 |
| Image Credit: Taryn Elliott / Pexels |
Beyond the open grooming, the state guidance effectively barred adoptive parents from serious religious adherence by disallowing religious activity that is ‘openly hostile or unsupportive’ of children who claim to be LGBT.
Oregon passed a law forcing any parents interested in adopting a child to “respect, accept, and support” the child’s claims of “transgender” or other LGBT identities as a prerequisite to becoming an adoptive parent.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, however, that such a requirement violates the First Amendment, allowing prospective adoptive mother Jessica Bates, who sued the state with an Alliance Defending Freedom legal team, to proceed to adopting siblings from foster care.
Bates sued Oregon in 2023 after she was categorically denied the ability to adopt children in the state because she refused to “lie to children and tell them that girls can be boys and vice versa” and “could not agree to use inaccurate pronouns to refer to a child or to take children to pride parades,” ADF stated.
“Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from the adoption and foster system. Jessica is a caring mom of five who is now free to adopt after Oregon officials excluded her because of her common-sense belief that a girl cannot become a boy or vice versa,” ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy Jonathan Scruggs, who represented Bates in court, said in a statement.
“Because caregivers like Jessica cannot promote Oregon’s dangerous gender ideology to young kids and take them to events like pride parades, the state considers them to be unfit parents. That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home. The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state’s ideological crusade.”
The 2-1 decision was written by Judge Daniel Bress, a Trump appointee, and joined by Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, a Clinton appointee. The sole dissenter was Judge Richard Clifton, an appointee of George W. Bush. --->READ MORE HERE
Federal appeals court says state likely violated First Amendment by requiring Jessica Bates to embrace gender ideology to adopt
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled Thursday that an Oregon mother is free to begin the process of adopting siblings from foster care without violating her religious beliefs about human sexuality while her lawsuit against state officials continues.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Jessica Bates filed a lawsuit in April 2023 challenging an Oregon Department of Human Services rule that categorically excluded her from adopting any child—no matter their age or beliefs—because she would not lie to children and tell them that girls can be boys and vice versa. Bates asked the 9th Circuit to lift the state’s gender-ideology exclusion and allow her to re-apply to adopt, free of discrimination, while her lawsuit continues. The court ordered ODHS to reconsider Bates’ application because she will likely succeed in showing that Oregon’s exclusion violates the First Amendment.
“Every child deserves a loving home, and children suffer when the government excludes people of faith from the adoption and foster system. Jessica is a caring mom of five who is now free to adopt after Oregon officials excluded her because of her common-sense belief that a girl cannot become a boy or vice versa,” said ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy Jonathan Scruggs, who argued before the court on behalf of Bates. “Because caregivers like Jessica cannot promote Oregon’s dangerous gender ideology to young kids and take them to events like pride parades, the state considers them to be unfit parents. That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home. The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state’s ideological crusade.”
“No one thinks, for example, that a state could exclude parents from adopting foster children based on those parents’ political views, race, or religious affiliations,” the 9th Circuit wrote in its ruling in Bates v. Pakseresht. “Adoption is not a constitutional law dead zone. And a state’s general conception of the child’s best interest does not create a force field against the valid operation of other constitutional rights.” --->READ MORE HERE
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment