Author archives: Nicolas Reynolds

State Round-Up: Protecting Florists, Bakers, and T-shirt Makers From State Discrimination

by Nicolas Reynolds , Ben Householder

November 16, 2021

Editor’s note: This is part of an ongoing series about key provisions that states have advanced in 2021 to defend the family and human dignity.

Religious freedom is foundational to America’s national identity, having been enshrined within the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But in many states, people of faith and people of no faith affiliation are increasingly being attacked for living in accordance with their sincerely-held beliefs about natural marriage and biological sex.

Hands On Originals, a Louisville T-shirt maker that both serves and employs individuals who identify as homosexual, was sued for refusing to print shirts in support of a 2012 gay pride festival. Barronelle Stutzman, a flower-arranger from Richland, Washington, was forced to pay thousands of dollars in fines by the state for declining to arrange flowers for the same-sex wedding of a long-time customer. In the same year, Jack Phillips, a baker from Lakewood, Colorado, was sued for declining to design a cake for a same-sex wedding. The same thing happened to Melissa Klein of Gresham, Oregon in 2013. Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran was fired in 2015 for writing a devotional book that mentioned the biblical teaching that sex should be reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. Hundreds more examples of governmental discrimination against people of faith could be given, and new ones seem to occur every week.

Thankfully, state legislators are taking preventative action by introducing Government Nondiscrimination Acts (GNDAs), which seek to ensure that Americans will never be discriminated against by their government for affirming natural marriage and biological sex. These bills prohibit the government from taking any adverse action against individuals for their religious beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality. GNDAs have been introduced in 18 states since 2015. Almost half of the 41 bills were introduced in 2016. A cause of action has been added to most versions, giving them much stronger enforcement mechanisms.

Contrary to the often-hysterical accusations of GNDA opponents, these bills do not limit or regulate same-sex marriage and never exempt any individual or entity from providing services that are necessary to protect the life, health, or safety of another person. GNDAs do not allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity; rather, they protect people from government discrimination if they refuse to violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs or moral convictions.

No person should be subjected to government discrimination for following their religious beliefs or moral convictions regarding natural marriage or biological sex. Whether one bakes cakes, designs T-shirts, arranges flowers, or officiates weddings, Americans should be able to live and work in a manner consistent with their sincerely-held convictions. With state and even local officials increasingly suing individuals, even in “conservative” states, Government Nondiscrimination Acts are desperately needed if America is to live up to its reputation as a haven of liberty.

State Round-Up: Protecting Fetal Dignity

by Nicolas Reynolds

July 2, 2021

Editor’s note: This is part of an ongoing series about key provisions that states have advanced in 2021 to defend the family and human dignity.

The abortion industry rakes in vast amounts of cash every year by carrying out abortions. This has always been their “M.O.” Their exploitation of fetal remains, on the other hand, is a lesser known practice that the general public has only become aware of within the past decade. Though controversy surrounding fetal tissue and abortion has existed for years, in 2015, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) released undercover videos that revealed how Planned Parenthood is profiting from harvesting and selling baby body parts. The conscience of the nation was shocked, and ever since, states have taken the initiative to end this abhorrent practice.

Harvesting and selling the body parts of aborted children for research purposes subsidizes the abortion industry. Furthermore, it incentivizes harmful practices such as late-term abortion, altering abortion methods for the sake of preserving the remains for sale, violating patient privacy, and possibly even killing some children born alive in order to harvest their organs.

To ensure fetal remains are given the respect they deserve and can no longer be wielded for profit, lawmakers have propagated protections for fetal remains, which include:

  1. requiring abortion suppliers to bury or cremate unborn children after an abortion,
  2. prohibiting the sale of (or, in some cases, prohibiting the profiting from) baby body parts, and
  3. prohibiting the transfer of fetal remains.

In addition, some states pass stand-alone bills that recognize fetal dignity in one of two other ways:

  1. providing death certificates for miscarried babies, or
  2. providing income tax credit to parents for miscarried babies.

Although fetal dignity laws vary in their particulars, they all have the effect of promoting the dignity of the unborn.

Between 2015 and 2016, in the wake of the CMP videos’ release, the number of states that introduced fetal dignity laws rose by 500 percent (5 to 26 states). Since that time, a total of 48 states have introduced fetal dignity laws. A record-high seven states have already enacted such laws to date in 2021.

Of the over 240 fetal dignity bills that have been introduced since 2015, Alabama’s Unborn Infants Dignity of Life Act (HB 45, 2016) stands out as one of the strongest. It contained four of the first six provisions listed above (the last two provisions have generally been run as standalone bills). In requiring the proper disposal of fetal remains, as well as prohibiting the sale, transfer, or use of fetal remains for research, Alabama HB 45 put commonsense regulations in place to bar the exploiting of fetal remains.

In addition to Alabama, seven states have enacted strong legislation:

  • Arizona (SB 1474, 2016)
  • Idaho (S 1196, 2017)
  • Indiana (HB 1337, 2016)
  • Louisiana (SB 128, 2017)
  • Michigan (SB 564/565, 2016)
  • South Dakota (SB 24, 2016)
  • Wyoming (HB 116, 2017)

Like Alabama’s bill, these seven prohibit the sale, transfer, or the use of fetal remains for research. They do not, however, mandate the proper disposal of fetal remains—the burial or cremation of fetal remains, a strengthening protection ensuring fetal remains are not discarded as mere medical waste. However, four of these seven states have enacted additional bills mandating the proper disposal of fetal remains:

  • Arizona (HB 1457, 2021)
  • Idaho (SB 1404, 2016)
  • Indiana (SB 299, 2020)
  • Louisiana (HB 618, 2020)

Four other states—Florida, Iowa, Tennessee, and Texas—have enacted legislation that only prohibits the sale and transfer of fetal tissue. However, Iowa’s (SF 359, 2018) only addresses the transfer of fetal tissue, whereas Tennessee’s (HB 2577, 2016) only addresses the sale of fetal tissue, while additionally mandating the proper disposal of fetal remains. Florida (HB 1411, 2016) and Texas (SB 8, 217) enacted legislation that prohibits both the sale and transfer of fetal tissue, although failing to address the final disposition of fetal remains. Three additional states have all passed measures solely mandating the proper disposal of fetal remains:

  • Ohio (SB 27, 2021)
  • Oklahoma (SB284, 2019)
  • Utah (SB 67, 2020)

Another six states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws that take a different approach, ensuring that parents can receive death certificates in the tragic event of a miscarriage or stillbirth:

  • California (AB 114, 2019)
  • Delaware (SB 3, 2017)
  • Florida (HB 101, 2017)
  • Louisiana (HB 177, 2019)
  • Nebraska (LB 1040, 2018)
  • Tennessee (SB 1389, 2019)
  • District of Columbia (B23-0529, 2020)

Interestingly enough, these unique pieces of legislation have consistently received bipartisan support, unifying both sides of the aisle. Similarly, five other states have enacted bills providing income tax credit to parents who have experienced the miscarriage or stillbirth of a child:

  • Arkansas (HB 1457, 2021)
  • Louisiana (HB 146, 2021)
  • Michigan (HB 4522, 2018)
  • Missouri (HB 2540, 2018)
  • North Dakota (HB 1239, 2017)

Granting death certificates and/or tax benefits for miscarried children reenforces the principle that children in the womb possess the same human dignity and deserve the same level of respect as those outside the womb.

Although fetal dignity laws vary in their particulars, they all promote the dignity of the unborn. Following the release of undercover videos in 2015, the growing realization that stronger protections are necessary has motivated some lawmakers to make a difference, contributing to the enactment of 38 bills spanning 21 states and the District of Columbia. These laws move us one step closer toward honoring the unborn, who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. With over 240 bills introduced since 2015, a record number of enactments this year, and some bills seeing bipartisan support, the fight for fetal dignity has never been stronger.

State Round-Up: Total Abortion Bans

by Nicolas Reynolds , Alexander Ioannidis

July 1, 2021

Editor’s note: This is part of an ongoing series about key provisions that states have advanced in 2021 to defend the family and human dignity.

Since 1973, pro-life Americans have prioritized overturning Roe v. Wade and its companion Doe v. Bolton, two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that made abortion on-demand legal in all 50 states. The ruling in Roe, which in the words of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “entirely removed the ball from the legislator’s court,” prevented countless pieces of state-level pro-life legislation from coming into effect. But that has not stopped pro-life state legislators from passing pro-life legislation.

In 1992, an effort from the Pennsylvania State Legislature to challenge the Roe decision led to Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Sadly, the Court once again usurped the power of state legislatures to regulate abortion, but pro-life state legislators have remained motivated to change this.

Since 2018, 19 states around the country have seized the opportunity to introduce legislation that bans nearly all abortions and directly challenges Roe and Casey.

In 2019 and 2021, Alabama and Arkansas successfully passed legislation banning almost all abortions (Alabama H.B. 314, 2019; Arkansas S.B. 6, 2021). These pro-life bills recognize that all persons—not just persons outside the womb—have the right to life. They define life as beginning at the moment of conception and call upon the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Although both of these bills have been blocked in lower courts and are pending litigation, their passage signaled to the Supreme Court that states are demanding the power to make their own laws regarding abortion.

In addition to Alabama and Arkansas, three other states—Colorado, Iowa, and Mississippi—have introduced similar abortion bans. Colorado’s ban, HB21-1017 (2021), is nearly identical to those of Alabama and Arkansas, but instead of asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, it asserts the 10th Amendment to nullify any federal laws that would keep Colorado from protecting preborn children within the state. Also introduced this year, Iowa H.F. 267 (2021) seeks to establish that life begins at conception. Similarly, in Mississippi, H.B. 338 (2021) looks to ban abortion at all stages.

Oklahoma enacted H.B. 1102, a bill making it unprofessional conduct to carry out an abortion. This bill will cause physicians who carry out or induce abortions to lose their medical licenses for at least one year. Although not as strong as Arkansas and Alabama’s bans, this bill is notable because it is the only total abortion ban that has passed outside of Alabama and Arkansas.

Five other states—Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Wisconsin—have taken another approach. They have attempted to amend their state constitutions. These amendments would guarantee equal rights to preborn humans. In North Carolina, the Republican-controlled state legislature introduced H.B. 158 (2021), a constitutional amendment that seeks to outlaw abortion within the state. In Kansas, after the state supreme court wrongly interpreted their constitution to grant a right to abortion, lawmakers introduced S.C.R. 1604 (2019), which similarly granted preborn citizens of Kansas the same rights as those outside the womb. In 2020, West Virginia introduced H.J.R. 4, which sought to define the word “person” in the state constitution to include anyone from the point of fertilization or in cases of cloning. That same year, Missouri introduced H.J.R. 28, which sought to change the definition of “person” in the Missouri Constitution to include preborn humans. Wisconsin introduced S.J.R. 86 (2020) and A.J.R. 130 (2020), which sought to remove the word “born” from the state constitution to signify when human rights begin.

Furthermore, 10 states—Alaska (H.B. 206, 2021), Arizona (H.B. 2650, 2021), Idaho (H. 56, 2021), Indiana (H.B. 1539, 2021), Maryland (H.B. 0997, 2021), Missouri (H.B. 2285, 2020), Oklahoma (S.B. 495, 2021), South Carolina (H.B. 4046, 2021), Texas (H.B. 3326, 2021), and Washington (H.B. 2154, 2019)—have introduced bills totally abolishing abortion. These bills assert state sovereignty to abolish and criminalize abortion within the state. They ban abortion from the moment of conception without exception and classify abortion as homicide in the state criminal code, thus treating preborn children the same as born children. These bills also order the state executive branch to nullify any federal mandate or court opinion that orders the state to allow abortion. However, it should be noted that these bills do not accomplish the goal of challenging Roe in the courts.

Pro-life activists should be encouraged that, since 2018, nearly 20 states have taken action to attempt to ban most or substantially all elective abortions. Arkansas and Alabama, in particular, are examples for the rest of the country. State efforts to ban abortion must continue. The Supreme Court’s decision to review Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health is proof that state legislators’ efforts have not gone unnoticed. Let us pray for a day when state legislators’ efforts are rewarded and the laws of all 50 states protect and defend the right to life of the unborn child in the womb.

Nicolas Reynolds is Legislative Assistant for State and Local Affairs in FRC’s Policy & Government Affairs Department.

Alexander Ioannidis is an intern in State and Local Affairs with FRC’s Policy & Government Affairs Department.

How Parents Can Create Loving Homes in a Time of Crisis

by Nicolas Reynolds

April 4, 2020

Worship leader Sean Feucht recently tweeted:

Our kids won’t remember much about the effects of this virus (social, economic, political, etc) but they will remember how HOME FELT while the world freaks out. Little eyes are watching how we handle this crisis. Let’s step it up and ¿#ProtectOurPeace

Feucht’s words could not be any more poignant during the COVID-19 crisis.

Now That You’re All Home

This is a time when the whole world is being affected by a phenomenon, comparable to the First and Second World Wars. And yet, our crisis is still different. We are not fighting a seen enemy but an invisible one—the coronavirus. But where is the commoner’s front line? Where can he or she make a difference? In the home.

With most schools closing their doors, and with most jobs either worked from home or suspended, families have been provided a rare opportunity. Families are home, together, indefinitely. Being together under the same roof, for days on end, is brand new to many families. There is plenty that can tempt us to become annoyed by during this time of national crisis. But family togetherness should not be one of those things. This is a blessing. This is an opportunity.

It’s About What You Have, Not What You Don’t

You’re unable to eat out, or spend time at the movies, or even buy the freshest produce at the grocery store. But it’s not about what you don’t have. It’s about what you do have—each other—your sons and daughters. When the absence of every-day luxuries you are used to leaves you frustrated, remember what you have, remember the precious individuals you have the privilege of raising. Unstructured time—what you usually have very little of—you probably have much more of now. You now have the ability to spend extra time with the little ones that you work hard to care for, provide for, and protect.

When your children grow up, they’re not going to remember the instability of the Dow Jones during the COVID-19 crisis. They’ll remember when you asked them to help you cook dinner, when you did puzzles with them, when you made cards to send to loved ones in light of not being able to see them face to face. Though the logistics of this crisis can be very concerning, don’t let it weigh on your children. Let them remember the joy-filled activities that replaced the normal cycle of their school buses and your 9 to 5.

You’re Always Teaching Your Children, Chalkboard or No Chalkboard

Most associate “homeschooling” with pencils, chalkboards, and curriculum. That is one form of it, yet whether or not you realize it, you are always homeschooling your children. They are home, and you are teaching—teaching them what learning, responsibility, and flexibility look like. You’re not at the front of their classroom, but you are now at the center of their focus, providing them an example of what it looks like to lead and to love. This was also the case prior to the virus, but now you’re on the clock 24 hours a day.

Your children have a front-row seat to your leadership. When you’re inconvenienced because Walmart grocery-pickup is out of your favorite brand of cereal, your children see how you respond, how you cope with inconvenience, and what you value. Children grow up to be adults that either want to follow in their parents’ footsteps or steer clear of their example. Take the opportunity to patiently endure the inconveniences and pressures of this crisis and be an honorable example that your children will want to follow.

The Outside World and Your Children’s World

The world certainly does not feel safe. This crisis has caused most to doubt their security and stability. Yet the world of your children, particularly when they are very young, is not the 50 states nor the seven continents—it’s you, their parents. Fear may permeate the outside world, but it doesn’t have to penetrate the world of your children.

Take this prime opportunity and raise your children with a cognitive understanding of where your home’s hope comes from. As Romans 15:13 reads, “Our hope comes from God. May He fill you with joy and peace because of your trust in Him. May your hope grow stronger by the power of the Holy Spirit.” Put this current crisis into perspective, pointing the eyes of your household toward the perfect example of a father—our supreme, perfect, loving, and gracious Heavenly Father (2 Corinthians 4:17).

The coronavirus presents the world with complications and worry, but we have also been blessed with opportunities that we may never have again. Little eyes are watching; little hearts are learning. Seize the opportunity—cherish, lead, and love your children with the time the Lord has given you.

Nicolas Reynolds is a former intern at Family Research Council.

California Wants to Force Teachers to Propagate the LGBT Agenda

by Nicolas Reynolds

August 2, 2019

Parents across the country are rightfully concerned about efforts in the public school system to indoctrinate their children with a leftist agenda. In California, the LGBT lobby is taking this effort a step further: attempting to indoctrinate teachers.

Offered as an attempt to create a “safer environment” for LGBTQ students, A.B. 493 would require junior high and high school teachers to receive training on how to “support” students struggling with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. However, this “training” of teachers to “mentor” such students looks much more like state-sponsored, politically-correct coercion. This piece of legislation strong-arms public school teachers who are Christian to violate their consciences, affirming beliefs contrary to their sincerely-held religious beliefs.

To ensure all teachers leave their religious convictions at the door, specific “training”—adhering to curriculum written by “leading experts in supporting LGBTQ pupils”—is required to be taken by every junior high and high school teacher in public schools. Additionally, this training requires “sustained input and participation” from teachers, guaranteeing that teachers are understanding and complying with the LGBTQ agenda. The training required by this bill is a blatant violation of a teacher’s right to think freely and counsel adolescents according to their genuine and true religious worldview.

Two school districts in California (Moraga School District and Unified School District) have already implemented this “training” for teachers. Those having undergone the training have explained how the sessions did far more than merely inform teachers about how to counsel pupils who identify as LGBTQ. Rather, teachers were asked invasive questions regarding their own personal upbringing, such as whether or not they were raised to “believe there are two genders,” and if their “parents ever discuss[ed] choices… of gender.” Teachers that explained that their parents taught biblical (and scientifically correct) beliefs like the binary nature of sex were shamed and told their views were backward and wrong. Trainees were given additional information about how to deal with LGBTQ-identifying students and were explicitly told that they must keep a student’s sexual orientation and identity secret from parents. 

Though no school can or will ever replace the necessary nurturing that a family gives a child, teachers are sometimes the only ones that can come close to giving students the objective wisdom and care that they are tragically not receiving at home. A.B 493 would successfully ban all junior high and high school teachers in public schools from giving any ounce of honest guidance about sexual orientation and gender identity to students who come and ask them for direction. As mandated by the bill, teachers would be required to affirm LGBT identities and refer students to activist organizations.

 A.B. 493 undermines the ability of students to receive proper care and desecrates teachers’ rights to govern themselves according to their religious convictions. Partner with FRC and lend your voice in opposition to this destructive piece of legislation that deviates from the core principles this country was founded upon. If you or someone you know lives in California, click here to take action and oppose this bill that indoctrinates public school teachers.

Nicolas Reynolds is an intern at Family Research Council.

Lemon v. The Constitution

by Nicolas Reynolds

July 1, 2019

Conservatives breathed a refreshing sigh of relief upon hearing the Supreme Court’s ruling to protect the Bladensburg cross-shaped memorial last month in American Legion v. American Humanist Association. In defending the memorial, the Court not only resolved this case’s controversy but helped shed light on religion’s place in the public square entirely. This case may prove to be a greater victory than many suppose as it looks towards the original intentions of our Founding Fathers, measuring the memorial’s legality with the Constitution rather than tests the Court has conjured up in the past.

Though the Court has had to determine how the Constitution is to be interpreted, some of the ways chosen to do so have greatly deviated from the Constitution’s plain original meaning. One of the worst interpretations of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause—the Lemon testhas played a significant role in the Court’s decisions since Lemon v. Kurtzman was decided in 1971. The Lemon test instated a three-pronged set of requirements intended to drive a wedge between Church and State—something that the Establishment Clause never envisioned, supported, or made accommodations for.

Though the Lemon test has daunted cases of religious freedom for decades, the Court’s decision to protect the Bladensburg cross-shaped memorial gives one hope for a future full reversal of Lemon. Having produced a strong 7-2 ruling in favor of the memorial, the Court once again highlighted the futility of the test. Even though the Court did not throw out Lemon entirely, their ruling greatly crippled the test, increasingly marginalizing it and making clear it is simply unhelpful. In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh highlighted its obvious flaws and increasing uselessness, as he surveyed the Court’s Establishment Clause cases to show that Lemon has not been applied in many of them.

Kavanaugh pointed out Lemon’s grave flaws by showing that many normal religious practices would be prohibited by the test. As Lemon doesn’t allow the government to act in any way that could advance or endorse religion, any form of government-granted religious accommodations and exemptions—practices that have always been fundamental within the United States—would be entirely forbidden. Kavanaugh lays out that many religious practices intertwined with daily life “’by definition’ have the effect of advancing or endorsing religion to some extent.”

Along with other justices, Justice Kavanaugh urges that a test as hostile towards religious imagery as the Lemon test is dangerously unconstitutional and should hold no place within our judicial system. Kavanaugh concurred, “The Court’s decision in this case [The American Legion v. American Humanist Association] again makes clear that the Lemon test does not apply to the Establishment Clause…”

Rather than choosing to interpret the cross as a secular symbol, Kavanaugh drives home the significance of preserving religious imagery in the public square, stating, “I fully understand the deeply religious nature of the cross. It would demean both believers and nonbelievers to say that the cross is not religious, or not all that religious.” Kavanaugh summarized and solidified the cross’s validity, choosing to understand it for what it is—the universally chosen icon to represent Christ’s death and sacrifice on Calvary.

Justice Kavanaugh, along with others, shed light on the clear truth that it is impossible to separate religion from the public square, being that the public square is comprised of religious individuals. For those that prize religious freedom as a core principle of this country, the Bladensburg memorial stands as a testimony to the Constitution’s provisions for religious freedom. This case helps illuminate how religion is not only inseparable from but also necessary for public life to flourish, something that FRC’s amicus brief highlights. In a culture that appears to be continuously straying from biblical values, it is comforting for Supreme Court Justices to stand on and for the truths that this country was founded upon.

Nicolas Reynolds is an intern at Family Research Council.

The Fight to Defend Faith-Based Adoption Providers

by Nicolas Reynolds

June 28, 2019

Recently, faith-based adoption and foster care agencies have been the target of many discriminatory acts made by state and local governments.

Far from the Founding Fathers’ original intent, the ability to help others through foster care and adoption is now contingent on the feelings of LGBT activists in some states and localities. This is just the latest example of a disturbing trend—if the convictions of one’s religion encroaches on someone else’s comfort, ego, or ideology, they are demonized and declared to be a manifestation of hatred.

Increasingly, care provided by faith-based adoption agencies is only permitted on the condition that these agencies’ beliefs do not offend the LGBT movement, conditions that threaten their ability to serve children who are in desperate need of fundamental nurturing. Governmental discriminatory actions have been taken against faith-based agencies in California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.

In Philadelphia, actions were taken in March of 2018 to end the referral contract the city had with Catholic Social Services (CSS) even though they are one of the city’s largest foster care agencies (there are 30 total), working every day to place at-risk and special needs children in supportive homes. According to CSS, the agency serves 120 children in foster care and supervises 100 foster homes on a daily basis. In 2017 alone, they worked with over 2,200 children. Following the city’s ending of its referral contract with CSS, a “foster parent of the year” award winner’s home was emptied and siblings were nearly kept apart despite the city’s urgent call for hundreds of new foster homes. Even though CSS has been placing children in foster care for over a century, it appears they have lost the opportunity seemingly overnight.

Situations like Philadelphia will only escalate all governmental discriminatory actions towards religious organizations. Actions like these open the door to far more severe discriminatory actions to be taken against Christian organizations, which will adversely affect their ability to care for the “least of these” (Matthew 25:40). As recently as December of last year, the New York State Office of Children and Family Services issued an ultimatum to faith-based adoption agency New Hope, forcing them to either violate their beliefs (that a child needs both a mother and a father) or close their doors. New Hope would likely no longer be able to provide children with homes.

In response to the clear governmental discriminatory actions taken against faith-based adoption agencies, legislators such as Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) are introducing legislation to protect religious liberty. They have introduced the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act of 2019 (CWPIA) (H.R. 897 / S. 274), a piece of legislation which would allow organizations such as CSS and New Hope to continue helping those in need without threat of foreclosure from the government.  

Rep. Kelly echoes the plea to preserve the ability of Christians to care for children who are desperately in need of nurturing that only a family can give:

Faith-based adoption and foster care providers have historically played an unrivaled role in caring for our country’s most vulnerable kids… They are the very providers that we should be encouraging and promoting, not punishing.

Concurring, Rep. Enzi adds:

The government should not be in the business of forcing faith-based child welfare providers to abandon their sincerely held religious beliefs, especially at the expense of finding a new home for a child in need.

Additionally, laws similar to the CWPIA have been passed in Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia—most recently in Oklahoma and Kansas.

Discriminatory actions taken against faith-based adoption and foster care agencies are attacks on the biblical definition of the family, the most fundamental establishment in society. These attacks show a disregard for the Judeo-Christian principles which are uniquely imparted through the family. Lawmakers must provide more security to Christian organizations that wish to place children in homes that will sacrifice for, care for, and nurture children in need of a forever-family. 

Since the family is the cornerstone of a moral and flourishing society, it should be regarded and defended with the utmost care. This includes ensuring that the best possible services are provided for children who are not privileged to have a biological family. If governmental discrimination causes families to fall short, society’s moral standards too will fall short. The American people must stand up for the rights of faith-based organizations to continue providing the care that children need. No longer should Christians be targeted by governmental discriminatory actions for their efforts to care for “the least of these.”

Nicolas Reynolds is an intern at Family Research Council.

Archives