The Embryo Adoption Public Awareness Campaign was first funded by Congress in fiscal year 2002. The original purpose of the program was to increase public awareness of the existence of a large number of human embryos remaining after in vitro fertilization procedures, some of which might be available for adoption by infertile couples. In fiscal year 2008, Congress expanded the scope of the program to include interventions that provided “medical and administrative services” to individuals and couples in order to facilitate the adoption and donation of embryos for the purpose of family formation. P4
Some non-Federal entities have
expressed concerns that requiring compliance with certain non-statutory requirements of
those paragraphs violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §
2000bb, et seq., or the U.S. Constitution, exceeds the Department’s statutory authority, or
reduces the effectiveness of programs, for example, by reducing foster care placements in
the Title IV-E program of HHS’s Administration for Children and Families. p5.
In this proposed rule, the American University, Beirut, and the World Health
Organization are exempted specifically from the indirect-cost-rate limitation because they
are eligible for negotiated facilities and administration (F&A) cost reimbursement.
TRASNLATION: FRAUD. CHILDREN'S FAKE ASS FOREIGN CHILD WELFARE NGOs AND THEIR FAKE ASS CHILDREN'S TRUST FUNDS RUNNING CHILD WELFARE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGNS ALL THE DAMN TIME BECAUSE THE COST REIMBURSEMENT IS THROUGH MEDICAID AND LOTS AND LOTS OF STUPID PREDICTIVE MODELING CRAP RESEARCH GRANTS FOR FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES, SUCH AS LISTED ABOVE, ARE DOING ON TINY HUMANS. SEE SAM BROWNBACK. EMPHASIS ADDED.
This
proposed restriction on indirect costs, as indicated by 45 CFR 75.101, would flow down
to subawards and subrecipients. The Department recognizes that this provision could be
interpreted as having a financial impact on small entities. These limits, however, have
been operational since the publication of the Final Rule, and therefore grantees would not
need to make any changes to their current practice in response to this rulemaking.
Washington D.C., Nov 1, 2019 / 02:00 pm (CNA).- The Trump administration has announced a change to federal rules to preserve federal funding of faith-based adoption agencies, regardless of their views on same-sex marriage.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced Nov. 1 that it would change its enforcement of previous regulations and propose a new rule, allowing faith-based adoption agencies to continue receiving federal funding while not having to match children with same-sex couples against their religious mission.
HHS said it would revise a 2016 rule that conditioned federal funding of child welfare agencies upon their matching children with same-sex couples.
The U.S. bishops’ conference (USCCB) praised the change in a statement released on Friday.
“To restrict faith-based organizations’ work by infringing on religious freedom – as the 2016 rule threatened to do - is unfair and serves no one, especially the children in need of these services,” said a joint statement by Bishop Frank Dewane of Venice, Florida, chair of the USCCB Domestic Justice and Human Development committee, Bishop James Conley of Lincoln, chair of the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, and Bishop Robert McManus of Worcester, Massachusetts, chair of the USCCB Committee for Religious Liberty.
The previous regulation “threatened to shut out faith-based social service providers, namely adoption and foster care agencies that respect a child’s right to a mother and a father,” the bishops said.
The announcement comes in the middle of a “foster care crisis” in which faith-based adoption agencies will play a critical role in placing children with families, religious freedom advocates said.
“It is just as important today to continue fighting so that vulnerable children will have all hands on deck in the midst of a nationwide foster care crisis,” said Lori Windham, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.
“Every child deserves a chance to be raised in a loving home,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Zack Pruitt said, noting that there are more than 400,000 children in the foster care system and 100,000 eligible for adoption. HHS’s action “offers hope for children, more options for birth mothers, support for families, and increased flexibility for states seeking to alleviate real human need,” he said.
However, the administration’s proposed rule “would only fix part of the problem,” Windham tweeted, as faith-based agencies also face hostility from state and local governments and thus “still need help from SCOTUS.”
Becket represents several entities affected by the Obama administration regulation and similar state and local efforts to push child welfare agencies to place children with same-sex couples.
In a press release on Friday morning, HHS said it would stop enforcing certain regulatory provisions for administering grants, due to a problematic interpretation of them by the Obama administration.
The federal agency also issued a proposed rule revising part of a 2016 Obama-era regulation, to better protect faith-based adoption agencies.
The rule, HHS said, would ensure respect for civil rights while protecting religious freedom and “eliminating regulatory burden” on “the free exercise of religion”; it would do so by requiring grant recipients to comply with existing anti-discrimination laws passed and religious freedom laws that have been passed by Congress, while also requiring HHS to comply with relevant Supreme Court decisions.
Faith-based adoption agencies have had to contend with efforts at the federal, state, and local levels that conditioned public funding on the agencies placing children with same-sex couples in violation of their religious mission.
In Michigan, Catholic Charities West Michigan—represented by ADF—brought a federal lawsuit against the state for withholding funding from faith-based adoption agencies over their stances on marriage. A federal court recently blocked the Obama-era regulation from going into effect in a case involving St. Vincent Catholic Charities and a family looking to adopt, represented by Becket.
“Both the federal government and a federal court have now recognized that discrimination against faith-based agencies seeking to serve those most in need should not be tolerated. We hope that state and local governments will follow suit,” Windham said.
There are several federal laws which are relevant to nondiscrimination in the adoption and foster care system.
These include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs of child welfare agencies and state courts. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 forbids sex discrimination in federally-funded education programs; other laws prohibit discrimination for age and disability.
The Obama administration interpreted existing law to forbid discrimination in the child welfare system not only on basis of sex, but sexual orientation. Thus, it began taking action against adoption agencies that did not place children with same-sex couples, on the grounds that they were discriminating against an individual’s sexual orientation.
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) introduced an amendment in a 2018 funding bill to withhold some HHS funding of states that would not allow faith-based organizations to carry out their religious mission in child welfare. The amendment was removed from the legislation before a final House vote.
Adoption agencies have also been facing adverse action from states which have anti-discrimination laws.
In Massachusetts, Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese stopped its adoption services in 2006 after the state legalized same-sex marriage. Catholic Charities in California and Illinois also stopped their adoption services in 2006 and 2011, respectively.
In Illinois, the bishops had said that the state “made it financially impossible for our agencies to continue to provide these services,” after the state legalized same-sex marriage and required adoption agencies to pair children with same-sex couples.
In 2018, the city of Philadelphia stopped placing adoptive children with Catholic Social Services, only days after calling for 300 new families to adopt foster children.
The city faces a lawsuit by several foster mothers for its decision to stop working with Catholic Social Services, and on Nov. 15, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to grant review in Fulton v. Philadelphia.
Speaking of grant announcements, a funny thing happened while searching for the Federal Registry Announcement for public comments, where I shall, in the Spirit of the Celestial Goddess of the Woodshed, perform the perfection of prayers for the heavens to fall, I found this fun little Faith Based Funding grant of the Office of Population Control for the search of hosts to gestate a corporation's moveable chattel in the form of embryos.
The Embryo Adoption Public Awareness Campaign was first funded by Congress in fiscal year 2002. The original purpose of the program was to increase public awareness of the existence of a large number of human embryos remaining after in vitro fertilization procedures, some of which might be available for adoption by infertile couples. In fiscal year 2008, Congress expanded the scope of the program to include interventions that provided “medical and administrative services” to individuals and couples in order to facilitate the adoption and donation of embryos for the purpose of family formation.
The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) has collected information over the past several years regarding the behaviors and access to health services of females and males within the United States of America related to family formation and reproductive health. Data from the 2012 NSFG release (which received partial support from the Embryo Adoption Awareness program) suggested that nearly two-thirds of U.S. women of reproductive age knew of embryo adoption/donation as a method of family formation. Preliminary analysis from more recent studies indicate that awareness continues to increase. Building upon the public’s awareness, in 2016, OPA supported a small but in-depth study of obstetrician/gynecologists’ knowledge and practices regarding embryo adoption/donation. Though awareness of embryo adoption/donation was nearly universal among the study participants, none of them had ever offered education and counseling on embryo adoption/donation nor suggested it to a patient.
Mailing Address: The Jason Foundation, Inc.
18 Volunteer Dr.
Hendersonville, TN 37075
Phone:(615)264-2323
Email: info@jasonfoundation.com
Website: www.jasonfoundation.com
ORGANIZATIONAL INFORMATION
Entity Type: CorporationState Established: TNDate Created: 10/01/1997
501(c)(3): YesEIN: 62-1714715
Purpose Statement: PROVIDE EDUCATION AND AWARENESS PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT IN THE AID OF YOUTH SUICIDE PREVENTION.
FILING STATUS
Solicitation Registration Status Charitable Trust Registration Status
Registered - Expiration Date: 7/31/2020Exempt
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Data is taken from the organization's IRS return or, if no return
was filed, from its solicitation registration or financial statements.
Period Ending 12/31/2018
Total Revenue $1,442,068.00
Total Expenses $1,339,493.00
Revenue Less Expenses $102,575.00
Reports Filed 990/CPA Audit
Total Assets $3,470,240.00
Net Assets $3,298,092.00
Expense breakdown % of Total
Expenses Charitable Programs Program Services $1,189,655.0089.00 % Supporting Services Mgt & General* $118,363.009.00 % Fundraising* $31,475.002.00 % Total Supporting Services $149,838.0011.19 %
=====================================================================
Source US Federal Central Contractor Registration, http://www.acquisition.gov/
RELATED DATA
Company Addresses
COMPANY ADDRESS
1220 L ST NW STE 400, WASHINGTON, DC, 200054013
ID Number: 801868371
Summary for: BCA OF DETROIT, LLC
The name of the FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY: BCA OF DETROIT, LLC
Entity type: FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Identification Number: 801868371Old ID Number: B94531
Date of Qualification in Michigan: 09/11/2008
Organized under the laws of: the state of Delaware
Purpose:
Term: Perpetual
The name and address of the Resident Agent:
Resident Agent Name:THE CORPORATION COMPANY <=== a foreign agent not registered under FARA because everyone is stealin' the children, land and votes in Michigan and attorneys have immunity...but not for much longer.
Street Address:40600 ANN ARBOR RD E STE 201
Apt/Suite/Other:
City:PLYMOUTHState:MIZip Code:48170
Registered Office Mailing address:
P.O. Box or Street Address:
Apt/Suite/Other:
City:State:Zip Code:
When a youth would file one of those Recipient Rights Complaints, it was always tossed.
I know.
I used to talk to them.
Then I would file a grievance with Michigan, strictly for documentational purposes, only, because all they did was toss, or send me a gratuitous phone call, or dismissive missive, letting me know everything was status quo.
See, there are no civil rights in child welfare because it is all privatized under foreign corporate shape shifters who like to use LLCs because it is easy to dissolve, or bankrupt, or sell, gift, trust or something, right after you get the state grants. contracts and the fake ass Medicaid cost reimbursements because, more than likely, they took out some mortgages, DLA Small Business loan, TARP, then quiet titled, then mortgaged again, or some stealin' like that.
0121028489.15000 GRATIOTDETROITBCA REAL ESTATE HOLDING LLC
0121028489-9015000 GRATIOTDETROITBCA REAL ESTATE HOLDING LLC
0121991831.0115000 GRATIOTDETROITA & H PHARMACY SERVICES INC
0121991831.0215000 GRATIOTDETROITBERGEN BRUNSWIG DRUG COMPANY / PMB 308,LEASED TO:SCCI HOSPITAL OF DETROIT
0121991831.0315000 GRATIOTDETROITZEVEX INC
0121991831.0415000 GRATIOTDETROITABRAMSON, SAMUEL M MD PC / A/K/A ST JOHN GRATIOT CENTER
0121991831.0515000 GRATIOTDETROITSARATOGA URGENT CARE PC
0121991831.1015000 GRATIOTDETROITST JOHN HOSPITAL
0121991831.1515000 GRATIOTDETROITTRIUMPH HEALTH CARE,TRIUMPH HOSPITAL OF DETROIT
0121991832.0015000 GRATIOTDETROITSARATOGA GENERAL HOSPITAL
0121991832.0115000 GRATIOTDETROITUNIVERSAL HOSPITAL SERVICES INC
0121991833.1015000 GRATIOTDETROITCOMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION / DBA: COMPUTER SCIENCES<====Dyncorp
0121991834.0115000 GRATIOTDETROITSARATOGA MGMT INC
All they ever want is to turn a profit.
How is it one can turn a profit when engaging in the healing of a child?
Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare, of course.
Oh, there are so many fraudulent billing scams that go on in child welfare.
I used to let them take me in their offices and show me everything, including voicing their grievances that Michigan will not do a damn thing for these children.
Remember, there are no civil rights in child welfare because it is privatized, where the foreign entity comes up with its own, self-reporting, of all the wonderful things they do for kids.
Lawmakers call for more review of post-release deaths
Notification of Death Report
LANSING (WXYZ) — Since 2017, at least four patients have died within two days of being released from StoneCrest Hospital, a private inpatient psychiatric facility in Detroit. Despite being notified of each of the deaths, state officials never investigated.
Officials with LARA, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, say they’re not legally required to follow up on deaths like these, nor are they empowered to by statute. Today, in response to an investigation by 7 Action News, two state senators are calling for changes to ensure that post-release deaths are investigated.
RELATED: A Detroit psychiatric hospital released him Thursday, he took his life Friday
At 162 beds, StoneCrest is one of the largest private psychiatric facilities in the state. 7 Action News first investigated the hospital earlier this year, after one of its patients, Joe Sadlak, admitted to murder only two days after he was discharged.
He had been treated at StoneCrest for less than a week.
“You put my son on four different kinds of medication and knew his drug history,” said Pamela Rowley, Joe’s mother, “and you let him go.”
In Michigan, when a psychiatric patient dies within two days of being released from a hospital, the state requires the hospital to report it. Those reports come to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
In September 2017, StoneCrest reported that a patient came to its hospital after stating he “was not happy in his life and wanted to die.” After treatment, he was released and died shortly thereafter. StoneCrest reported the death to the state, listing the cause as “not known.”
Less than a month later, another patient came to Stonecrest after saying he wanted to “jump off a bridge.” Within 2 days of release, he was found dead in his bathtub with his throat cut. State officials from LARA didn’t investigate.
A third death would be reported the following July. A woman came to Stonecrest with a history of suicidal behavior. She was treated, released and—the next day—found dead in a river. The cause of death was listed as “unknown.” Again, state officials didn’t investigate.
Then, this past June, a 29-year-old Detroit man came to Stonecrest after displaying severe psychotic behavior. He was deemed well enough to be released, but took his life the next day.
“Did your office ask any questions about that?” asked Channel 7’s Ross Jones.
“Again, we’ve been doing our statutory requirement,” said Larry Horvath, the Director of the Bureau of Community and Health System at LARA
“Did you ask any questions about that?” Jones asked again.
“We required the report to be filled out,” Horvath said.
“And that’s it,” Jones replied.
“Yes,” Horvath said.
Officials asked no questions, according to a spokesman, because “LARA is not by law or rule required to follow up on these reported deaths,” nor—they say— does the law give them the express authority to. State watchdogs are empowered to investigate only deaths that occur in restraints, Horvath said.
The death reports are reviewed during regular inspections, but no investigations are launched. Horvath said he hopes hospitals use the reports to guide their treatment.
"If they're starting to notice a pattern with a cause of death that occurs have discharge, hopefully they're starting to work with their medical directors, their nursing staff, their social workers to put corrections in place to address it," he said.
“It’s inexcusable,” said Mark Reinstein, President and CEO of the Mental Health Association in Michigan. “To hide behind, ‘It’s not our legal responsibility.’ Well then whose is it?”
By law, LARA is required to report all psychiatric deaths reported to them to the state legislature. But they haven’t been, 7 Action News has learned, for at least the last three years. In August, prompted by our reporting, the state submitted reports for 2016, 2017 and 2018, though they did not include post-release deaths.
Following our questions, LARA changed the reporting requirements for post-release deaths—no longer requiring that deaths occurring within 48 hours of discharge be reported. Spokesman Jason Moon said changing the policy aligns LARA with state law, which doesn’t require notification of post-release deaths.
The decision stunned multiple mental health advocates, including Andrea Rizor, the Director of Advocacy for Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services,.
“It looks like they don’t want to know if it’s a suspicious death or not,” she said. "It doesn't make sense."
This week, in response to 7 Action News' findings, the Democratic leader in the state senate is calling for changes.
“Stories like these are deeply concerning, and as a state we should be doing all that we can to help stop these preventable deaths,” said Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich (D-Flint). “The department should have the ability to identify concerning patterns, and if it requires a legislative fix to make sure they are empowered to do so, we will write the bill.”
The religious exemption in adoption has nothing to do with what one likes to do in the bedroom, it is about chattel law.
You cannot split the ownership of a child.
In chattel law, the mother has a position of law but the father, depending on the situation, has a different position in law.
One must always keep in mind that there are no constitutionalities in child welfare, like due process, equal treatment under the law being guilty until proven innocent, and the phenomenon of anonymous reporters being able to submit evidence, that can never be challenged, even if one is lucky enough to have legal representation of an attorney who actually thinks violating civil rights is just pro forma when it comes to dealing with "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth.
Same sex unions indicate the legal dilemma of unspecified rights under chattel law.
Seriously.
Besides, if you place a legal ban on adoptions based upon one's identity, then you can do the upsale on tiny humans in the re-homing experience.
No one regulates the after market of public adoptions.
NACAC promotes and supports permanent families for children and youth in the U.S. and Canada—especially children and youth who are or have been in foster care and those with special needs.
Voice for Adoption sounds like a campaign finance lobbying otherwise known as money laundering operation
"Voice for Adoption (VFA) develops and advocates for improved adoption policies. Recognized as a national leader in special needs adoption, VFA works closely with federal and state legislators, as well as other child welfare organizations, to make a difference in the lives of the 112,000 children in foster care who are waiting to be adopted and the families who adopt children from foster care."
“Turning away LGBTQ prospective parents by asserting a religious exemption or taking advantage of a lack of state nondiscrimination law is a violation of this group’s rights,” the report states. “It also negatively affects the already strained child welfare system, ultimately harming the children in its care.”
“CHILD WELFARE CRISIS” The crisis is manufactured to maintain the industry of trafficking tiny humans.
In 2017, there were about 443,000 children in foster care across the U.S., according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Each year, some 50,000 children are adopted through the U.S. child welfare system, but about 20,000 others “age out” before being placed with an adoptive family, according to HHS.
In addition to helping place more children in permanent homes, the CAP report claims taxpayers could save hundreds of millions of dollars by removing barriers blocking LGBTQ people from becoming adoptive parents.
“Each child adopted from foster care, even with adoption assistance support, reduces state and federal spending by almost $29,000 annually when compared with those children who remain in foster care,” the report states. “If the child welfare system finds adoptive families for just 1,000 ten-year-old children who would otherwise have aged out of foster care at 18, a rough estimate suggests it would save $230 million of taxpayer money over eight years.”
The report warns that turning qualified prospective parents away will add unnecessary stress to “an already stressed system,” and it notes LGBTQ people represent a an “important subgroup of potential parents.”
“Same-sex couples raising children are seven times more likely to be raising a foster child and seven times more likely to be raising an adopted child than their different-sex counterparts,” the report states, citing data from the UCLA’s Williams Institute. “They are also more likely to adopt older children and children with special needs, who are statistically less likely to be adopted.”
Despite the needs of children in the child welfare system and the willingness of LGBTQ prospective parents, the report notes there are significant barriers in place that are preventing them from being matched.
“WAIVER TO DISCRIMINATE" This is nothing but propaganda to distract from the money laundering and campaign financing to continue profiting from the trafficking of tiny humans.
At present, 10 states — Alabama, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia — have laws allowing religiously affiliated placement agencies to turn away LGBTQ parents, and even refuse to place LGBTQ children.
Frank J. Bewkes, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress and one of the report’s authors, told NBC News these religious exemption laws “reduce the pool of qualified parents.”
“We are not in the position to turn any qualified parents away,” he said. “That is not in the best interest of children … [There are] too many people in care and not enough homes to take them in.”
The report cites researchthat demonstrates children raised in same-sex households are just as emotionally and physically healthy those raised by straight couples.he first legislation to allow religious exemptions for child placement agencies was passed in North Dakota in 2003, which allowed agencies to refuse to participate in placement that violated the agency’s “written religious or moral convictions or policies,” and still receive government contracts. But after nearly a decade without other states following suit, such laws have been gaining momentum. Two states passed such a law between 2012 and 2016, three did so in 2017 and four in 2018 alone, according to CAP.
These laws have the potential to affect not only LGBTQ prospective parents but any prospective parent who does not fit the agency’s definition of a suitable family. In March of this year, South Carolina made headlines when Miracle Hill, the largest foster agency in the state, turned away Beth Lesser and her husband for being Jewish, referring them to a different agency.
“To say we can go somewhere else is like saying you can’t use this state-funded hospital, but you can go to the one down the street,” Lesser told the Greenville News.
Earlier this week, 75 civil rights, child welfare and faith organizations sent a letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar asking him not to grant South Carolina’s request to exempt Miracle Hill from federal nondiscrimination law.
“Granting South Carolina’s request would upend HHS’s responsibility to ensure that states are properly caring for the nation’s children by explicitly permitting a provider to put its own interests ahead of the best interests and explicit rights of the children in its care,” the letter states. “In addition, an exemption would sanction taxpayer-funded discrimination by organizations providing a government service, violating a host of constitutional and statutory protections.”
Currey Cook, an attorney at LGBTQ civil rights group Lambda Legal said the implications of granting “a waiver to discriminate” for organizations funded with taxpayer dollars, such as Miracle Hill, “are enormous.”“To allow faith-based agencies to put their beliefs ahead of the wellbeing of children in the state’s care is not only unconstitutional, but more importantly, it is harmful to the very children agencies are paid by the government to care for,” Cook said.
These religious exemption proposals are also being introduced at the federal level. In July of this year, Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., unsuccessfully introduced an amendment to the 2019 appropriations bill that, had it passed, would have slashed 15 percent of the federal funding for child welfare services programs to states that enforced nondiscrimination protections in child placement.
Similarly, Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wy., and Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., introduced last year the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act, which aims to prevent the federal government from taking action against any child welfare agency that “declines to provide, facilitate, or refer for a child welfare service that conflicts with the provider's sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions.” The bill is still pending in the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources.
In a statement supporting the bill, Rep. Kelly called it “100 percent inclusive and child-focused” and noted that “faith-based organizations have historically played a heroic role in caring for our country’s most vulnerable kids.”
“There is no good reason why any of these care providers should be disqualified from working with their government to serve America’s families simply because of their deeply-rooted religious beliefs,” Kelly said in the statement. “When it comes to helping kids and making families stronger, all service providers – religious or otherwise – should have a seat at the table. That’s what this bill is about."
Bewkes cautioned that we have not seen the last of religious exemption laws. He said he expects a “ramping up” of proposed legislation in the next legislative session. “This is one of the battlegrounds for LGBTQ equality,” he added.
The lion's share of U.S. states no have explicit protections for LGBTQ prospective parents, according to Movement Advancement Project(MAP), an LGBTQ think tank. Three states (California, New Jersey and Rhode Island) and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination by adoption and foster care agencies and officials based on both sexual orientation and gender identity, and an additional six states (Oregon, Wisconsin, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland and Nevada) offer some adoption and foster care discrimination protections based sexual orientation alone, according to MAP.
THE COURTS
Recently, religiously affiliated child placement agencies and LGBTQ prospective parents have been turning to the courts to decide their fate as foster and adoptive parents.
In Philadelphia, Catholic Social Services is suing the city for the right to receive government contracts even if it refuses to place children with LGBTQ parents, in violation of the city’s nondiscrimination policy. Thus far a federal judge has rejected the Catholic Social Services’ request for a preliminary injunction, holding that the city’s nondiscrimination law does not violate the organization’s rights.
And in Texas, a lesbian couple was turned away by a foster agency because they did not “mirror the holy family.” Lambda Legal is suingthe HHS and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on behalf of the couple for “unlawful funding” of child welfare organizations that accept federal dollars but refuse to work with same-sex couples. The case is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
CASE STUDIES: TEXAS & MICHIGAN
The CAP report undertakes case studies of Michigan and Texas, two large states that have adopted relatively broad religious exemption laws. Bewkes described the situation in these states as “pretty bleak,” and the report describes an acute placement crisis in each of them.
“Nationwide, 28 percent of youth had been in foster care for two or more years in fiscal year 2016,” according to the CAP report, which cited HHS data. “In that same period, 38 percent of Texas youth and 52 percent of Michigan youth had been in care for two or more years.”
In Texas, which has had a religious exemption law for child placement agencies since 2017, the number of foster and adoptive homes working with licensed child placement agencies has decreased nearly 40 percent from 2012 to 2017, according to data from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
And in Michigan, which has had a religious exemption law for child placement agencies since 2015, the number of licensed foster homes dropped by more than 20 percent from 2012 to 2017, according to data from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services.
The report also highlights how LGBTQ-accepting agencies in these states may be inaccessible to some prospective parents because of geography.
“We found they are actually spaced quite far apart,” Bewkes said of LGBTQ-accepting agencies. “If you’re in El Paso, there are no agencies that have explicit policies that are welcoming. You’d have to drive 350 miles to Lubbock, Texas, to find an agency that is welcoming,” he said, adding, “that’s in a different time zone.”
RECOMMENDATIONS
CAP ended its report with recommendations for the federal government, state governments and state-licensed child-placing agencies to help address the current “child welfare crisis.”
The organization recommended that a law be passed at the federal level that “explicitly prohibits state-licensed child placing agencies that receive federal funding, or that contract with those that do, from discriminating against or turning away qualified LGBTQ prospective foster or adoptive parents.” And, in the absence of federal protection, CAP recommended that “state legislatures should pass into law explicit nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ prospective parents — both adoptive and foster.”
The report also recommended that LGBTQ-welcoming child-placement agencies make their policies explicit by, for example, posting nondiscrimination policies to websites, as these are often the first place prospective parents go when considering fostering or adoption. The report also encouraged states and child placement agencies to increase their recruitment efforts to all prospective parents, especially those who identity as LGBTQ, as this population has a higher propensity to foster and adopt.
It looks as if we are going to be celebrating National Adoption Month by fast tracking child welfare fraud to SCOTUS next year.
In a nutshell, Trump is suing NAACP about rescinding its DACA child immigration policy because the congress never passed a law for it.
Only the congress can legislate, yet, "Congress had repeatedly declined to enact
legislation “closely resembl[ing] DACA and DAPA.”
Id. at 185." p.11.
The Executive Branch makes policy, so they made DACA and DAPA, because congress would not make a law for it.
Making policy can and does include rescission.
But here is where it gets good.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
This dispute concerns the policy of immigration enforcement
discretion known as Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals (DACA). In 2016, this Court affirmed,
by an equally divided Court, a decision of the
Fifth Circuit holding that two related Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) discretionary enforcement
policies, including an expansion of the DACA policy,
were likely unlawful and should be enjoined. See
United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (per curiam). In
September 2017, DHS determined that the original
DACA policy was unlawful and would likely be struck
down by the courts on the same grounds as the related
policies. DHS thus instituted an orderly wind-down of
the DACA policy. The questions presented are as follows:
1. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA
policy is judicially reviewable.
2. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA
policy is lawful.
Now, check out the parties to the action.
PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
Petitioners are Donald J. Trump, President of the
United States; Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General
of the United States; Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary
of Homeland Security; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
and the United States.
Respondents are the Trustees of Princeton University;
Microsoft Corporation; Maria De La Cruz Perales
Sanchez; National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People; American Federation of Teachers,
AFL-CIO; and the United Food and Commercial Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC.
Basically, the INA is written under admirality law because it uses the language of chattels.
All you have to do is look at the nomenclature of the vessel, with crew, in commerce and see the structures of the chattels when addressing women, in the realms of a fashion model, or children, as property.
This is coded as Uniform Commercial Code because we are dealing with Trustees.
(14) The term ‘‘foreign state’’ includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states.
Trustees are the admirals of the UCC vessels which are documented in their financial manifests as funds, in this case, of the children, as corporate parents.
Here is a snippet of the admirality terms contained within the definitions I have, with such great pleasure, provided, below:
(10)The term “crewman” means a person serving in any capacity on board a vessel or aircraft. The term “diplomatic visa” means a nonimmigrant visa bearing that title and issued to a nonimmigrant in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe (14)The term “foreign state” includes outlying possessions of a foreign state, but self-governing dominions or territories under mandate or trusteeship shall be regarded as separate foreign states (15)The term “immigrant” means every alien except an alien who is within one of the following classes of nonimmigrant aliens—(A) (i)an ambassador, public minister, or career diplomatic or consular officer who has been accredited by a foreign government, recognized de jure by the United States and who is accepted by the President or by the Secretary of State, and the members of the alien’s immediate family; (ii)upon a basis of reciprocity, other officials and employees who have been accredited by a foreign government recognized de jure by the United States, who are accepted by the Secretary of State, and the members of their immediate families; and (iii)upon a basis of reciprocity, attendants, servants, personal employees, and members of their immediate families, of the officials and employees who have a nonimmigrant status under (i) and (ii) above; (N)(i)the parent of an alien accorded the status of special immigrant under paragraph (27)(I)(i) (or under analogous authority under paragraph (27)(L)), but only if and while the alien is a child, or (ii)a child of such parent or of an alien accorded the status of a special immigrant under clause (ii), (iii), or (iv) of paragraph (27)(I) (or under analogous authority under paragraph (27)(L));
The U.S. even allows servants, per the Act.
(v) attendants, servants, and personal employees
of any such representative, officer, or
employee, and the members of the immediate
families of such attendants, servants, and personal
employees;
Yes, that is correct, I said servants, just like they were talking about when they wrote the Thirteenth Amendment
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Now, whether that is involuntary or voluntary, it is not even considered in the original text of INA because if it was involuntary, then that servant may have casted into this very unpleasant station of servitude for the crime of being poor, or of something similar under chattel law.
But then again, the act does not address this, nor does it address servitude of children.
Just saying.
But guess what!
Congress, still, has not passed any law dealing with what I call the trafficking of tiny humans because it is the money maker, hence, the children's trust funds.
INA does not even address child marriage.
It does not even address someone being brought into the country for organ transfers.
But, I digress.
Back to the Trump v. NAACP.
So, I am just going to go bold and focus on Sessions, because this is his playground.
Anyway, in a nutshell, it is being argued by NAACP et. al. that the rescission of DACA and DAPA is "arbitrary and capricious" because the agencies have no grounds to do it.
For those of you who do not know me, the term "arbitrary and capricious" triggers me into an episode of Post Traumatic Fraud Syndrome because that is the exact same language, and argument, used in the Michigan Cotton Doctrine.
I am so glad Sessions is going after the NAACP because they were really mean to my Sweetie and they have a children's trust fund, that, obviously, the children of "The Poors" (always said with clinched teeth) do not benefit, at all....not a damn dime.
Finally, I realized why the APA was circumvented in rulemaking.
It was because they were going for UCC law, because these charitable children's trusts are structured under state law, but only enforceable under international law, which they rewrote, just like they did with DACA and DAPA, because trusteeship is considered a separate foreign state.
(Domestic trafficking of tiny humans, called foster care and adoption through the many roads of the U.S. child welfare system should be in play very soon.)
Happy National Adoption Month! Get 'em. I got your back but I still do not like Noel Fransico because there is not one single reference to adoption, child welfare law or anything dealing with the trust funds.
