TX House aprroves bill to allow refusal of adoption to parents

High turnover

>The state's foster care system - which has been found unconstitutional - continues to struggle with high turnover rates among employees and decades of chronic funding shortages. Most notably, the number of children under the state's care, some of whom caseworkers have housed in government buildings due to a foster home shortage, has surged in recent years. Latest figures show more than 3,800 children are eligible for adoption, according to a DFPS spokesman.

>Advocates say the growing backlog has endangered Texas's most vulnerable children, such as the Houston teen in foster care who was killed last month in a collision with a van after she left a state office where she had slept.

>During the House debate Tuesday, opponents of HB 3859 argued the crisis would worsen if state lawmakers barred an untold number of potential parents from fostering or adopting children in the system.

>"HB 3859, while well-intentioned, blurs the goals of the Legislature," said Rep. Jessica Farrar, a Democrat from Houston. "Rather than addressing the findings laid before us by the bluntly accurate court case, we're now taking the consideration of the providers over the best interests of the child."

>Rep. Donna Howard, a Democrat from Austin, questioned Frank about how the bill would work for a child who, for example, wants to get an abortion if her foster or adoptive family is morally opposed to the medical procedure.

>"The child has to know they have that right, and then they actually have to have their parents make the referral (to an agency). Then, what kind of relationship does that set up between the child and the parents?" she said, adding that she hoped to see tougher reporting requirements in those cases. "How do we know if a child has asked for services that (the parents) refused to provide?"

>Frank refused to accept any Democratic amendments, telling Howard that increased reporting standards would not necessarily benefit a child.

Concerns unfounded?

Nationally, faith-based providers have shut their doors after a handful of states, including California and Illinois, did not provide similar provisions that supporters call "conscience protections," said Jennifer Carr Allmon, the executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops.

"HB 3859 will allow faith-based providers, such as Catholic Charities, to re-engage in foster care services," she said in a statement, calling Democrats' concerns unfounded. "It will also allow pastors to encourage parishioners to consider being foster parents, knowing they will not have to engage in activity which violates deeply-held religious beliefs."

While much of the debate focused on foster and adoptive parents, HB 3859 has stoked fear in the LGBT community that children who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender will face the brunt of the bill's effects regarding temporary placement.

"HB 3859 is yet another example of Texas legislators' coordinated efforts to pursue discrimination against LGBTQ people instead of focusing on the best interest of all Texans," said Marty Rouse, the national field director for the Human Rights Campaign who also is an adoptive and foster parent.

He continued: "If signed into law, this bill would most harm the children in Texas' child welfare system -- kids who need a loving, stable home. Discrimination under law is unacceptable. The Senate must recognize this bill for what it is: an attempt to discriminate against LGBTQ Texans, this time targeting some of Texas' most vulnerable residents: children in the child welfare system."

The bill now goes to the Senate, where a committee has left a companion bill pending.

Jews and Muslims don't adopt, and gays just want to molest them. This is the right thing to do.

Thanks, I like to hear good news

>>139280
Non religious people will probably also be discriminated

So cults can adopt again? Yay more Scientologists

Basically this is so if you're Christian you can say, "I'll only adopt a Christian," or a Christian foster home to only accept Christians.

I don't think it's a very cool thing to do, but on the other hand I can see how for some deeply religious families adopting a child with a different faith could be hard to do.

I'm not surprised to see resistance, though. While the law does seem to have good intentions, in the case of a foster home I don't agree with it. A kid shouldn't be denied care just because they're Catholic instead of Protestant.

When the fuck did it suddenly become okay to ignore separation of church and state?
I seem to recall that as being one of the ideals our country was founded upon. Or maybe that's just an alternative fact, and I'm misremembering it all. How double-plus-ungood of me.

>>139305
I think the focus should be on having as few children as possible outside of stable home.
If that means allowing some child welfare agencies the ability to discriminate between parents, otherwise they wouldn't be in the business or enjoy as much public support, then fine.
At the same time, I can see how organizations being overly discriminatory in this manner could ultimately compromise the interest of getting children into stable families.
I don't think the right answer lies at either extreme, there's probably some relatively limited regulation that would be the optimal solution.
That being said, if the organization enjoys taxpayer support, then the government that provides those subsidies should do more to ensure they're not discriminating on religious grounds any more than the government should be subsidizing temples or churches.

>>139744
"Think of the children" is nice but separation of church and state should take priority, because it sets a dangerous precedent for government to say "we'll patronize some religious instiutions, but we're just doing it because they seem to be doing good work".

>>139742
You talk like a fag and your shots all retarded.

I don't understand the outrage. If a gay couple wants to adopt there is nothing in this bill stopping them.

It is literally saying if a Christian/Muslim/Jewish family wants to adopt a child of a certain faith, they can. That in fact opens up more opportunities for a child to be adopted because their are more families willing to adopt because they feel confident the child will be a good fit.

I don't understand what abortion or gays have to do with any of this. Or why "religious" is translated as only Christian. That's a very narrow and bigoted view set.

It denies no one and gives everyone who is interested in adopting more options. That is good and can lead to more adoptions later on.

>>139751
It's saying that organizations can refuse adoptions to families due to religious reasons. There's probably loads of better reasons as to why this is a terrible idea, but I think the biggest danger is the one mentioned by an anon earlier in the thread: That cults could game the system to take in a large amount of children and not adopt them out due to religious reasons, gaining a ton of converts in the process.

>>139751
>Or why "religious" is translated as only Christian.
Because contrary to what the constitution and the founding fathers the US is a Christian state first and foremost

>>139742
>separation of church and state means we don't like religion right!!

No.

Good, those children were conceived out of wedlock.
The fact that they're alive is a sin.

>>139766
Last thing we need is a fucking theocracy you lunatic

>>139782
I don't remember advocating for one

Damn near everyone single politician has their religious beliefs influence their policies, and platform, not to mention or swearing on the bible, one nation under God etc etc

>>139821
Why are politicians so often corrupt while showing to be good Christian figures?... Hmmm

>Shutting the doors of fucking orphanages for something this petty.
Why would you even WANT these providers in your state?
I can't believe these religious groups would so blatantly expose their ulterior motives like this.

>>139280
>Muslims don't adopt

Muslims have been known to kidnap Christian babies and raise them as Muslims. In Egypt, Christian children get tattooed to deter kidnapping.

>>139742

Separation of church and state has absolutely nothing to do with this. This isn't the state sponsoring one religion above any other. What this gets into conflict with is anti-discrimination laws.

>>139999
>In Egypt, Christian children get tattooed to deter kidnapping.

This is the most racist thing I've ever heard.

*schwarzenegger voice* Take it back!

so basically it lets people choose what kind of kids they have to look after.
its quite reasonable.

i dont get why people dislike it,
do they actually want parents that dont support LGBT to look after lgbt kids,
or look after kids with religious beliefs that conflict with their own.

>>140002
>racist

It's Egyptian Muslims kidnapping Egyptian Christians.

>>140627
>It's Egyptian Muslims kidnapping Egyptian Christians.
Are you implying this is not racist ?

>>140077
>so basically it lets people choose what kind of kids they have to look after.
>its quite reasonable.

What the law would do is allow a privately funded child welfare agency to refuse to assist, for example, gay or jewish or muslim couples from the possibility of adopting children, on religious grounds.

People are concerned that allowing this discrimination is going to interfere with finding the most stable homes for children as possible because it adds a confounding variable to the process: the religious preferences of the folks arranging the adoption.

>>140077
>lets people choose what kind of kids they have to look after.

Rep. Frank used this anecdote as a deliberate misdirection. Couples can already do that. The law says this: >>140653

Btw, those kinds of misdirections are the some of the scumbag things that the TX legislature is notorious for, which is part of why Molly Ivins's column that usually covered TX politics over national (until GWB was elected) was nationally syndicated.