the department’s policy.
Advocates of these regulations argue that LGBTQ youth are overrepresented in the child welfare system due to rejection by their own families. They believe that finding a family that respects their gender identity and may provide them with hormone treatment is the solution. However, there is little concrete evidence to support this claim.
These policy proposals seem to be part of a larger campaign to force religious foster families to conform to progressive ideology. Initially, this effort was directed at religious foster agencies, some of which declined to place children with same-sex couples.
This conflict culminated in a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that sided unanimously with Catholic Social Services in its lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia. The city had terminated its contract with faith-based organizations due to their policy. However, the court determined that since all foster agencies have the option to make exceptions to the city’s “non-discrimination” policies, there was no compelling reason to deny an exception to CSS while granting them to others.
Still, “the Biden administration is not paying close attention to what the Supreme Court is saying,” warns Lori Windham, vice president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
Since then, several lawsuits have been filed against states for accommodating the religious beliefs of faith-based agencies. Just last week, a federal court upheld South Carolina’s decision to continue working with Miracle Hill, a faith-based foster care ministry, despite opposition from the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
In every state, including Philadelphia and South Carolina, there are alternative non-religious organizations, as well as state agencies, that can certify foster parents and place children. Nevertheless, these activists seem determined to eradicate religious families from the system.
This is unfortunate because religious families play a vital role in the foster care system. More than one-fifth of foster parents are motivated by their faith, and over 80% credit their success in fostering to their religious support.
Jedd Medefind from the Christian Alliance for Orphans points out that “a rule like this would undoubtedly discourage people of sincere faith from serving in the child welfare system. At a time when we desperately need more caring families for foster children, this rule would only result in fewer families stepping forward.”
There are many non-religious parents who also question the benefits of double mastectomies or using different names for children, but in the foster care world, ideological points often take precedence over the best interests of children.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
