Republican Representative Jim Banks from Indiana has introduced the Sensible Adoption for Every (SAFE) Home Act, a new bill seeking to safeguard federal funding for child welfare agencies that refrain from discriminating against individuals of faith, particularly Christians. This move comes in response to a contentious Health and Human Services (HHS) proposal under the Biden administration that has sparked heated debate regarding foster care and adoptive parents’ responsibilities towards a child’s gender identity.
The proposed HHS rule mandates foster or adoptive parents to affirm a child’s chosen gender identity, including the use of preferred pronouns, names, and allowing the child to dress in accordance with their gender identity. Banks firmly criticized the rule, alleging that it restricts numerous children from finding loving homes solely due to parents’ objections to irreversible sex change procedures on minors.
Attorneys General from 19 states have penned a joint letter opposing a recent rule proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) impacting foster care placements.
According to the American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit organization, “Those who do no… pic.twitter.com/QONzMIkPhR
— The Gateway Pundit (@gatewaypundit) December 12, 2023
Asserting bipartisan concerns, Banks emphasized the moral obligation to rectify this issue, stating, “This isn’t a liberal or conservative issue. This is just plain wrong, and every sane person knows it.”
While the administration argues that the rule aims to protect LGBTQI+ youth overrepresented in the foster care system from potential abuse, 18 state attorneys general, led by Alabama AG Steve Marshall, have voiced opposition. These Republican-led states, including Georgia, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and Kentucky, view the proposal as discriminatory and a violation of constitutional rights, particularly the First Amendment’s freedom of religion and speech.
Citing legal precedent from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the AGs highlight the protection of religious freedom. The case involved the city’s refusal to partner with a Catholic group that opposed certifying same-sex couples as foster parents, leading the Court to denounce discrimination against such groups based on their stance on LGBT issues.
Moreover, the AGs argue that the HHS rule’s imposition on states rather than individual providers would adversely impact foster care participation among people of faith. This, they claim, would result in significant exclusion from the system, negatively affecting the well-being of children in need of care.
