Women placing babies for adoption would be eligible for an adoption tax credit if a Republican Candidate for Congress in North Carolina gets his way. According to his question and answer section, the candidate wishes to extend the adoption tax credit to women who are deemed at risk of seeking an abortion but then give birth.
From the website:
What is your top legislative priority if elected?
I have proposed the Birth Mother Adoption Tax Credit.Using the tax code, we would match up mothers at risk of seeking abortions with prospective adoptive parents and extend the adoption tax credit to birth mothers that carry their children to term. Saving innocent human lives is among the few legitimate functions of the federal government.
Seventy-Eight US Congress members signed this letter and support this legislation permitting discrimination exemptions for religious U.S. adoption agencies. If signed into law, any religious adoption agency could cite the law to deny service to U.S. citizens, including the intended target: same-sex adopting couples.
Philadelphia suspended its foster care contract with Catholic Social Services after they refused to work with a gay couple.
Catholic Social Services sued for a temporary restraining order to continue its foster care work with Philadelphia arguing religious liberties.
On Friday, Federal Judge Petrese B. Tucker opined that the city had a right to force the agency to adhere to the city’s nondescrimination policies and the motion for temporary restraining order was denied.
A new Oklahoma law allowing a private adoption agency to deny adoption to certain prospective adoptive parents has led California to ban California State travel funds to Oklahoma according to this report.
According to this article, newly installed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch’s dissent in Pavan v. Smith demonstrates that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision establishing the same marriage equality for same-sex couples as for opposite sex couples may be subject to future attacks.
Pavan v. Smith involved an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Courts in the State of Arkansas refused to issue birth certificates of both same-sex married parents. The U.S. Supreme Court, citing its Obergefell decision, issued an opinion that same-sex married couples must receive the same treatment as opposite sex married couples (ie., the spouse of the parent giving birth via an anonymous sperm donor can be added to the child’s birth certificate) in accordance with Obergefell. In essence, had the couples been opposite sex, the State of Arkansas would have issued the birth certificates and now must do so for same-sex couples pursuant to Obergefell.
Justice Gorsuch dissented insisting that the State had a biological reason entitling the State to the benefit of at least presenting its argument before the US Supreme Court. This dissent is troubling because opposite sex married couples who are artificially inseminated with gametes from an anonymous sperm donor (ie., wives) are permitted to have their non-biological husband added to their child’s birth certificate, but Justice Gorsuch was arguing that non-biological men should be treated differently based on the gender of the person whom they married.
This dissent signals Justice Gorsuch’s intention to (a) lead the conservative judicial movement; and (b) weaken Obergefell.
According to this article, a bill in the Texas House just passed permitting faith-based adoption agencies to reject adoptive parents based on the agencies religiously held beliefs. It has been argued that the rejections may include gay, divorced, non-Christian, Jewish, etc.
The Nebraska Supreme Court released an opinion on Friday, April 7, 2017, denying the State’s request to reverse the Nebraska Judge’s holding that the State’s ban on gay adoption was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also awarded legal fees in excess of $150,000 to attorneys representing the adoptive families, and clearly stated that a gay adoption ban was akin to ‘White’s Only” racial discrimination signs.