A Christian couple is suing Washington state for allegedly refusing to renew their foster care license over their views on gender ideology.
Shane and Jennifer DeGross <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/washington-state-denies-foster-care-license-parents-unwilling-promote-states-gender" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filed</a> a federal lawsuit last week against state officials who they allege refused to renew their license after nearly a decade as foster parents.
&#8220;Washington revoked their foster-care license because of their religious beliefs about human sexuality — prioritizing an ideological agenda over children’s best interests by excluding capable parents who can care for children in need,&#8221; reads the <a href="https://dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/2024-03/DeGross-v-Hunter-2024-03-22-Complaint.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a>.
&#8220;That hurts the many children in foster care, discriminates against the DeGrosses, and violates the Constitution,&#8221; the <a href="https://dm1l19z832j5m.cloudfront.net/2024-03/DeGross-v-Hunter-2024-03-22-Complaint.pdf">suit</a> adds.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
The State of Washington disqualified Shane and Jennifer DeGross from providing children with a loving home, simply because they disagree with the state&#39;s view on promoting an extreme gender ideology.
Our new case DeGross v. Hunter ⬇️ | <a href="https://twitter.com/FoxNews?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@FoxNews</a> <a href="https://t.co/AOYiOeGmnh">pic.twitter.com/AOYiOeGmnh</a>
&mdash; Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) <a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal/status/1773367765283332406?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 28, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The couple has served as foster parents to four children.
The DeGrosses said they had been working with foster care licensing agency Olive Crest, which informed them that Washington&#8217;s Department of Children, Youth, and Families had implemented new guidelines requiring all foster parents to use a child&#8217;s new pronouns based on their gender identity.
The couple said they told the licensing agency that they would love and support any child placed in their home but could not lie to a child about their identity or encourage a child to reject their sex, citing their Christian faith.
State officials then denied the couple&#8217;s license renewal despite multiple attempts by the licensing agency to appeal the decision, according to the lawsuit.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1711802746102000&amp;usg=AOvVaw16U-1IxHH3FDJFeH-A6M8Q">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The couple is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which filed the lawsuit on their behalf on March 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Tacoma south of Seattle.
&#8220;Washington is putting families like the DeGrosses to an impossible choice: speak against your faith and lie or give up the opportunity to care for hurting children. That is illegal and wrong,&#8221; <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/washington-state-denies-foster-care-license-parents-unwilling-promote-states-gender" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> ADF legal counsel Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse.
The attorney cited a 2020 federal case where another Washington couple was initially barred from fostering their one-year-old great granddaughter for the same reason — they opposed gender ideology.
The great grandparents in that case sued the Department of Child, Youth, and Families, and eventually, a federal judge decided in their favor.
A similar case is also <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/bates-v-pakseresht" target="_blank" rel="noopener">playing out</a> in neighboring Oregon. Jessica Bates, a mother of five, is suing Oregon for denying her application to be a foster parent because of her religious beliefs on gender ideology.
Washington state’s foster care system has a shortage of caregivers as of a 2022 <a href="https://www.dcyf.wa.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/reports/FP-AdoptiveHomeRecruitmentReport2022.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a>, which mentions they are looking specifically for foster parents who are &#8220;racially and culturally diverse&#8221; and &#8220;affirming of LGBTQIA+ youth.&#8221;

Young boy feeling girly and holding a trans flag. Gender confusion in adolescence.

Christian Couple Sues Washington State For Allegedly Denying Foster Care License Over Gender Ideology Views

Adoption

Gender

Politics

Transgender

Washington

This is a portion of a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kids-are-not-commodities-knowles-at-clemson" target="_blank" rel="noopener">speech</a> delivered by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Michael Knowles</a> at Clemson University on Wednesday, December 6, 2023.  
Kids are not commodities to be bought and sold. People are not property and children have rights.
This issue has come up recently because same-sex couples have begun to purchase children through surrogacy and in vitro fertilization. Liberals celebrate this novelty. Most conservatives find it instinctively abhorrent. But even some self-styled conservatives celebrate it too. The reason for this unusual degree of confusion and controversy is that the issue is entirely new. Nothing like this has ever happened before in human history. 
And the reason for that is two-fold: first, our political order has, for the first time in the history of our civilization, denied the necessity of sexual difference to marriage — that is, our system of law has, for the first time ever, denied the difference between men and women. The second reason is technological: For the first time in the history of the world, we can create and gestate human life outside of the conjugal act. For the first time ever, we can make babies without sex.
Unfortunately, technology and ideology have outpaced bioethical inquiry. To quote Jeff Goldblum’s character in &#8220;Jurassic Park,&#8221; “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn&#8217;t stop to think if they should.” The full quote from that scene is even more apt. Goldblum’s character says, “The lack of humility before nature that&#8217;s being displayed here staggers me.” He describes the scientists’ actions as “a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores.”
Entirely true. And in the case of surrogacy and IVF, what the discovery — both technologically and politically — explores and scars is people, specifically, innocent little babies.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-michael-knowles-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show</a></h4>
The case of homosexual men purchasing children through surrogacy is particularly and most obviously egregious because it involves creating babies with the express intent of denying them their mothers. The bond between babies and their mothers is the most intimate bond human beings ever experience. The mother is the very environment in which a baby forms. The mother’s voice is the first voice the baby ever hears. Mother and child share the nutrients that sustain them, both before and after birth.
Many children grow up without mothers. For all of history, motherlessness has been a rare and unfortunate event in a fallen world that leaves a wound to be healed as best it can be. Today, motherlessness is an intentional political program undertaken with the blessing of the law, which now holds the presumed right of men to children trumps the actual right of children to their mothers.
Sadly, this phenomenon, though recent, has now occurred for long enough we can read the accounts of children who lament the trials that accompany this unnecessary hardship. The writer Katy Faust has <a href="https://thefederalist.com/author/katyfaust/">detailed such anecdotes</a> in The Federalist. The biological hardships: Children conceived through surrogacy and IVF face more health problems and they tend to be born premature and underweight. Worse still, there are the psychological and spiritual hardships: Envy of their friends with mothers, the hatred of Mother’s Day, the pressure not to express their anguish because it might make the men who raised them sad. The social adjustment issues. The difficulties bonding with the non-biological father. The identity issues. The constant wondering about half-siblings, the existence of whom they are legally barred from knowing. The increased risk of depression. The increased likelihood of being prescribed antidepressant drugs. The total neglect of their reasonable suffering by a society more concerned with stamping out imaginary phobias than with protecting the natural rights of children. The basic, universal longing of children for their mothers because moms and dads are different.
It&#8217;s ghastly, absolutely horrific. It is just about as rotten a thing as a society can possibly do to a child. But unlike many who have opined on this issue, I don’t even really blame the homosexuals. It’s easy to look at the situation and accuse these adult men of selfishness. And they are selfish — obviously. They put their own desires — their natural desire to have children along with their disordered desire to exclude women from the process — ahead of the rights and interests of their prospective children. But I suspect most of them don’t know it. In their defense, they’ve been told by the culture for some 60 years now that men and women really aren’t different. And if men and women aren’t different, then moms and dads aren’t different. And if moms and dads aren’t different, then why would anyone need or even want to have both? What’s the difference between a family and a couple of fellas?
I don’t mention these harsh truths to make the men who have fallen for this lie and temptation feel bad. I don’t suggest we take away their children, though we might endeavor as best we can to introduce these children to their mothers. But this is a fallen world. There is no way to undo the terrible crime that has been perpetrated on many people — the children, most of all, but even the men who were told they were doing nothing wrong. The men who sincerely believed that and who might now be listening to this speech thinking in horror, wondering, “What have I done?” It’s a terrible feeling. We’ve all made mistakes — some, of course, more egregious than others. But there’s no sense in trying to undo the past. There’s no sense in dwelling on past sins after we’ve seen the error of our ways. The reason I mention all of this is to stop this crime from spreading. To prevent it from happening again in the future.
I don’t primarily blame the homosexual men for the growing evil of surrogacy and IVF. I don’t blame the women either. We all know the statistics about children who grow up in fatherless households: the significantly higher risk of behavioral problems, of going to prison, of abuse and neglect, of drug and alcohol abuse, and so on. Kids need their fathers. It isn’t complicated, and, at some level at least, we all know it.
I don’t primarily blame the homosexuals of either sex for this awful situation. They are simply following a 60-year series of delusions our culture and politics have promoted to their logical conclusion. The primary culprit will likely surprise my critics: The culprit is capitalism. More precisely, capitalism unconstrained by morality. More precisely still, the commodification of people. And the Left loves the commodification of people. 
The socialists don’t actually hate capitalism. It was Karl Marx himself who popularized the word “capitalism.” Ironically, the socialists who pretend to hate capitalism actually love it, inasmuch as capitalism makes everything, including people, about money. And just as ironically, the conservatives who purport to love capitalism actually hate it, inasmuch as we know that life is about much more than money. The Left might worship mammon, but we don’t. What we actually love is morality, which entails the protection of things like property rights, but which crucially recognizes that people aren’t property.
<h4><a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a></h4>
We outlaw slavery because we recognize that people are more than property to be traded. We outlaw the sale of organs for the same reason. A true free market absolutist — the most extreme capitalist — might endorse the organ trade. Reasonable people, however, recognize that it is wrong to harvest the organs of the poor. This is the same reason we outlaw prostitution. The true free-market absolutist has no problem with prostitution. Most people, however, recognize that it’s wrong to entice poor women in terrible circumstances to sell their bodies as meat. We recognize that people are more than property.
Free markets can be a wonderful thing. In the words of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1991/05/03/world/papal-encyclical-urges-capitalism-to-shed-injustices.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pope John Paul II</a>, “The free market is the most efficient instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs.” But efficiency is not morality, and human beings are not mere “resources” to be “utilized”: human beings are the subjects for whom resources are utilized. Capitalism circumscribed by morality is as fine a method for producing material prosperity as has ever been discovered; capitalism unconstrained by morality is a monstrosity — as efficient an instrument as ever, but efficient in the degradation of people by denying their very humanity and the rights that go along with it.
This, ultimately, is the problem with IVF and surrogacy. The chief problem with IVF and surrogacy is not that the icky gays use it, as some selectively outraged critics would seem to suggest. The chief problem with IVF and surrogacy is that it commoditizes human life.

Michael Knowles head shot

Why Humans Are Not Commodities

Children

Homosexuality

Michael Knowles

Readers Pass

GOP Rep. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/jim-banks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jim Banks</a> (IN) has unveiled a new bill that would cut off federal funding for child welfare agencies who discriminate against Christians and other people of faith.
Banks&#8217; bill, the Sensible Adoption for Every (SAFE) Home Act, is a response to a proposed Biden administration Health and Human Services <a href="https://www.alabamaag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023.11.27-Foster-Care-Comment-FINAL.pdf?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=govdelivery" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rule</a> that would require foster or adoptive parents to support a child’s gender &#8220;transition.&#8221; The caretakers would have to affirm a child’s preferred pronouns, their “chosen name,” and “allow the child to dress in a way that reflects that gender identity.”
&#8220;The Biden administration is cruelly preventing countless children in the foster care and adoption system from going to loving homes just because parents are opposed to irreversible sex change procedures on kids,&#8221; Banks <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/jim-banks-unveils-bill-protect-adoption-rights-parents-who-want-raise-kids-based-biological-sex" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. &#8220;This isn’t a liberal or conservative issue. This is just plain wrong, and every sane person knows it.&#8221;
The administration <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/09/27/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-actions-to-support-children-and-families-in-foster-care/#:~:text=Today%2C%20HHS%20has%20issued%20a,other%20foster%20home%20would%20receive." target="_blank" rel="noopener">claims</a> the HHS rule is necessary to protect &#8220;LGBTQI+ youth,&#8221; who they say are overrepresented in the foster care system and often suffer from abuse.
However, 18 state attorneys general have already <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/states-press-hhs-over-illegal-rule-that-could-force-foster-care-providers-to-facilitate-trans-procedures" target="_blank" rel="noopener">signed on to a letter</a> from Alabama AG Steve Marshall urging HHS to reject the proposed rule. These Republican states – which include Georgia, Virginia, Texas, Tennessee, and Kentucky – all see the rule as discriminatory and a clear violation of the First Amendment, both freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Their letter argues that the rule would effectively remove faith-based providers who refuse to bend on their religious beliefs from the foster care system.
The letter notes that the Supreme Court, just two years ago, ruled in favor of religious freedom in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. In this case, the city refused to contract with a Catholic group that wouldn’t certify same-sex couples as foster parents. The city was told they couldn&#8217;t discriminate against these Catholic groups based on LGBT opinions.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
The Republican AGs also argue in their letter that the HHS rule would hurt children in foster care the most, since Christians in particular, and people of faith more generally, are far more likely to become foster parents than the general population. Notably, there are already nearly 400,000 minors in the foster care system, and that number is expected to grow in the coming years.
The GOP AGs also claim the administration is trying to skirt legal precedent by applying most of its requirements on the states, instead of individual providers. For example, religious parents or groups could, in theory, decline to be designated as a “safe” placement for LGBT youth if they aren’t willing to agree to the HHS LGBT regulations, and as a result, would not receive those placements. This would cut them out of a huge portion of the foster care system, Republicans say, adding that this is still discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/widow-barred-from-adopting-foster-kids-over-christian-beliefs-now-shes-fighting-back" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Widow Barred From Adopting Foster Kids Over Christian Beliefs. Now She’s Fighting Back.</a>

Screen Shot 2022-05-18 at 7.32.58 PM

Biden’s New Rule Would Limit Christians From Adoption; GOP Rep Jim Banks Is Fighting Back With New Legislation

Department of Health and Human Services

Executive

Jim Banks

Social Issues

November is National Adoption Month.
One doesn’t often hear that indecisiveness can be a blessing. For me, it was the difference between life and death – and the presence of a sweet, 5-year-old boy today. 
Growing up in a Christian household that emphasized the dignity of life, I was at a loss when I discovered that I was unexpectedly pregnant as a single 23-year-old. I had just been let go from my work and didn’t know what to do.
I regretfully admit that abortion was immediately top of mind.
Thankfully, my close relationship with my mother, my confidant, led me to <a href="https://newlifeadoptionsmn.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Life Adoption</a>, where a compassionate social worker discussed all of my options with me – including adoption.
Abortion was still tempting – a seemingly quick fix – but the more I thought about it, the more that its permanence seeped into my heart. The child in my womb was here with me, right now. Abortion would not only take him away from me, but extinguish his life, forever. There would be no turning back.
Adoption, on the other hand, would allow me more time to consider my options – and still guarantee that, in the end, I wouldn’t need to embrace the parenting role I didn’t feel ready for.
It eventually became clear that adoption was the right path. Thanks to my family, New Life Adoption, and my supportive friends, I had the courage to choose it – and from that moment, everything fell into place.
After flipping through numerous family profile books provided by New Life, some close family friends — who had also previously adopted a child through New Life — asked to be considered. I agreed to interview them over coffee.
I teared up at their vulnerable story of losing twins in their last pregnancy, and their adoption journey with their first son. While I could never replace the two babies they lost, it gave me great comfort to know I could add a second, beautiful life to their family.
Every single birth mother I have encountered has told me the same thing: when they met the right family, it immediately clicked. That is how it was with our family friends: overwhelming relief, certainty, and peace.
I knew that the pregnancy journey was just as important to my son’s adoptive parents as it was to me. I wanted nothing more than for them to build special connections with him from the start, so I asked if they would choose his name – they first chose “James,” a family name for both of us, as his middle.
Deep down, I thought “Samuel” would be the perfect name for him, but never relayed it so as not to pressure them. So, when his adoptive parents came back to suggest the name “Samuel James,” my choice of them as his parents was confirmed.
Samuel’s adoptive family was with me in the hospital as I gave birth. I watched his mom’s eyes light up with tears and joy as she looked at her son for the very first time, and with my permission she snipped his umbilical cord.
For months before labor and delivery, I had feared what it would be like to place my child with someone else, and go home to an empty house. My fears were calmed, however, when I witnessed the completeness of the family in front of me – something that would not have happened if I had continued to consider an abortion.
Thankfully, the joy of that moment, accompanied by the support I had from my family, friends, and especially New Life Adoption, filled me with peace as I walked through my front door after leaving the hospital. In choosing life, and finding the perfect family for my son&#8217;s future, I felt more fulfilled than ever before.
I recently moved away to pursue work; yet, even though Samuel is thousands of miles away, I feel his joy in the world. I receive pictures almost daily from his parents, and laugh at their stories of his energy, stubbornness, and compassion – all traits they recognize from me and my family. More than anything, it brings me immense happiness to see the love between Samuel and his brother, and the amazing life they get to live together.
<div id="attachment_653335" style="width: 216px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-653335" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-653335 size-medium" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/6000EEA3-7A68-47DC-B591-99856E9739DD-206x300.jpeg" alt="" width="206" height="300" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/6000EEA3-7A68-47DC-B591-99856E9739DD-206x300.jpeg 206w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/6000EEA3-7A68-47DC-B591-99856E9739DD-395x576.jpeg 395w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/6000EEA3-7A68-47DC-B591-99856E9739DD-768x1119.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/6000EEA3-7A68-47DC-B591-99856E9739DD-1054x1536.jpeg 1054w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/11/6000EEA3-7A68-47DC-B591-99856E9739DD.jpeg 1284w" sizes="(max-width: 206px) 100vw, 206px" />Courtesy: Sophrona Lavasseur</div>
Looking back, I know that none of this would have been possible without the tremendous support I received from my entire family and New Life Adoption – support that gave me the calm and clarity to consider the tragic realities of abortion and the joys possible through adoption.
Whether it be from family, friends, or strangers, I hope every women feels supported and empowered to choose life for her child, even if she knows she isn’t ready to be a parent. There are so many loving couples in the world who will not only embrace your child but you too. My experience with adoption has shown me that life is a precious gift worth giving.
* * *
Sophrona Lavasseur lives in Arizona and is currently working as a sales manager. As a small business owner, she spends her summer weekends in the Midwest as a wedding coordinator with Joyful Day Weddings. Any free time is spent serving on the board of her hometown community festival ambassador program, traveling, and speaking at events surrounding education on adoption.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Hand holding newborn baby’s hand

How My Unplanned Pregnancy Led To A Beautiful Adoption

Abortion

Mothers

Pregnancy

Pro-Life Movement

Rocker Bret Michaels is now the proud owner of a new rescue husky after he learned that the pup helped save a kitten&#8217;s life.
The 6-year-old pooch, also named Bret Michaels, went viral after giving a life-saving blood donation to a kitten with flea anemia. The Nebraska Humane Society shared the news on Facebook, explaining, &#8220;canine blood can be transfused into felines.&#8221;
&#8220;I could not have been more touched and more honored to adopt Bret Michaels the husky, knowing that he gave blood to save the life of a kitten,&#8221; the rocker told <a href="https://people.com/bret-michaels-adopts-a-dog-named-named-after-him-exclusive-8364387" target="_blank" rel="noopener">People</a> Magazine.
&#8220;I could not work fast enough to adopt this husky and extend the awesome quality of little Bret Jr.&#8217;s life,&#8221; he added.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We have an update to share! As you know, Bret Michaels the husky recently helped save a kitten&#8217;s life with a blood transfusion. Well, word got around to Bret Michaels (the musician) who loved the story and is going to take Bret (the dog) home! ❤️ <a href="https://t.co/VlvGkNQgVv">pic.twitter.com/VlvGkNQgVv</a>
— Nebooska Boomane Boociety 👻 (@NEHumaneSociety) <a href="https://twitter.com/NEHumaneSociety/status/1715430989478928799?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 20, 2023</a></blockquote>
The original <a href="https://www.facebook.com/NebraskaHumaneSociety/posts/pfbid02hUiAZtiCHKSAKgvZWEu581B7REw5DCY9qfuaA3KgP5kyaE9UEUwXrjZJGaF8B4zWl" target="_blank" rel="noopener">post</a> from the Nebraska Humane Society detailed how the dog became a &#8220;hero&#8221; when &#8220;a kitten&#8217;s life was hanging in the balance&#8221; after three kittens had been brought in as strays.
&#8220;They were dirty, cold, and covered in fleas,&#8221; the post read. &#8220;After a much-needed bath, two of the kits were doing well, but the third seemed a little bit &#8216;off.&#8217; He was wobbly, weak, and lethargic. These symptoms, combined with the state he was in, all pointed to one thing: flea anemia&#8230;.he needed blood &#8211; and he needed it now.&#8221;
<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-93462">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Michaels, 60, recently lost his family&#8217;s 14-year-old German shepherd Phoenix, who had died earlier this year.
&#8220;So this story brought a smile back into my family&#8217;s life,&#8221; Michaels told the outlet. &#8220;I work diligently with my family and many people to save and improve the lives of many pets.&#8221;
&#8220;We have always donated to incredible pet drives and charities, and will continue to [home] Bret Jr., who &#8230; has now found a loving family that also includes our two rescue shepherds, Nova and Draco,&#8221; he added.

Bret Michaels

Rocker Bret Michaels Adopts Husky That Helped Save Kitten’s Life

Rocker Bret Michaels Adopts Husky That Helped Save Kitten's Life

Celebrities

Entertainment

Music Industry

U.S.

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

Courts

Lawsuit

LGBTQ

Massachusetts

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

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

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

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

Menu