A Catholic couple in Massachusetts claims the state has banned them from fostering children over their views on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/gender" target="_blank" rel="noopener">gender</a> and sexuality.
Mike and Catherine &#8220;Kitty&#8221; Burke filed a federal <a href="https://becketnewsite.s3.amazonaws.com/20230808154524/Burke-Complaint-and-Exhibits.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> on Tuesday alleging that Massachusetts barred them from fostering children in the state because they follow the Catholic teachings on gender, sexuality, and marriage.
&#8220;After months of interviews and training, and after years of heartbreak, we were on the verge of finally becoming parents,&#8221; the couple <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/massachusetts-bans-catholic-couple-fostering-children-due-to-beliefs-gender-sexuality-lawsuit-claims" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a statement. &#8220;We were absolutely devastated to learn that Massachusetts would rather children sleep in the hallways of hospitals than let us welcome children in need into our home.&#8221;
The state gave just one reason for denying their foster care application, the Burkes said, namely that the couple &#8220;would not be affirming to a child who identified as LGBTQIA.&#8221;
In the denial letter from the state, which is included in the lawsuit, the state said that in order to be licensed as a foster or adoptive parent, the applicant must demonstrate &#8220;to the satisfaction of the Department&#8221; the ability to &#8220;promote the physical, mental, and emotional well-being of a child placed in his or her care, including supporting and respecting a child&#8217;s sexual orientation or gender identity.&#8221;
The foster or adoptive parent must also demonstrate they are able to &#8220;respect and make efforts to support the integrity of a child&#8217;s racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious background,&#8221; the letter says.
The couple said they were open to fostering children with significant medical, mental health, or behavioral needs, according to documents included in the lawsuit. They were also open to maintaining connections with a child&#8217;s birth family and both have good mental health themselves, according to the documents.
However, their application was still denied. The &#8220;issue of concern&#8221; was the couple&#8217;s statements around the placement of LGBT children, according to court documents.
&#8220;As faithful Catholics, the Burkes believe that all children should be loved and supported, and they would never reject a child placed in their home. They also believe that children should not undergo procedures that attempt to change their God-given sex, and they uphold Catholic beliefs about marriage and sexuality,&#8221; the lawsuit states.
With their lawsuit, the couple is seeking to have their foster parent application granted as well as ban Massachusetts from using LGBT accommodations to decline foster licenses to religious applicants.
The suit is also seeking &#8220;nominal and compensatory damages&#8221; for the Burkes.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-8791">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
The couple is <a href="https://www.becketlaw.org/case/burke-v-walsh/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">represented</a> by Becket Law, a religious liberty law group.
&#8220;Hundreds of children in the state’s foster care system need homes, and religious parents like Mike and Kitty Burke are ready to open their hearts and homes,&#8221; Becket Law said in a Tuesday press release on the case.
&#8220;Federal law protects the ability of religious people and organizations to foster children in need without having to forfeit their beliefs,&#8221; the law group said.
This is not the first time religion has entered the discussion around who should be allowed to adopt or foster children.
In 2021, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/supreme-court-sides-with-catholic-adoption-agency-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sided</a> with a Catholic adoption agency that did not allow same-sex couples to foster children.

Shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, Connecticut, USA.

Massachusetts Blocks Catholic Couple From Fostering Kids Over Gender, Sexuality Beliefs, Lawsuit Says

Massachusetts Bans Catholic Couple From Fostering Children Over Gender, Sexuality Beliefs, Lawsuit Claims

Adoption

Courts

Gender

Lawsuit

LGBTQ

Massachusetts

Transgender

U.S.

The infernal provocation that is Pride Month might be over, but the marches continue through the legislature in California. They are here, they are queer, and they are coming for your children — legally.
Multiple bills at various stages in the California legislative process proclaim who ultimately has authority of your kids, and it’s not you. Some have understandably garnered much media attention, but SB 407 is working its way through the Assembly without much fanfare or discussion.
<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB407/id/2750569" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB 407</a> would require all potential foster families to demonstrate their capacity and willingness to facilitate pharmaceutical and surgical interventions for “gender-expansive” children. Even if the child seems to give no indication of such inclinations at the time, the resource family must be assessed with the understanding that need for such care could arise at any stage of development.
Sen. Scott Weiner (D-San Francisco) in introducing the bill, <a href="https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20230417-senator-wiener%E2%80%99s-bill-protect-lgbtq-foster-youth-passes-senate-human-services" target="_blank" rel="noopener">claimed</a> it would protect children from being placed in “hostile foster homes.” Hostile homes are the homes of any foster families who are unwilling to commit to actively supporting gender transition interventions for minors. SB 407 effectively institutionalizes a prohibition against orthodox Christians as well as other religious believers.
It also effectively prohibits secular foster parents who think it unwise to allow the mutilation of perfectly healthy body parts on minors. Religious revelation is not required to recognize the reality at hand. Minors in the foster system are, by definition, in crisis. Times of crisis are inopportune times to make permanent, grave decisions especially when the decision-maker has not yet developed his full-frontal cortex. According to SB407, this entirely reasonable perspective should be redefined as a hostile one.
Current and historic data give us insight into the demographics of those most prone to foster non-related babies and minors. Barna Group’s <a href="https://cafo.org/2014/02/12/new-barna-research-highlights-christian-adoption-foster-care-among-3-most-notable-vocational-trends/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">research</a> shows that Christians engage in adoption, foster care, and other ways of aiding vulnerable children more than the average. “Practicing Christians (5%) are more than twice as likely to adopt than the general population (2%). Catholics are three times as likely. And evangelicals are five times as likely to adopt as the average adult.” Practicing Christians are also nearly three times more likely to have seriously considered foster care, and <a href="https://cafo.org/2018/06/23/heritage-foundation-forum-how-faith-foster-care-and-adoption-go-together/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">65%</a> of non-kin foster parents attend religious services weekly — compared to 39%for the general population.
This is unsurprising given the Christian mandate to care for the widow and the orphan. My experience with friends who foster supports the data; devoutly religious people who foster largely do so out of a sense of calling and compassion, animated by a heroic willingness to act. I spoke with a mother of seven, and sometime foster mom, Amina Bancroft, who commented “The primary role of a foster family is to provide a temporary safe place for a child whose previous environment was unfit, dangerous, and consequently at-risk for a poor outcome.” This bill inevitably affects her possibilities at fostering again. “In what should be interim care, ideally focused on love and nurturing, we are now up against a state focused on forcing decisions that would cause irreversible damage to youth who are already up against so much.”
In any just world such families willing to stretch themselves to help kids would be sought after, not precluded from the foster system. However, the only families fit to foster, according to the supporters of this bill, are those who give full assent to the most radical tenets of gender theory. What is obvious to most everyone (except the bill’s authors) is that such ideological assent signals a willingness to reject sexual boundaries. It is that rejection that makes sexual chaos far more likely in the home, not less. Is that the goal? If minors can consent to invasive transitioning interventions, what can they not consent to?
There is also the reality that SB407 is hardly the only bill in California attacking parental rights.
<a href="https://fastdemocracy.com/bill-search/ca/20212022/bills/CAB00021206/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB 107</a>, passed and was signed into law in September of last year, allowing minors to be brought to the Golden State against the will of a parent if it is for the sake of seeking gender transitioning.
In-state parents are not really calling any shots either, according to <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB957/id/2823779" target="_blank" rel="noopener">AB 957</a>  which puts parental custody in jeopardy absent the guardian’s support of their child’s “gender identity.” Absent full support, which is not defined in the bill, a parent can be charged by a court with child abuse. The age at which the child’s desires to begin transitioning must be accommodated is not mentioned, but the bill’s author, Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City) used an example of a seven-year old in <a href="https://californiaglobe.com/articles/under-new-california-bill-parents-would-be-charged-with-child-abuse-for-not-affirming-transgenderism/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arguing</a> the merits of this bill.
<h3>Whose Kids Anyway?</h3>
At a recent speaking event I attended for the <a href="http://awakeamericans.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Awake Americans</a> launch, some protestors carried a sign that read, “We don’t co-parent with hate groups.” Bemused, a few of us commented that obviously we don’t want them to co-parent with us either, so…no problem. But their meaning was more sinister. It was not that they would not co-parent our kids with us, it was that we are unfit to co-parent our own kids with them. They see our kids as theirs to parent and ours to lose.
Biden <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/parents-agree-biden-alarms-assertion-no-thing-someone-elses-child" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> as much out loud recently, “There’s no such things as someone else’s child. Our nation’s children are all our children.” There’s no such thing as someone else’s child. In no situation do normal people act as though that were true. I do not decide when to speak to other people’s children about sex, nor take them home with me at will. I don’t even know their food allergies much less make pivotal decisions for them. Someone could dismiss Biden’s words as an empty platitude or incoherent ramblings except that they reflect a real <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/want-to-dismantle-capitalism-abolish-the-family/#:~:text=Arguably%20the%20most%20infamous,men%20who%20lorded%20over%20them." target="_blank" rel="noopener">perspective</a> that is incrementally creeping into policy.
Another <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NXNKnT28Kc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">video</a> widely circulated recently of Pride marchers in New York City chanting, “We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” Amidst the fallout, NBC <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/nbc-out-proud/re-coming-children-chant-nyc-drag-march-elicits-outrage-activists-say-rcna91341" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rushed</a> to reassure their audience that activists have been chanting as much for years and that it is one of many provocative expressions used to “regain control of slurs against LGBTQ people.”
In other words, it’s not that we’re not coming for your children; we’re just making fun of how you think we are coming for them.
This is a classic example of what Michael Anton <a href="https://americanmind.org/salvo/thats-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">coined</a> the “celebration parallax. “It’s not happening and it’s good that it is.” A thing is happening or not happening based on whether the person acknowledging it is an ally or not. In other words: listen, paranoid parents, we are not coming after your children! But hey allies, <a href="https://www.orangeobserver.com/news/2021/oct/27/watch-speaker-removed-from-orange-county-school-board-meeting-for-reading-from-a-book-found-at-school-library/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeyMannarinoUS/status/1673091985018609666?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">we</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/29/pride-month-kink-consent/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">are</a> doing just that. Genital surgery on minors is a far-right conspiracy! But obviously, <a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/its-not-happening-and-its-good-that-it-is/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">we are doing</a> them and isn’t it brave?
Targeting children furthers the cultural revolution in two ways: it undermines the authority of parents in favor of the state, and it creates a generation of wounded and enraged foot soldiers who will support progressive power and the pharmaceutical industry.
What happens in California won’t stay in California. If left unchallenged its long march will twerk its way well past this state’s borders, and we will all look back fondly to when the marches were limited to the month of June.
<a href="https://www.ncregister.com/author/noelle-mering" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Noelle Mering</a> is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. She is the author of <a href="https://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/awake-not-woke/p/BKCTM02910" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Awake, Not Woke: A Christian Response to the Cult of Progressive Ideology</a> and co-author of the Theology of Home series. She is an editor at <a href="https://www.theologyofhome.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">TheologyofHome.com</a> and a wife and mother of six children.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Gay rainbow flag at  gay pride parade with blurred participants in the background

California Bills Keep Pride Marching Long Past June

California

Gender Identity

Parents rights

Pride Month

Readers Pass

In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-376_7l48.pdf">upheld</a> a federal statute that forces states to place Native American children with Native families, even if it’s not in the child’s best interest.
The Court rejected several families’ challenge to the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which was created to maintain Native American culture by prioritizing Native families in the adoption of Native children. 
The “issues are complicated” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority in Haaland v. Brackeen, but the “bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners’ challenges to the statute.”
Justice Barrett was joined in the majority by the Court’s three Democrat-appointed justices, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
However, the law prioritizes placing the child in a Native family even if it is not in the child’s best interest and if the Native family is not of the same tribe. The law gives tribal leaders the ability to strip children from non-Native foster families and even to supersede the wishes of the child’s biological parents.
For instance, under the law, a Native child in Minnesota was ripped from a loving non-Native family who wanted to adopt her and given to her grandmother, who had lost her foster license due to a criminal conviction. 
The lead plaintiffs in the case, Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, fostered a 10-month-old child and sought to adopt him after a year, with his parents’ support. However, because his parents were members of the Navajo and Cherokee tribes, and both those tribes opposed the adoption, the child was ordered to be removed from the family and placed in New Mexico under the ICWA.
Several families challenged the law on a few main points. First, they argued that the ICWA was unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment because it violated states’ rights to regulate family matters. Second, they argued that the law creates race classifications and makes race-based decisions, which are unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
The Court rejected the federalism claim but did not decide the equal protection claim, leaving it for lower courts to decide.
Barrett argued that because the ICWA applies to both private and public parties equally, the states have no claim that the federal government targeted their rights. She also argued that the federal government has supremacy and that it is normal for state laws to be superseded by federal law.
Justice Thomas wrote a dissent, arguing that the ICWA unconstitutionally encroached on states’ police powers and that the Indian Commerce Clause does not apply to children. Thomas accused the Court of using “loose language” and that the Court’s broad definition of the clause had no basis in the Constitutional text. He also pointed out how many of the children affected would have never stepped foot on a reservation. 
Justice Alito’s dissent attacked the majority opinion on its consequences and argued the Court “loses sight” of what is important in the case — the best interests of the child. Alito walked through the specific cases, showing how under the ICWA, the children would be ripped from loving non-Indian families despite the harms that would occur by doing so — simply because the tribe’s government desired it. 
Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion that emphasized the equal protection claim was not addressed, stating the issue is “serious” and challenges “bedrock equal protection principles.”
“Under the Act, a child in foster care or adoption proceedings may in some cases be denied a particular placement because of the child’s race — even if the placement is otherwise determined to be in the child’s best interests,” Kavanaugh wrote. He went on to state the same for prospective foster and adoptive parents — that they could be denied because of their race. 
Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, that emphasized the horrific treatment of Native Americans throughout American history and the resulting importance of the ICWA. 
The decision was met with praise from the Biden Administration and tribal sovereignty advocates. “Our Nation’s painful history looms large over today’s decision. In the not-so-distant past, Native children were stolen from the arms of the people who loved them,” Biden <a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-native-american-children-adoption-8eee3db1e97cee84a7fdcd98d43df795">said</a> in a statement.
The Cherokee Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Oneida Nation, and Quinault Indian Nation said in a joint statement, “We hope this decision will lay to rest the political attacks aimed at diminishing tribal sovereignty and creating instability throughout Indian law that have persisted for too long.”
“We are glad to see the Supreme Court recognized the important benefits of ICWA and allowed the law to stand,” the Choctaw Nation <a href="https://www.choctawnation.com/news/news-releases/choctaw-nation-statement-regarding-decision-in-brackeen-v-haaland/">said</a>.

Washington, D.C. landmarks

Supreme Court Upholds Law Enabling Tribes To Bar Non-Native Families From Adopting Native Children

Child Protective Services

Children

Native Americans

Supreme Court

<a href="https://adfmedia.org/case/bates-v-pakseresht" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jessica Bates</a> is a devout <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/christianity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Christian</a>, and as such, felt compelled to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/adoption" target="_blank" rel="noopener">adopt</a> children in need out of the foster care system. But it was that same faith that the state of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/oregon" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Oregon</a> used against Bates, denying her the opportunity to take in the needy.
Bates, who lost her husband six years ago in a car collision, was months into the adoption process when she noticed the emphasis on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/lgbtq" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LGBT policies</a>, specifically that she must “respect, accept, and support” the sexual orientation or “gender identity” of any child that could be placed in her home. When she notified the state that she couldn&#8217;t comply with such a policy because of her religious beliefs, her application was put on hold, and then two months later she was completely denied from adopting. 
Now, with the representation of Christian legal advocacy group <a href="https://adfmedia.org/case/bates-v-pakseresht" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (ADF), Bates is fighting back. The widow has filed a federal lawsuit against Oregon, hoping to eliminate the Department of Human Services (DHS) policy that she believes discriminates against people of faith.
&#8220;There is a Department of Human Services policy that says parents or prospective caregivers have to &#8216;respect, accept, and support&#8217; hypothetical child sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression,&#8221; ADF Legal Counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse told The Daily Wire. &#8220;This means that caregivers have to agree to use preferred pronouns. They have to take children to affirming events like [LGBT] Pride parades. They even have to take children to receive cross-sex hormone shots as part of a gender transition.&#8221;
&#8220;So, just looking at preferred pronouns as an example: that carries a message, it forces clients to say something about gender identity and about biological sex that Bates doesn&#8217;t agree with,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;That violates the First Amendment &#8212; it violates her freedom of speech, and it also violates her free exercise by putting her to a choice of abandoning her religious beliefs, or forgoing the chance of ever having even the opportunity to adopt a child.” 
<div id="attachment_537193" style="width: 969px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-537193" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-537193 size-large" src="https://dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Screen-Shot-2023-04-25-at-12.25.34-PM-959x576.png" alt="Jessica Bates and family " width="959" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/04/Screen-Shot-2023-04-25-at-12.25.34-PM-959x576.png 959w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/04/Screen-Shot-2023-04-25-at-12.25.34-PM-300x180.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/04/Screen-Shot-2023-04-25-at-12.25.34-PM-768x461.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/04/Screen-Shot-2023-04-25-at-12.25.34-PM-1536x922.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/04/Screen-Shot-2023-04-25-at-12.25.34-PM.png 2042w" sizes="(max-width: 959px) 100vw, 959px" />Alliance Defending Freedom</div>
DHS has released a general statement sticking by their policy, but won&#8217;t comment on specific cases. The child welfare division “stands in support of transgender, non-binary, gender-fluid and other LGBTQIA2S+ children,&#8221; DHS said. The department also claimed that “gender-diverse people” are “under attack” in the U.S. and they’re committed to “creating a safe and supportive environment for all children and young people, regardless of their gender identity.&#8221;
“Well, the problem is that Oregon isn&#8217;t helping children in need,&#8221; Widmalm-Delphonse responded to the statement. &#8220;They&#8217;re punishing religious homes and actually taking away homes that are open and needed to care for these children.&#8221;
The attorney noted that excluding Christians and entire faith groups from the adoption process &#8220;hurts the children in need the most.&#8221;
&#8220;I believe there&#8217;s a statistic that practicing U.S. Christians are twice as likely to adopt as the general U.S. population,&#8221; he noted. &#8220;In other words, these systems, they can&#8217;t function without Christians &#8212; much less devout Jews and Muslims, and people of other faiths who share Jessica&#8217;s values.” 
Bates doesn&#8217;t appear to be alone in her rejection based on her Christian faith. ADF says others in Oregon have reached out to them with similar stories. And it&#8217;s happened in other states, too. 
There was a <a href="https://casetext.com/case/blais-v-hunter">similar case</a> in Washington State back in 2020; the judge in that case, <a href="https://www.afj.org/document/salvador-mendoza-jr-fact-sheet/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Salvador Mendoza, Jr.</a>, said the state wasn&#8217;t allowed to discriminate against a caregiver applicant based on their religious beliefs. He said applicants could be asked questions surrounding LGBT issues, and their responses could be used to help match a child, but their faith-informed answers couldn’t be the sole reason to deny them an opportunity to take in a child. 
Asked if this radical gender ideology could be used against parents raising their biological children, Widmalm-Delphonse said this has already started to happen, though the Constitution does protect against that. 
&#8220;We think that the Constitution absolutely protects, not just foster parents and adoptive parents, but natural families who want to raise their children consistent with their faith,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We absolutely are concerned that states might try to use its gender ideology, not to punish just caregivers who want to open the home for the children in need, but parents of biological children. And we&#8217;ve seen that in some disputes where parents are fighting over a child and a parent might try to use that as a wedge issue and bring the court in to try to adjudicate parents, or punish parents just because of their beliefs.&#8221;
&#8220;We absolutely want to indicate both the caregiver&#8217;s rights, but also the rights of natural parents everywhere,&#8221; Widmalm-Delphonse added. 
ADF on Tuesday officially filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on behalf of Bates, asking the court to allow the mother to continue in the process of adoption while the lawsuit takes place.

Jessica Bates

Widow Barred From Adopting Foster Kids Over Christian Beliefs. Now She’s Fighting Back.

Widow Jessica Bates Barred From Adopting Foster Kids Over Christian Beliefs In Oregon. Now She’s Fighting Back With Federal Lawsuit.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Christian

Oregon

Social Issues

Former NFL quarterback <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/colin-kaepernick" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Colin Kaepernick</a> has spent the last several years complaining about racism in America — and as he embarks on a publicity tour for his new graphic novel memoir, &#8220;Change the Game,&#8221; he&#8217;s turning the accusations of racism against his own white <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/10/sport/colin-kaepernick-adoptive-parents-spt-intl/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">adoptive parents</a>.
Kaepernick joined &#8220;CBS Mornings&#8221; to discuss the book and the message he hoped it would convey — and he argued that when his mother had been opposed to him getting his hair done in cornrows, she had been &#8220;perpetuating racism.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Colin <a href="https://twitter.com/Kaepernick7?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Kaepernick7</a> accuses his parents of &quot;problematic&quot; behavior raising him, saying they were &quot;perpetuating racism,&quot; such as when his mother didn&#39;t want him getting cornrows <a href="https://t.co/NFXnLeLGXX">pic.twitter.com/NFXnLeLGXX</a>
&mdash; Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) <a href="https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1633971366197182465?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 9, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Growing up I was a — I think still am — a pretty introverted person,&#8221; Kaepernick said of his decision to portray himself in the graphic novel as an insecure teenager going through the same kinds of stresses faced by any high school student. &#8220;I hope it&#8217;s true to form, and that&#8217;s just kind of how I navigate the world.&#8221;
The story follows a young Kaepernick as he tries to &#8220;embrace his blackness&#8221; despite resistance from a number of outside sources — &#8220;even his adoptive parents.&#8221;
&#8220;I know my parents love me, but there were still very problematic things that I went through,&#8221; Kaepernick continued. &#8220;I think it was important to show that, no, this can happen in your own home. And how we move forward collectively, addressing the racism that is being perpetuated.&#8221;
Kaepernick said that the conflict came to a head over his hair — he wanted cornrows because he idolized basketball player Allen Iverson, who he said &#8220;wore his blackness like a suit of armor.&#8221; His mother was against the idea, he said, claiming that she had told him it looked &#8220;not professional&#8221; and made him &#8220;look like a little thug.&#8221;
&#8220;Those become spaces where it&#8217;s like, okay, how do I navigate this situation now?&#8221; Kaepernick explained, adding, &#8220;But it also has informed why I have my hair long today.&#8221;
Kaepernick concluded by saying that he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/colin-kaepernick-mocked-for-begging-nfl-to-play-after-comparing-leagues-draft-combine-to-slavery" target="_blank" rel="noopener">still wanted to play</a> professional football, claiming, &#8220;That passion is still there. And the ability is still there.&#8221;
While the former 49ers quarterback has worked out with a few teams since leaving the NFL, he has not played professionally since his national anthem protest took on a life of its own.

COLIN KAEPERNICK

Colin Kaepernick Accuses His White Adoptive Parents Of ‘Perpetuating Racism’ While They Raised Him

Colin Kaepernick Accuses His White Adoptive Parents Of 'Perpetuating Racism' While They Raised Him

Colin Kaepernick

Racism

An Oklahoma judge ruled on February 13 that a woman had no parental rights to a son she raised with her ex-wife but that the sperm donor for the child has a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/lawsuit" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal claim</a> as the father.
Kris Williams was married to Rebekah Wilson when Wilson gave birth to a baby in August 2019, per <a href="https://people.com/human-interest/woman-has-no-parental-rights-for-son-raised-with-ex-wife-oklahoma-judge-rules/">People</a>. Williams was listed on the child’s birth certificate as “second mother,” the publication notes. But everything got complicated after the pair split up. 
The ruling says that Williams intentionally chose a known sperm donor when she decided to have a child &#8220;in order for the minor child to know and have a relationship with his biological father.&#8221;
Wilson agreed to a &#8220;Known Sperm Donor Agreement&#8221; with sperm donor Harlan Vaughn. The document stated that she would &#8220;conceive and raise a child,&#8221; and that &#8220;Wilson and the ‘conceived child&#8217; would constitute a &#8216;family,'&#8221; per <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23649403-" target="_blank" rel="noopener">court documents</a>.
The documents further state that Wilson and Vaughn &#8220;participated in several at-home, non-medically assisted inseminations” in December 2018 which resulted in Wilson getting pregnant with Vaughn’s biological child.
Next, Wilson and Williams <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/lgbtq" target="_blank" rel="noopener">married</a> on June 1, 2019, while Wilson was still pregnant and Williams was aware of that fact. Williams was present at the baby’s birth and the child was given the last name of Williams. Vaughn was not at the birth, but was notified, the documents say.
The filing also notes that Williams was an active part of the child’s life until November 2021, which is when Wilson filed a Victim Protective Order against Williams, citing “domestic abuse and harassment.” It was at this point that Wilson took the child and moved in with Vaughn, the child’s father.
Wilson filed for divorce from Williams in December 2021 and shared in the filing that the pair did not have any children, but that &#8220;there is one child that was born during the marriage, however, the alleged/biological father has held himself out as the father for approximately the last year and a half, the minor child knows his biological father and his biological extended family.” It was also noted in documents that the child called Vaughn &#8220;dad.&#8221;
One reason the Oklahoma judge ruled in favor of the biological father is that Williams failed to pursue legal adoption while she was still married to Wilson. 
&#8220;Williams, through her testimony and exhibits presented during the trial, admitted that she and Wilson discussed adoption. Furthermore, Williams admitted she knew that under Oklahoma Law she needed to adopt the minor child to establish parental rights,&#8221; Oklahoma County District Judge Lynne McGuire wrote in her decision. 
&#8220;The reality is that the law provides a legal remedy available to Williams. She knowingly chose not to pursue it.&#8221;
In 2022, Wilson gave birth to another baby with Vaughn. They all still live together, People noted. &#8220;The minor child now has a sibling that lives with him in the family home,&#8221; the judge stated in her ruling.
Williams’ lawyer plans to appeal the decision, claiming it’s discriminatory against the LGBTQ community. Robyn Hopkins argued that same-sex couples shouldn’t have to pursue legal adoption to be considered parents. 
&#8220;What happens when you&#8217;re in the middle of an adoption, but the two of you decide to separate? You have to be happily married because you need the birth mother to consent to the adoption,&#8221; Hopkins said. 
&#8220;But also, what happens if you can&#8217;t afford an adoption or don&#8217;t know how to do it or if you don&#8217;t believe in marriage? There&#8217;s tons of straight people out there that do paternity cases, and they&#8217;re not married.&#8221;

Baby Feet

Judge Rules Woman Has No Parental Rights For Son She Raised With Ex-Wife, But Sperm Donor Does

Judge Rules Woman Has No Parental Rights for Son She Raised with Ex-Wife, But Sperm Donor Does

Oklahoma

November is <a href="https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/adoption/nam/">National Adoption Month.</a>
President Ronald Reagan launched the first ‘National Adoption Week’ in 1984. Later, in 1995, President Clinton expanded it making November ‘National Adoption Month’. The observance was created as a time to affirm our commitment to giving America’s abandoned, abused, and neglected children “the chance to become part of a <a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-5280-national-adoption-week-1984">family</a>.”
With 114,000 American children waiting to be adopted, the need for parents is urgent. The foster care system has reached a breaking point with an estimated one home available for every two kids in need.
To meet a few of the boys and girls waiting to be adopted, spend a minute on <a href="https://adoptuskids.org/">AdoptUSkids.org</a>. In Texas, siblings Harley, Kaley, Austin, and Haley hope to be adopted together by a family who loves pets. In North Carolina, 12-year-old Tatjaina enjoys going to school. In Oklahoma, 13-year-old Donna loves to draw. Regardless of their backgrounds, what these children share in common is the need to have a family before the clock runs out on their childhoods.
As a foster mom for a decade and adoptive parent of four, I’ve had a ringside seat to the best and worst of the American foster care system. For many children, the system is temporary. Safe families are quickly found. Children thrive.
But for too many children, the system is a life-sentence. My godson suffered 47 placements over the course of nearly 15 years. Tens of thousands of other children <a href="https://www.thecenterforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Disappearing-and-Dying_TheCenter.pdf">disappear every year,</a> some on the run and others trafficked.
This year’s National Adoption Month theme is “Small Steps Open Doors” to emphasize how even taking small steps can help overcome the challenges children waiting to be adopted face. Every community can consider these ideas to connect children with the safe and loving families they deserve. 
First, state agencies should find relatives immediately. When an abandoned, abused, or neglected child enters foster care, the initial hope is that the child will be able to return home or stay with relatives. But too often, officials disregard federal law that requires relative searches.
Requiring agencies to <a href="https://alec.org/model-policy/relative-search-act/">file affidavits</a> of their searches with the courts brings important accountability to this key law. Relations end up adopting nearly 35% of children in need and are critical to reducing waiting lists. The sooner they’re found, the better.
Second, agencies should encourage good foster families to adopt. Because the laws give preference to biological connections, many agencies tell families they should only be interested in fostering. This deters and turns away many families who are willing both to foster and adopt.
The reality is that 55% of waiting children will be adopted by foster families. Of the 10 boys and girls I fostered, five returned to relatives, and five needed new homes. Let’s encourage those with the ability to foster to become forever families, too. The process to foster and adopt also can be collapsed into one streamlined license.
We should also listen to potential adoptive families. According to the <a href="https://www.davethomasfoundation.org/">Dave Thomas Foundation</a>, 75% of families considering foster care adoption say having financial support for the child’s emotional and physical needs would make the biggest difference in their decision to adopt.
Arizona, for instance, offers a one-time payment of $2,000 to reimburse parents for expenses incurred in the legal process of adopting a child. Adoptive parents also receive a modest monthly stipend until the adopted child turns 18. These policies could be strengthened by extending benefits longer for children adopted at older ages, who often require intense family and therapeutic support long past the age of 18.
States can consider policies that help adoptive families through their lifetimes such as extending state health insurance to the family, giving long-time adoptive families state pensions, and offering free college tuition to adopted kids.
Policies that defray the costs of adopting abused children balance the ledger. The alternative to spending now is a tremendous taxpayer drain in the future. When children age out of the system without families, 25% are incarcerated within the first two years of adulthood. Three out of four girls are pregnant before age 21. Not even 5% will graduate from college. The grim statistics recall Michael J. Fox’s heartfelt quote, “Family is not an important thing. It’s everything.”
Above all, every abused child should be entitled to an attorney with a duty to zealously advocate for their rights. Children with attorneys exit the system for families up to 3.5 times faster than children without them.
With tens of thousands of children in need and millions of parents hoping to adopt, we need to simply build the bridges that will let these families join together, forever.
<a href="https://www.thecenterforchildren.org/leadership/darcy-olsen/">Darcy Olsen</a> is an advocate for children who has devoted her life to strengthening rights for abandoned and abused kids. In 2017, Darcy founded The Center for the Rights of Abused Children to start advocating for change. Since then, they have changed more than 30 laws across the country impacting 500,000 kids. In 2022, the Arizona Capitol Times named Olsen a Leader of the Year for her profound impact improving the quality of life for children. Before launching The Center for the Rights of Abused Children, Darcy served as CEO of the Goldwater Institute. Darcy is a graduate of the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and received her master’s degree from New York University. She has testified widely in state capitols and before Congress. Darcy lives in Phoenix with her four children, all adopted from foster care.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

National Adoption Day

It’s National Adoption Month — And With 114,000 Kids Waiting For Adoption, Here’s How We Can Solve It

The latest data shows <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/66-abortion-clinics-have-stopped-performing-abortions-since-overturn-of-roe-report">Planned Parenthood</a>, the nation’s largest abortion enterprise, performs nearly 200 abortions for every one adoption referral. 
Let that sink in.
Planned Parenthood — the self-proclaimed “champion” of women’s health and an organization that receives nearly $2 million of our tax dollars every single day — is quite simply an abortion machine.
And that machine is in overdrive, extinguishing the lives of more than 1,000 unborn babies on average every day — a heart-wrenching fact that reveals the true mission of Planned Parenthood.
Think that sounds like “pro-life rhetoric”?  Let’s look at Planned Parenthood’s own data.
<h3>Highest-Ever Number Of Abortions </h3>
In 2019-2020, Planned Parenthood performed 383,460 abortions, according to its latest <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/40/8f/408fc2ad-c8c2-48da-ad87-be5cc257d370/211214-ppfa-annualreport-20-21-c3-digital.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">annual report</a>. That’s the highest number ever recorded by the organization.
In the same period, Planned Parenthood provided fewer than 2,000 adoption referrals. That’s nearly <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/here-for-a-reason-planned-parenthood-performs-almost-200-abortions-for-every-one-adoption-referral/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">200 abortions for every one adoption referral</a>. Over the past decade, they have averaged 126 abortions for every one adoption referral.
For a taxpayer-funded organization that claims to be pro-choice and provide myriad women’s health services, does that seem balanced to you?
Ironically, Planned Parenthood’s new annual report is titled “Here for a Reason.”
Their own data clearly shows that reason: Abortion.
Their numbers and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/22/us/planned-parenthood-president-resigns.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">history</a> clearly reveal Planned Parenthood’s leaders have one aim — to capture as large a slice of the U.S. abortion market as they can.
Consider these statistics we <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2020-2021-annual-report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">calculated</a> based on Planned Parenthood’s annual report:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Prenatal care made up just 2% of its pregnancy resolution activities</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Miscarriage care, less than one percent (0.7%)</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Adoption referrals, just one-half of one percent (0.5%)</li>
</ul>
Abortion, in comparison, makes up a staggering 96.6% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy resolution activities — prenatal care, miscarriage care, adoption, or abortion.
<h3>Only One Choice: Abortion</h3>
Although Planned Parenthood often downplays its abortion business as just a small portion of its overall services, their own data indicates that Planned Parenthood only cares about one “choice” — abortion.
Our ongoing <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2020-2021-annual-report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">analysis</a> of every Planned Parenthood annual report over the past decade shows a significant and long-term decline in non-abortion services. Planned Parenthood prenatal and contraceptive services have dropped by 72% and 41%, respectively, over the past decade. Cancer screenings, breast exams and pap tests, which have been subject to guideline reforms, have decreased by well over 70%.
Amid falling customer numbers — 240,000 fewer customers were seen in 2019-2020 than the year before — Planned Parenthood has increased its lucrative abortion business. During that same period when customer traffic dropped significantly, it performed nearly 30,000 more abortions.
If Planned Parenthood is really focused on women’s holistic health, as it claims, shouldn’t it be providing more services that support women’s health?
Wouldn’t the nearly $2 million of taxpayer funding being poured into Planned Parenthood every single day be better spent on efforts that actually support women and families?
By contrast, community-based pro-life pregnancy centers offer women something that Planned Parenthood doesn’t: real options and real support, almost always at no cost to their clients. This amounted to <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/pro-life-pregnancy-centers-served-2-million-people-with-essential-medical-education-and-support-services-in-2019/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hundreds of millions of dollars</a> in medical care, materials, and education provided in 2019. Together, these pregnancy centers have saved more than 800,000 lives since 2016, according to <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/lives-saved-impact-at-us-pregnancy-help-centers/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent research</a> by our colleagues at the Charlotte Lozier Institute.
Abortion advocates and their allies in the media and in Washington, D.C., choose to ignore these numbers because they don’t fit their narrative.
<h3>Killing The Adoption Dream </h3>
Meanwhile, an estimated 2 million families in the U.S. are waiting to adopt a child.
That’s more than enough families to provide a loving home to each and every of the 383,460 unborn babies lost to Planned Parenthood abortion centers last year.  You would think Planned Parenthood might try to keep such shocking statistics quiet, but according to their annual report, they are “proud to provide abortion.”   
America’s women deserve better. They deserve a real choice and the assurance they will be fully supported, whether they decide to parent or choose to make an adoption plan. They deserve a more hopeful, empowering vision for their future.
Planned Parenthood isn’t about choice, and it certainly <a href="https://www.ncregister.com/news/planned-parenthood-s-termination-of-leana-wen-reveals-deep-internal-divisions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">isn’t about healthcare</a>.
Their own numbers do not lie.
Genevieve Plaster is senior editor and director of publications at <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Charlotte Lozier Institute.</a> Tessa Longbons is senior research associate at the institute. <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2020-2021-annual-report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Click here</a> for the Lozier Institute’s full analysis of Planned Parenthood’s 2020-2021 annual report.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

US-JUSTICE-COURT-ABORTION

96% Of All Services: Planned Parenthood Data Reveal Abortion Is The Only ‘Choice’

Abortion

Planned Parenthood

Pro-Life Movement

Actor Kirk Cameron celebrated that his adoption movie &#8220;Lifemark&#8221; scored the number 2 spot at the box office — and that it&#8217;s getting a 97% by audiences on Rotten Tomatoes.
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/kirk-cameron">51-year-old</a> actor shared a video post recently on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/kirkcameron/">Facebook</a> announcing that the <a href="https://lifemarkmovie.com">movie about adoption</a> was indeed staying in theaters at least another week after turning into a hit with moviegoers.
&#8220;THANK YOU ALL!!!&#8221; <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kirk-cameron-talks-lifemark-movie-that-proves-why-life-should-be-defended-at-all-costs">Cameron&#8217;s</a> message read. &#8220;LIFEMARK #2 MOVIE. 97% Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score!! Here&#8217;s a quick update … (you can get your tickets at www.LifemarkMovie.com).&#8221;
Cameron explained that the movie was &#8220;actually picking up momentum&#8221; because people are going out there and seeing it. In the clip, he also gave thanks to all those who have supported the film that &#8220;celebrates and champions the preciousness of life and the beauty of adoption.&#8221;
&#8220;If you go to <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lifemark">Rotten Tomatoes</a> you will find over a thousand people have reviewed the film &#8230; and over a thousand people have given it 97 percent,&#8221; the actor explained. &#8220;Which is amazing, it&#8217;s hard to get 90% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. &#8221;
&#8220;You know sometimes the audience loves it and critics pan the movie, they hate it, they trash it,&#8221; he added. &#8220;But fortunately, for whatever reason, all the reviews are positive.&#8221;
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CioR-boj17k/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px;"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent;"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CioR-boj17k/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Kirk Cameron (@kirkcameronofficial)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
The &#8220;Growing Pains&#8221; star said so far everyone is <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lifemark/reviews?type=user">loving the movie</a>, calling the film &#8220;deeply moving,&#8221; &#8220;heart-warming,&#8221; and &#8220;inspiring.&#8221;
At one point, Cameron joked they probably should&#8217;ve put a &#8220;warning with the tickets&#8221; to bring tissues, because &#8220;you will cry&#8221; more than you anticipate, but you will also be laughing at times. He also said that at the end of the film they provide information about adoption, abortion counseling, and more.
At the time of this publication, the film had earned more than $4.3 million dollars at the box office domestically, according to <a href="https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl1859879681/?ref_=bo_hm_rd">BoxOfficeMoJo.</a>
Cameron previously spoke to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kirk-cameron-talks-lifemark-movie-that-proves-why-life-should-be-defended-at-all-costs">The Daily Wire</a> about his new film that touches on pro-life and pro-choice issues, and said it provides proof that &#8220;the power of one choice impacts more than just one life.&#8221;
The film came out just months after the U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade as a result of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization. The ruling recognizes that there is no constitutional right to an abortion and returns the issue to the states, as previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/victory-pro-life-leaders-react-to-overturn-of-roe-v-wade">reported</a>.
RELATED: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cowardice-kirk-cameron-slams-hollywood-studios-that-passed-on-lifemark-with-message-about-life">&#8216;Cowardice&#8217;: Kirk Cameron Slams Hollywood Studios That Passed On &#8216;Lifemark&#8217; With Message About &#8216;Life&#8217;</a>

Kirk Cameron doc-2

Kirk Cameron Celebrates Adoption Movie Scoring #2 At Box Office, Gets Top Scores By Audience On Review Site

Celebrities

Entertainment

Kirk Cameron

Roe v. Wade's Long And Brutal Legacy

A federal judge <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/NewHopeSJopinion.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled</a> Wednesday that a New York-based <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/christianity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Christian</a> family services agency won&#8217;t have to provide adoption services to unmarried or same-sex couples.
New Hope Family Services — a 60-year-old nonprofit adoption and temporary-foster-placement agency and pregnancy resource center in Syracuse — filed a federal lawsuit against the New York State Office of Children and Family Services in 2018 after officials told the faith-based agency to revise its &#8220;discriminatory and impermissible&#8221; policy or shut down the adoption program.
U.S. District Court Judge Mae A. D&#8217;Agostino in Albany wrote that New Hope succeeded on the merits of its First Amendment claim against the state.
New Hope Family Services Executive Director Kathy Jerman <a href="https://adfmedia.org/case/new-hope-family-services-v-poole">said</a> every child deserves a home with a &#8220;loving mother and father who are committed to each other.&#8221;
&#8220;It&#8217;s regrettable that New York ever threatened to shut down our adoption services, through which we have placed more than 1,000 children with adoptive families since we began as an adoption agency in 1965,&#8221; Jerman said. &#8220;We live in a diverse state, and we need more adoption providers, not fewer.&#8221;
The faith-based center&#8217;s lawyer applauded the court&#8217;s decision, adding that closing down an adoption provider for its religious beliefs &#8220;needlessly and unconstitutionally&#8221; reduces the number of agencies willing to help and benefits no one — especially children.
&#8220;The state&#8217;s attempt to shutter New Hope did nothing other than violate core rights protected by the First Amendment—the freedom to speak what you believe and the freedom to practice the teachings of your faith,&#8221; Roger Brooks, senior counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom, <a href="https://adfmedia.org/case/new-hope-family-services-v-poole">said</a>.
The Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/article/religion-new-york-lawsuits-gay-rights-84d80d7f89dfb4e13a587edb932d034e">reports</a> the Office of Children and Family Services said in a prepared statement it was &#8220;deeply disappointed with the decision and maintains that discrimination on any basis should not be tolerated. We&#8217;re reviewing our options for next steps.&#8221;
The Albany district court had dismissed the Christian agency&#8217;s lawsuit in 2019, but the court issued a temporary order in October 2020 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled in its favor and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

Father and child holding hands

Christian Family Adoption Agency Not Required To Offer Services To Unmarried Or Same-Sex Couples: Judge

First Amendment

New York

Religious Freedom

Religious Liberty

A young man from Haiti put his college education on hold in the U.S. in 2017 after he found a four-month-old baby in a pile of trash while visiting his family during winter break. 
Jimmy Amisial, 27, had been studying communications at Texas State University in five years ago when he went home to celebrate the new year with his family in Haiti. While there, Amisial discovered Emilio Angel Jeremiah, now four years old, abandoned on the street.
&#8220;It was so sad to see him crying, and he had no clothes on,&#8221; Amisial told <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.fox5ny.com/news/texas-state-student-adopts-baby-found-abandoned-trash-haiti?taid=62fb000354ec3f00010a38e4&amp;utm_campaign=trueanthem&amp;utm_medium=trueanthem&amp;utm_source=twitter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fox 26</a>. &#8220;He was naked and had fire ants crawling all over him.&#8221;
Amisial said bystanders refused to help the infant because of a Haitian superstition surrounding New Year&#8217;s Eve.
But that didn&#8217;t stop Amisial from immediately picking up Emilio and saving his life. 
Hope to Haiti, a nonprofit organization founded in 2007, <a class="editor-rtfLink" href="https://www.hopetohaiti.com/orphanages/#" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a> Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. 
According to its website, the small island of 11.4 million people has an estimated 1.2 million orphans and vulnerable children, with about 7,000 children roaming the streets of its capital, Port-au-Prince. 
&#8220;Every week, hundreds of babies and children are abandoned in Haiti shortly after birth,&#8221; the website reads.
The nonprofit reports mothers are forced to abandon their children every day for survival, often leaving newborns in hospitals, shop doorways, alleys, or dumped in the street.
Amisial, who often volunteers at orphanages, told Fox 26 that he spent the last four years struggling to support the child financially.
He said that the adoption process in Haiti often comes with expensive hidden fees — but that didn&#8217;t stop him from immediately trying to become Emilio&#8217;s legal guardian. 
Haitian authorities and a judge came to his family&#8217;s house and offered to let him adopt the baby. 
Amisial, only 22 years old at the time, accepted despite the expensive and arduous process that has taken years to complete.
Amisial said that he doesn&#8217;t regret the decision and the journey the two have been on. 
&#8220;Whenever he&#8217;s talking to me saying like, &#8216;Oh Daddy, I need this, I need that, I need a tablet. I want you to buy me a bike,&#8221;&#8216; he said.
&#8220;So he has someone he can go to to ask stuff,&#8221; Amisial added. &#8220;I&#8217;m very proud of that.&#8221; 
Amisial started a fundraiser, where supporters donated more than $60,000 to help him complete the adoption process.

Child holding an adult hand

Texas State Student Pauses Education After Finding Four-Month-Old Baby In Trash In Haiti

Haiti

Poverty

Texas

Actor <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/kirk-cameron" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kirk Cameron</a> blasted <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/hollywood" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hollywood</a> studios that passed on distributing his new movie &#8220;Lifemark&#8221; with its message about &#8220;life and adoption,&#8221; calling it pure &#8220;cowardice.&#8221;
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/its-doing-more-grooming-for-leftist-politics-than-it-is-education-kirk-cameron-on-why-its-time-for-the-homeschool-awakening">51-year-old</a> actor spoke with The Daily Wire Thursday regarding his new film about adoption and said he was amazed at the reaction from Hollywood studios, even its &#8220;so-called faith divisions&#8221; who he said rejected this film. The movie is <a href="https://lifemarkmovie.com/about/">about</a>, &#8220;David&#8217;s comfortable world is turned upside down when his birth mother unexpectedly reaches out to him, longing to meet the 18-year-old son she&#8217;s only held once. With the encouragement of his adoptive parents, David embarks on a journey of discovery that leads to a staggering truth from his past.&#8221;
It stars Cameron, Rebecca Rogers Nelson, Raphael Ruggero, Dawn Long, Justin Sterner, Marisa Hampton, and Alex Kendrick — with Cameron and Kendrick also serving as executive producers. It comes just months after the U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade as a result of the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization. The ruling recognizes that there is no constitutional right to an abortion and returns the issue to the states, as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/victory-pro-life-leaders-react-to-overturn-of-roe-v-wade">The Daily Wire</a> previously reported.
&#8220;I thought it was amazing,&#8221; Cameron shared. &#8220;You know, that&#8217;s just good old-fashion cowardice. You know, even the so-called faith divisions of studios would rather pass from tens of millions of dollars and support horror, violence, and drag queen movies than risk doing anything that celebrates life.&#8221;
Cameron asked what the studios were afraid of, noting how his new film has &#8220;a hint of the subject of abortion&#8221; near the very end of the movie — but explained that &#8220;this is a movie about life and adoption and love and reconciliation and all that. It isn&#8217;t about abortion.&#8221;
&#8220;But they [Hollywood] won&#8217;t risk anything that even smells like it,&#8221; he added. &#8220;And they&#8217;ll pass up tens of millions of dollars. I just think that that shows there&#8217;s not a lot of backbone there.&#8221;
The &#8220;Fireproof&#8221; star&#8217;s comments echoed those of director Alex Kendrick, who said that studios that he&#8217;s worked with many times in the past wanted nothing to do with this film.
&#8220;They said, &#8216;We&#8217;re not releasing this one because we&#8217;re scared of the response,’” Kendrick told <a href="https://www.crosswalk.com/headlines/michael-foust/hollywood-studios-rejected-lifemark-due-to-pro-life-message-alex-kendrick-says-they-all-turned-down-this-film.html">Christian Headlines</a>.
&#8220;It was interesting when we shot this film, several of the studios that have courted us in the past, and [have] wanted us to go with them as distributors, they all turned down this film,&#8221; he added. &#8220;&#8230; And so we said — it&#8217;s okay, so we would go to a second and a third studio, and they all said, &#8216;We want anything you got but this one.&#8217; Because they&#8217;re saying this is such a touchy subject and a battleground.&#8221;
&#8220;And we said, &#8216;Well, we cannot be ashamed or afraid to share the truth regarding this subject, to share a true story,’” Kendrick continued. &#8220;It&#8217;s hard to argue with a true story. And so we said, &#8216;We&#8217;re going to do this with grace, we&#8217;re going to do this with love, but with truth.’”
&#8220;Lifemark&#8221; hits theaters September 9. For tickets and more information go to <a href="https://lifemarkmovie.com">Lifemark.com</a>.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/amy-schumer-chelsea-handler-and-more-stars-react-to-overturn-of-roe-v-wade">Amy Schumer, Chelsea Handler And More Stars React To Overturn Of Roe V. Wade</a>

‘Cowardice’: Kirk Cameron Slams Hollywood Studios That Passed On ‘Lifemark’ With Message About ‘Life’

Kirk Cameron Slams Hollywood Studios That Passed On ‘Lifemark’ With Message About ‘Life And Adoption’

Hollywood

Movies

Menu