Texas Bill Would Let Adoption Agencies Reject Families on Religious Grounds (lawyers, death)

[zzzSnorlax]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

According to congressman Zelder vaccines don't protect public health, where do they get these people.

I mean, he just knows that they will never achieve balance between the light and dark humors in the body with vaccines so what is the point?

[bryan85]

I agree with the ideaology of this bill, but where do you draw the line? It doesn't matter, as it would never hold up to a court challenge.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by bryan85

I agree with the ideaology of this bill, but where do you draw the line? It doesn't matter, as it would never hold up to a court challenge.

There was a court case against Texas back in 2015 because of neglect and abuse of the children, this doesn't solve the problem it makes it more restrictive. Letting administrators screen for religion will only act to delay adoption. What is the exact problem they are attempting to address, do they want to move children to safe homes or delay an already dysfunctional system.


I see where Alabama and South Dakota signed similar bills, what is wrong with these people.

Texas has violated the constitutional rights of foster children by exposing them to an unreasonable risk of harm in a system where children "often age out of care more damaged than when they entered," a federal judge ruled Thursday.
"Years of abuse, neglect and shuttling between inappropriate placements across the state has created a population that cannot contribute to society, and proves a continued strain on the government through welfare, incarceration or otherwise," U.S. District Judge Janis Jack of Corpus Christi wrote in a decision as strongly worded as it was hotly anticipated.
The ruling came a full year after the case went to trial, and Texas is expected to appeal within 30 days. If it stands, Jack's order could mean costly reforms for Texas and its Child Protective Services division

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/12...ldrens-rights/

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by AlongTheI-5

Wasn't putting a child up for adoption supposed to be an alternative to abortion?

Adoption and Foster care are two different things. Adoption is a permanent home. Foster care is generally a temporary home while the state tries and see if they can get the child and parent safely back together.

That noted, this is a really stupid thing they are trying to do.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by bryan85

I agree with the ideaology of this bill, but where do you draw the line? It doesn't matter, as it would never hold up to a court challenge.

Those who voted for this have to know that also which makes it doubly stupid when they are simply wasting tax payer dollars.

[bawac34618]

Originally Posted by AlongTheI-5

Wasn't putting a child up for adoption supposed to be an alternative to abortion?

To an evangelical, abortion is better than placing a child with a gay family. And just wait....as soon as science discovers a way to determine sexual orientation in the womb, evangelicals will be the most pro-abortion people in the country.

[PedroMartinez]

So, some of you appear to be in favor of children going to homes that might be too extreme in religious practices by administrators.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

So, some of you appear to be in favor of children going to homes that might be too extreme in religious practices by administrators.

You can't make blanket bans to cover for extreme situations.

[ATX Wahine]

Originally Posted by pknopp

You can't make blanket bans to cover for extreme situations.

I agree. This is a very clear example of douchebaggy overreach. As a Texan I take exception to this.

[Goodnight]

There are 22,000 children awaiting placement and 252 died from abuse and neglect and they're worried about the religion of the adoptees. Very screwed up sense of priorities, I would expect that these children would be glad to get into any adoptive parents home.