Showing posts with label LBGT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LBGT. Show all posts

Monday, February 24, 2020

SCOTUS Enters The Realms Of Parental Rights

This is Dana Nessel.

This is about Parental Rights.

Supreme Court to take on LGBTQ foster care case

In this June 26, 2015, file photo, a crowd celebrates outside of the Supreme Court in Washington after the court declared that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the U.S. On Friday, Aug. 16, 2019, the Justice Department brief filed telling the Supreme Court that federal law allows firing workers for being transgender. The brief is related to a group of three cases that the high court will hear in its upcoming term related to LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File) **FILE**
In this June 26, 2015, file photo, a crowd celebrates outside of the Supreme Court in Washington after the court declared that same-sex couples have a right to marry anywhere in the U.S. On Friday, Aug. 16, 2019, the Justice Department brief filed telling the Supreme Court that federal law allows firing workers for being transgender. The brief is related to a group of three cases that the high court will hear in its upcoming term related to LGBTQ discrimination in the workplace. 

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear a case next term involving the city of Philadelphia’s decision to no longer work with foster care agencies that refuse to place children with married, same-sex couples.

Catholic Social Services sued Philadelphia after officials said the Human Services Department no longer would certify foster care agencies that do not comply with the city’s anti-discrimination policy, effectively shutting off public funds to the social services arm of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Philadelphia’s city solicitor stood by the decision to end the partnership with Catholic Social Services (CSS) over anti-discrimination violations, which were reported in an investigation by The Philadelphia Inquirer.

“Unfortunately, CSS refused to consider qualified same-sex couples to become foster parents — even when these couples would be a safe, loving family for the child — and in doing so, CSS defied the City’s nondiscrimination policy,” City Solicitor Marcel S. Pratt said Monday in a written statement.

Groups advocating for religious liberty for child placement agencies welcomed the high court’s announcement. The archdiocese cheered the decision, having placed children in homes as an extension of its religious ministry since the late 18th century.

“There’s no reason to single out and punish adoption providers who are motivated by their sincerely held religious beliefs that the best home for a child includes a mother and father,” said Keisha Russell, counsel at First Liberty Institute, the law firm representing the plaintiffs. “When the government decides whose faith is or is not acceptable, we all lose.”

The Supreme Court’s announcement comes almost a year after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit unanimously upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by foster parents for CSS, ruling that the city had acted to end discrimination against LGBTQ parents, not out of anti-religious bigotry.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

JUDICIARY: NADLER DENOUNCES NEW HHS OFFICE DESIGNED TO HELP HEALTHCARE WORKERS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST PATIENTS



Nadler: The Trump Administration is turning an office dedicated to ending discrimination into an office designed to protect those who would discriminate

Washington, D.C. – Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) released the following statement denouncing the Trump Administration’s decision to reorganize the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to focus on defending health care workers who refuse—because of their personal moral and religious beliefs—to care for patients based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, or reproductive health choices:

“The Trump Administration’s announcement today is an attack on the values this country should stand for. This decision by HHS puts the full weight of the federal government behind those who discriminate against men and women at their most vulnerable moments.   

“In 1993, I was a leader in passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and I have long been an outspoken advocate for religious freedom. But RFRA was designed as a shield, not a sword. The law is intended to protect personal religious practices and beliefs from government interference, not grant carte blanche for those in positions of authority to impose their own beliefs on others.  This new policy has no constitutional or moral basis in our country.

“Today’s announcement isn’t about religious freedom. It’s about creating a system where LGBTQ people are discriminated against, women are refused reproductive care, and every American’s personal health care decisions are second guessed and ignored based on their provider’s personal views – including in federally funded programs. With this reorganization, the Trump Administration is turning an office dedicated to ending discrimination in health care into an office designed to enable those who would discriminate.

“The Constitution clearly protects religious beliefs and practices, but it also ensures that every American is treated equally under the law. President Trump, Acting Secretary Hargan, and OCR Director Serevino would do well to remember that.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, June 12, 2016

CONYERS STATEMENT ON MASS SHOOTING IN ORLANDO

Detroit, MI – House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) today released the following statement on the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida:

Dean of the U.S. House of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
“The shooting in Orlando early this morning, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, is a terrible tragedy, made even more appalling by the possibility that it may have been a hate crime against the LGBT community during LGBT Pride month. I am thankful that law enforcement appears to have prevented another attack against the LGBT community in Los Angeles this morning. As we investigate the facts, treat the wounded, and console the victims and their families, we must not delay in taking action to strengthen our gun laws to close gaps and make us safer. 

“The daily, deadly toll of gun violence on our streets, in addition to the all-too regular occurrence of mass shootings, has long demanded that Congress not shrink from this critical task.  We know that closing loopholes regarding firearms background checks, while not the solution for every such instance, will help reduce gun violence. However, as we approach the one-year anniversary of the mass shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, we are reminded that the system failed us in that situation, yet we have not addressed that weakness in the law. We must take action on a comprehensive set of measures as soon as possible.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

CONYERS Stands For Dignity & Respect For All

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
"North Carolina's House Bill 2 prevents local governments from passing and enforcing additional anti-discrimination laws. This also undermines existing ordinances that protect LGBT Americans, disabled Americans and veterans. I join my colleagues and fellow veterans in urging the Governor of North Carolina to ‪#‎RepealHB2‬ " said Conyers.
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Reps. Conyers, Scott, Nadler and Cohen Ask DOJ to Have 2007 OLC RFRA Opinion Reconsidered

Dean of the U.S. House
of Representatives
John Conyers, Jr.
WASHINGTON - Yesterday, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), House Education and Workforce Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA) and House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice Ranking Member Steve Cohen (D-TN) issued a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to follow-up on a request to instruct the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to review and reconsider an opinion issued on June 29, 2007. The opinion has been interpreted to permit federally funded faith-based organizations to use the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to override statutory employment nondiscrimination laws.  

The 2007 opinion, based on flawed analysis, found that RFRA was “reasonably construed” to permit World Vision, a religiously-affiliated federal grant recipient, to refuse to hire non-coreligionists for jobs that were funded by taxpayer money even though the statute governing the grant explicitly prohibited such religious hiring discrimination.

In the letter, the Members express that they are “…deeply concerned that the OLC opinion is being cited with increasing frequency to protect discriminatory employment practices in cases beyond the specific grant at issue in the opinion.”  The letter continues, “while the OLC opinion specified that its conclusion was ‘limited to the issuance of this grant to World Vision,’ it has since been used to justify hiring discrimination practices in other Justice Department programs such as the Violence Against Women Act, and in programs run by other federal agencies.”

“Although the OLC opinion is now more than eight and half years old, it remains problematic because it continues to be cited to justify blanket exemptions to nondiscrimination provisions in federally-funded programs,” said the lawmakers.



Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, June 29, 2015

Yet Another Reason Why Michigan Child Welfare Should Remain Under Federal Oversight

Michigan does not care about its children, nor does it care about a child's future.
Michigan foster youth

Michigan Attoreny General Bill Schuette does not care about the state's children, nor does he care about their future.

The reason Governor Snyder signed the Religious Adoptin Bills, allegedly,  was because the majority (just about all of them) of Christian child placing agencies threated to shut down, which would have put the state in direcgt violation of the federal consent agreement and cause the state to lose millions in federal funding.

What bothers me the most is not the fact that LBGT kids in foster care are beated, raped and drugged (billing Medicaid) and the state does nothing about it,not even reporting these transgressions.

Nor is it the fact that these victims of the state eventually run away or age out to live on the streets because these Christian child placing agencies do not condone the existence of these youth.

It is the simple fact that the Michigan Democratic Party has done absolutely nothing, for years, about the horrors in Michigan Child Welfare.

Governor Rick Snyder needs to be impeached for simple fact that he allowed the state to be strong-armed, neigh, blackmailed, by these contracted religious organizations to defraud the federal court and violate the civil rights of Michigan citizens.

This is just another reason why federal Judge Nancy Edmunds should not allow Michigan to be released from its federal oversight.

What about LGBT kids?


Calin is 17, slight, with a close-cropped haircut and delicate features that suggest he's younger than his years.

He's smart, well-spoken, and can describe the despicable things that have been done to him in the calm, firm voice of a survivor.

Calin is transgender — born with female anatomy, he identifies as male — and in foster care at a residential placement center. He's one of hundreds of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Michigan children in the state's care who seem completely overlooked in decisions about state adoption policy.

Earlier this month, the state Legislature passed a law, promptly signed by Gov. Rick Snyder, allowing adoption agencies the right to refuse service to prospective LGBT adoptive parents. It was a preemptive move designed to dilute last week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage.
Some faith-based adoption agencies, which account for about half of the $20 million Michigan spent last year on adoption services, threatened to close shop otherwise. It was a threat lawmakers couldn't ignore. Because the law passed, those agencies say, they'll stay in business.

But none of them — state lawmakers, those adoption agencies — seem to realize there are kids like Calin.

In the child welfare system, neither sexual orientation nor gender identity must be considered when placing a child in foster care. So finding a safe home for an LGBT kid is a hit-or-miss prospect.
Take LGBT families out of the mix, as Lansing did this month, and it becomes even harder.

"We're taking young people who have few options, and giving them fewer options," says Jerry Peterson, executive director of the Ruth Ellis Center, a Highland Park-based youth social services agency.

Statewide, there are more than 13,000 kids in care. About 2,200 of those kids are seeking adoption.
Conservative estimates suggest 5% to 10% of kids in care are LGBT, but Peterson believes — as a 2014 study on foster kids in Los Angeles County found — that it's as much as one in five, about twice as many as in the population as a whole.
When a placement fails, it's hard for the child.

"Not only have these young people been rejected by their families of origins, they have been rejected by five or six foster families as well, if they come out while in care, and the families say you can't live in my home," Peterson said. "I struggle with a child welfare system that claims to have the safety and well being of the child as paramount concern, when in fact the system perpetrates trauma over and over again by refusing to acknowledge who they are."

Adopted as an infant by a family member, Calin, which isn't his real name, says he suffered years of physical and emotional abuse at the hands of his adoptive mother. Before he knew he was trans, he came out as a lesbian. He says his mom didn't respond well. She started taking him to church more often, and told him he risked going to hell. She took away his phone and computer, wouldn't allow him to spend time with friends. And the physical abuse continued.

When Calin realized he was trans, he thought things might get better. He'd always acted like a boy. Knowing he was trans, Calin thought, might help his mother make sense of him.

It didn't. Increasingly isolated, in despair, he attempted suicide, taking so many pills he went into acute kidney failure and came close to causing permanent damage. But after he got home from the hospital, things seemed OK. His mom, he thinks, was scared she'd lose her child.

Then it got much, much worse.

There was an argument, over a cell phone Calin pays for himself. Calin says his mother pushed him into the bathtub, trying to take it from him. He said she hit him, scratching his face, and when he climbed out, his uncle tripped him, pinning him on the ground, slapping his face and choking him.

The police came. Calin went to the hospital.

And his mother left him there.

In a court hearing, he listened as a social worker testified that his mom had said she didn't care what happened to him, that she wouldn't take him home.

Now he's in care, waiting to age out of a system that isn't built to accommodate kids like him.
For Calin, adoption isn't the goal. He says he's not scared of his mother any more. But he can't go back home. Calin dreams of starting his own business, maybe in California, where he believes he can find acceptance. He turns 18 early next year. The end of this — and the beginning of adulthood — is in sight.

But he knows what he has lost.

"Sometimes, I wish I could be in foster care, with a foster family," he said. "For the simple fact that you still get to be a kid."

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Michigan Christian Child Welfare Medicaid Fraud Laws


It has taken me a moment to reiterate what I have been proselytizing for years about Medicaid fraud in child welfare, but, for now, I can give another reason why no one will talk about it.
I cannot respout links on every issue in this faith-based adoption bullshit, but I can reiterate the eminent problems with privatization.

I cannot respout the links on every issue in this faith-based adoption privatization bullshit, but I can reiterate the eminent problems with Medicaid fraud in child welfare.

I can, also, remind the good Christian-based child placing agencies in Michigan that I know what you do and I know what happens with parents who are gay and end up with a child abuse case, just because they are gay, and it is not good.

I can, also, remind the good Christian-based adoption agencies in Michigan that I know what you do and I know what happens with foster children who are gay, and it is not good.

This has everything to do with covering up Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare, in the name of God.

That is why no one will listen, see, or speak upon Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare...too much frederal money would be lost and too many would lose their jobs and businesses...in the name of God.

#Time2AuditGod

Snyder signs controversial faith-based adoption bills

Lansing — Gov. Rick Snyder signed a controversial package of bills Thursday allowing faith-based agencies to turn away gay and lesbian couples seeking state-supported adoptions.

Snyder signed the bills without ceremony, just one day after the Legislature sent him the legislation. The law goes into effect immediately. The ACLU of Michigan vows to challenge it.

The new law allows faith-based adoption agencies to invoke their sincerely held religious beliefs in denying adoption placement services to gay and lesbian couples who want to be parents. The agencies would be required to refer gay and lesbian couples to another adoption agency.

In a statement, the Republican governor emphasized the bills puts adoption practices, already in use, into law.

Snyder’s quick signature of the bills came after Senate Republicans held an unexpected vote on the legislation Wednesday that was not on the chamber’s published agenda. The bills cleared a Senate committee in late April.

The swift passage and gubernatorial signature took opponents by surprise and left little time for members of the business-dominated Michigan Competitive Workplace Coalition to get direction from corporate leadership on whether they could oppose the bills, said Shelli Weisberg, legislative director for the ACLU of Michigan, a member of the coalition.

“By the time they all tried to get it through the hierarchy of where they would be on these bills, they were being signed by the governor this morning,” Weisberg said Thursday. “They moved so fast. I had no inkling they were moving until Wednesday morning.”

The coalition was formed last year to lobby Snyder and the Republican-controlled Legislature for a ban on discrimination in hiring, housing and public accommodations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Snyder’s office said that adoption rates in Michigan have continued to increase in recent years. In the 2014 fiscal year, 85 percent of children in the foster system were adopted, up from 70 percent in 2011. As many as 13,000 children reside in Michigan’s foster care system at any given time, according to lawmakers.

“The state has made significant progress in finding more forever homes for Michigan kids in recent years and that wouldn’t be possible without the public-private partnerships that facilitate the adoption process,” Snyder said in a statement. “We are focused on ensuring that as many children are adopted to as many loving families as possible regardless of their makeup.”

In fiscal year 2014, Michigan spent $19.9 million on contracts with private agencies for adoption services, according to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. It accounted for about 85 percent of the $23.2 million the state spent that year on adoption support services.

Seventeen of Michigan’s 62 adoption placement agencies are faith-based, according to the Michigan Catholic Conference.

The ACLU said Thursday it is preparing to challenge the new law in court by contending the adoption agencies serve as agents of state government when placing children under contract with the DHHS.

“It’s illegal for the state of Michigan to discriminate in these placements,” said Rana Elmir, deputy director.

Paul A. Long, president of the Michigan Catholic Conference, praised the governor’s action Thursday, saying the new law “will ensure the state does not discriminate against social service agencies that serve the poor and vulnerable while providing foster care and adoption services to the general public.”

Critics have said the new law gives faith-based adoption agencies a legal license to discriminate against gays and lesbians.

“Gov. Rick Snyder has proven today that he has utter disdain for the welfare of children in Michigan and that he cares only about empowering backwards discrimination,” said Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a national advocacy group for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. The group placed a full-page ad, “Shame on Gov. Snyder,” in Friday’s The Detroit News.
Opponents of the new adoption law have compared it to the religious freedom law Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed in March that caused a national uproar because it would have allowed private businesses to refuse to serve gays and lesbians. Pence later reversed course and signed a second law banning discrimination against gays and lesbians for public accommodations and business services.
“We hope that Gov. Snyder is prepared for the same amount of backlash that was seen in Indiana when they passed similar RFRA-style legislation and we encourage the people to raise up their voices in protest,” Lonnie Scott, executive director of Progress Michigan, said in a statement Thursday.

Snyder has vowed to veto a Religious Freedom Restoration Act bill modeled after Indiana’s ill-fated law if it’s not tied to a bill adding sexual orientation to Michigan’s law banning discrimination in workplaces, housing and public accommodations.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Attorney General Bill Schuette on same-sex marriage ruling

Pay attention to the last words of Michigan Attorney General Schuette.

I am quite sure when the first child welfare case comes up in dealing with "loving parents", these words will come back to haunt the privatized, religious state agencies who will continue to disparagingly treat gay children as having psychological disorders (Medicaid billable), becaues we all know, these "gay kids" just may grow up to be married one day.

 
Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Another Michigan Reason To Remain Under Federal Monitoring of Child Welfare

Michigan has just generated another reason why it should remain under federal court monitoring.

In the spirit of political mockery, I shall resort to my typical, palatable ridicule, in the color of .
Spokesperson for Michigan Faith-based child welfare agencies
fuchsia

Adoption agencies can claim religious objection
Faith-based adoption agencies would be allowed to refuse to serve prospective parents, like same-sex or unmarried couples, if doing so would go against their religious beliefs under a package of bills that passed the state Senate on Wednesday.

Faith-based adoption agencies, along with their in-house child placing agencies, would be allowed to continue its practices of excalated billing to keep children in foster care placements longer, if doing so would maximize revenues which is the corre of their religious beliefs.

The 26-12 vote comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is on the verge of ruling later this month on whether same-sex marriages should be legal in Michigan and several other states.

The majority, all 26 Senators who voted for this legislation have pleased their political campaign contributors to ensure a bright, and prosperous political future.

Critics of the bills have derided the legislation as state-sanctioned discrimination — especially because many of the faith-based agencies receive public funding from the state. But supporters say it will help keep all options open for adoptive parents, while not forcing the agencies to compromise their principles for fear of legal retaliation or face closure because of a loss of state funding.

I am criticizing the bills because the legislation violates the current federal settlement agreement of family placements and blatantly spurns federal policies in child welfare.  The Bills will thwart any legal retaliation and agency closing because it creates another veil of a pseudo-immunity when it comes to fraudulent billing practices.

Besides, crushing a child's spirit by telling them they cannot be adopted by people they may well already know and love will help the adoption agencies when increasing the billing for psychotropic drugs to make the kid stop crying.

In the 2014-15 budget year, $19.9 million in state and federal funds went toward supporting agencies for adoption and foster care services, according to the state of Human Services. Nearly $10 million of that total went to faith-based agencies that would be covered under the religious objection bills.

State contracts in child welfaree have no bidding process, no audit,  no compliance review, no sanctions, no referrals for investigation, no contractual disbarment, no prosecution, and no recovery of fraudulent billing.  As the state continues its path of privitization, which has demonstratingly, failed miserably in Kansas, the legislation is only a cover up for the egregious practices done to children in the name of God, which keeps the federal court monitoring in the dark of why it needs to continue to be under the aegis of the feds.

"If they close their doors, I don't know what we'll do with all the children," said Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge. "This is a real threat."

What to do with all the children?  Here is a revelutionary idea...place them with people who care about them.

Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, quoted scripture, saying Jesus told a woman accused of adultery, " 'Go and sin no more.' He called it out. He didn't just accept it and say live however you want. The Creator is pretty clear on certain things."

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. -- Psalm 137:9

But opponents said the bills legalize discrimination against the LGBT communities, as well as unmarried couples.

Argumentative rouse.  The Bills promote cloak and dagger rhetoric to cover up fraudulent billing and the horrific treatment of children in foster care to hoodwink Judge Nancy Edmunds to release the state from federal monitoring.

"These RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) adoption bills are the most egregious example of religious conservatism run amok in our government," said Sen. Coleman Young, D-Detroit. "Children are in desperate need of stable and loving homes. And today, we're slashing those opportunities because of archaic, closed-minded thinking."

The purpose of RFRA is to lay claim on the Social Security Trust fund for private investment off the poor.  Period.  I know.  I worked on it.

Other Democrats said the timing of the Senate action on the bill is clear.

"Similar laws are being passed to push back against the eventual legalization of same-sex marriage," Sen. Curtis Hertel Jr., D-East Lansing. "You're once again on the wrong side of history."

These religious-based organizations are attempting to make history by rewriting it.
Democrats tried to get eight amendments passed that would: require faith-based agencies to provide their policies in writing to potential clients, as well on their websites and displayed in their facilities and comply with state and federal civil rights laws; prohibit adoption agencies that receive more than $500,000 in state funding from being able to use the religious objection argument; allow for second parent adoptions for unmarried couples. All the amendments failed.

Denying due process, violating federal policies, ignoring civil rights of children.   For the aforementioned reasons, alone, Michigan should remain under federal court oversight of its child welfare.  

The three bills passed the House last month on mostly party-line votes. The Senate version includes a requirement that faith-based adoption agencies provide references to other agencies if they refuse service to prospective parents. So the bill will have to go back to the House for concurrence.

Let us just see if Democratic leadership can come up with a plan to toll the Bills sine die.  After all, recess of the House is coming up, quickly.

But Gov. Rick Snyder has been coy about whether he'll support the bills if they reach his desk. He said that the adoption bills would need further review and that he's in favor of children being adopted by "loving families" and "loving parents." He didn't specify if that included same-sex couples.

Synder is well aware of the percarious situation the state is in with its federal settlement agreement.

He has said he will veto a Religious Freedom Restoration Act — which caused a furor in Indiana and Arkansas recently — without an expansion of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to include the LGBT community.

Without the expansion, these child welfare agencies can now, not olny not hire and terminate an individual based upon their life, but ensure they can bill Meidicaid for all the LBGT children, or the children who engage in sexual activity with other children in foster care to "pray the gay away".

That bill would provide a legal defense for businesses who are subject to action by the state for refusing services to individuals based on their religious beliefs.

BINGO!  Michigan found a way to create a legal defense fund for these religious child placing agencies to be defended from prosecution of federal fraud and civil rights violations.

#Time2AuditGod

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Michigan Legal Community Against Children Hate Legislation

The Family Law Section of the Michigan Bar opposes legislation allowing child placing agencies to deny services in child welfare based on religious belief on the position that the State will be severely financially penalized with reductions in its federal participation rates.

I consider the legislation to be purely cruel and of moral turpitude but the best part is the State Bar has recognized the potential federal funding issue of violating civil rights.

What happens to these State laws when SCOTUS upholds gay marriage?

There is more to this than gay marriage. This is about getting their hands on child welfare money.

I am putting my money on the Governor doing a veto.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Monday, October 14, 2013

Michigan lawmakers prepare for court ruling on same-sex marriage and adoption

The following are the Michigan Bar Association's positions on pending federal ruling on same-sex marriage and adoption.

Sections and Committees
The Family Law Section submitted public policy position reports on the following items:
Support and AmendHB 4881 Family law; marriage and divorce; name change upon solemnization of marriage; make gender-neutral. Creates new act.
SupportHB 4909 Family law; marriage and divorce; prohibition on same-sex marriage; remove. Amends secs. 2, 3 & 9 of 1846 RS 83 (MCL 551.2 et seq.) & repeals secs. 1 & 4 of 1846 RS 83 (MCL 551.1 & 551.4).
SupportHB 4910 Family law; marriage and divorce; prohibition of same-sex marriage; remove from foreign marriage act. Amends secs. 1 of 1939 PA 168 (MCL 551.271) & repeals sec. 2 of 1939 PA 168 (MCL 551.272).
SupportHJR V Family law; marriage and divorce; constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage and civil unions; repeal. Repeals sec. 25, art. I of the state constitution.
SupportSB 0405 Family law; marriage and divorce; prohibition on same-sex marriage; remove. Amends secs. 2, 3 & 9 of 1846 RS 83 (MCL 551.2 et seq.) & repeals sec. 1 & 4 of 1846 RS 84 (MCL 551.1 & 551.4).
SupportSB 0406 Family law; marriage and divorce; prohibition on same-sex marriage; remove from foreign marriage act. Amends sec.1 of 1939 PA 168 (MCL 551.271) & repeals sec. 2 of 1939 PA 168 (MCL 551.272).
SupportSB 0457 Children; adoption; second parent adoption; provide for. Amends secs. 24 & 51, ch. X of 1939 PA 288 (MCL 710.24 & 710.51).


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Michigan will continue to ignore any federal court ruling on child welfare

Here is my question to the court:  "If a gay couple cannot adopt a child, does it mean a gay child cannot be adopted by a straight couple?"

It does not matter what the courts rule on same-sex marriages because when it comes to dealing with adoption from a Michigan public adoption agency, Michigan Children's Institute Superintendent, Bill Johnson, will continue to ignore the constitutionalities of state and federal law.

A judicial ruling on the issue of same-sex marriages, in essence, will intensely jeopardize in the finances of private charities as they stem to loose benefactors and may not be eligible for federal funding.

Michigan must aggressively challenge the potential of its ban on same-sex marriages being lifted because if it is, it will reek havoc on the secrecy of the omnipotence of Michigan Children's Institute.

Dozens of Michigan same-sex couples hope for federal judge to give go-ahead for marriage


Robin Miner-Swartz and Betsy Miner-Swartz will be glued to their phones on Wednesday afternoon as they wait for news on what could be a historic day for the state.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman is expected to issue a ruling, perhaps that afternoon, on whether Michigan’s 2004 ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. He also may decide whether the state’s ban on same-sex adoption should be tossed.

Should he lift the ban on same-sex marriage and decline to issue a stay while it’s being appealed, same-sex marriage would be legal in Michigan until a higher court overturned it.
Dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of same-sex couples are preparing to tie the knot Wednesday afternoon, according to organizers in the gay and lesbian communities.

Ingham and Washtenaw counties are among those offering to waive waiting times for marriage licenses, and 44 clergy members statewide will be on call to perform ceremonies, according to Randy Block of the Michigan Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Network, who has compiled a list of available county clerks and clergy.

Robin Miner-Swartz, 42, and Betsy Miner-Swartz, 49, of Lansing have been together for 10 years and celebrated a commitment ceremony in 2008 with friends and family. Now, they’re hoping for a chance to make it legal.

“We want this to happen in Michigan,” Robin Miner-Swartz said. “It’s just another hoop. But on the other hand, this is a very big deal.”

Bishop Jerry Brohl of the Blessed John XXII Community Church in Wyandotte will have his robes on Wednesday afternoon in anticipation of couples seeking a wedding ceremony.

“I don’t think God makes the kind of distinctions that we do,” he said. “Love is love. We’re an interfaith Christian church, and we welcome all people.”

In the case before Friedman, April DeBoer, 42, and Jayne Rowse, 48, of Hazel Park are asking the court to overturn a 2004 law that prohibits same-sex couples from marrying in the state and to declare unconstitutional Michigan’s Adoption Code, which prohibits joint adoption by gay or lesbian couples.
“This is the defining civil rights issue of our era,” said attorney Kenneth Mogill, representing the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit filed in January 2012.

Michigan State Attorney General Bill Schuette will argue to uphold the marriage ban before Friedman on Wednesday.

“The United States Supreme Court has ruled that states retain the constitutional authority to define marriage,” said Joy Yearout, spokeswoman for Schuette. “We will continue to defend the Michigan Constitution in this case.”

Friedman could issue his opinion from the bench. Should he lift the ban on same-sex marriage, Schuette’s office would likely ask him to issue a stay while the decision was being appealed to a higher court.

If Friedman declines, same-sex marriage would be legal in the state immediately.

“What I’m telling people is: If you want to do it, now’s the time,” said attorney Dana Nessel, who represents same-sex couples. “If you want to file your taxes as a couple, if you want to file a petition for adoption, you will be legally married until a court of higher jurisdiction overturns it, if that should happen.”

Schuette’s office said Friday that “it wouldn’t be proper to prejudge the ruling at this time, and we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.”

The case has captured the attention of the gay and lesbian community nationwide.

DeBoer and Rowse, registered nurses, have three adopted children, all with special needs. Rowse adopted Nolan, 4, and Jacob, 3, shortly after birth. DeBoer adopted Ryanne, 3, as a newborn.

Under Michigan law, because the two cannot legally marry, Rowse has no legal standing with Ryanne, and DeBoer is not recognized as a parent to Nolan and Jacob. As a result, they argue in their lawsuit, they and their children are denied the same rights as heterosexual couples, such as authorizing medical care and accessing educational records. Should one woman die, the other would have no legal claim to her partner’s children.

Schuette, in fighting the case, has argued that it is up to states to determine their marriage laws. He argues that when it comes to same-sex couples and adoption, “traditional marriages” ensure that “children receive proper role models of each gender ... that the state may conclude that it is better for children to be reared with both a mother and a father.”

Attorneys representing DeBoer and Rowse point to numerous studies showing children who are raised by same-sex parents are no different from those raised by heterosexual parents, including a statement by the American Psychiatric Association, which is now part of the court record.

“Numerous studies over the last three decades consistently demonstrate that children raised by gay or lesbian parents exhibit the same level of emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functions as those raised by heterosexual parents,” the association says. “The research shows that the optimal development for children is based not on the sexual orientation of the parents but on stable attachments to committed and nurturing adults.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, March 8, 2013

Conyers Joins President Obama, Applauds Signing of Violence Against Women Act


(WASHINGTON) – Today, Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) attended the President’s signing ceremony for the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA). Last Thursday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 286 to 138, with 87 House Republicans breaking with their party, to pass the bipartisan version of VAWA that passed the Senate overwhelmingly by a vote of 78 to 22. The Senate version of VAWA includes critical protections for the LGBT, immigrant, and Native American communities. In addition, the legislation expands protections for campus security, and reduces the backlog for domestic violence evidence kits. Rep. Conyers has been a leader on the issue of combating domestic violence, working since 1994 when the original VAWA first became law, to expand protections to all victims of violence. Following the signing ceremony, Rep. Conyers released this statement:

U.S. Representative
John Conyers, Jr.
“It was an honor to stand alongside President Obama as he signed the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization into law. I am so pleased that Congress finally put partisanship aside to reauthorize this essential legislation,” said Conyers.

“Since 1994, VAWA has helped to reduce domestic violence by more than 64 percent. The 2013 reauthorization expands VAWA so that it now applies to all victims of domestic violence, including the LGBT, immigrant, and Native American communities.

“The issue of domestic violence is a serious problem in the United States. But, in reauthorizing VAWA, Congress and the President have taken another important step in making strides against domestic abuse.”


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Conyers, Pelosi, Moore Applaud Passage of the Violence Against Women Act


House Votes Down Weak House GOP VAWA, Passes Bipartisan Senate Version of VAWA that Protects LGBT, Native American, Immigrant, Campus and Sex Trafficking Victims

(WASHINGTON) – Today, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Representatives Gwen Moore (D-WI), John Conyers (D-MI), applauded the passage of the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) following the failure of the partisan and discriminatory proposal put forth this week by House Republicans.  With House Democrats pushing for a stronger, more comprehensive reauthorization, the Senate’s version passed the House by a vote of 286-138, extending the law’s crucial protections to LGBT, Native American and immigrant victims, providing for more rape kits as well as a national registry of forensic evidence from sexual assault cases, strengthening criminal anti-trafficking statutes, providing for temporary housing for victims, and addressing domestic violence on American college campuses.

“The Violence Against Women Act has long ensured that no woman would ever be forced to suffer in silence in the face of domestic violence and abuse.  Democrats were committed to keeping that promise – that’s why we led the charge to enact the strong, bipartisan Senate bill and secure a victory for all women, no matter their background or community,” said Leader Pelosi.  “Today, a bipartisan majority of the House joined the Senate in reaffirming our pledge to America’s women and families, strengthening this landmark law, extending protection to LGBT Americans, Native Americans, and immigrants, and preserving the security of all women.”

“For over 500 days women have been waiting and praying for this day to come,” said Rep. Gwen Moore.  “Today, the majority of this body stood up for all women – including Native, LGBT and immigrant women. We answered their clarion call and declared that we will protect the victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and human trafficking.  I want to thank Democratic Leader Pelosi for her staunch leadership and support in the passage of this legislation as well as House Judiciary Ranking Member John Conyers and so many of my colleagues who stood with us through this fight.  Today is truly a victory for women everywhere.”

“I am pleased that the House of Representatives voted to protect all victims of domestic violence by passing the strong bill already passed by the Senate to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act,” saidRep. John Conyers, Jr.  “Since 1994, the Violence Against Women Act has safeguarded victims of domestic violence by providing funding to help law enforcement investigate crimes of domestic violence and prosecute those who criminally victimize women.  In addition, VAWA established the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice, and created community violence prevention programs.  It is critical that we continue these programs and, with this subsequent reauthorization, those safeguards will be afforded to the LGBT, Native American, and immigrant communities as well.  While there were significant stumbling blocks in reauthorizing VAWA last Congress, I am proud that Congress was able to come together today for a cause that should never be partisan: protecting all victims of domestic violence.”

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Reps. Moore, Conyers and Slaughter Introduce VAWA That Protects LGBT, Native American, Immigrant, Campus and Sex Trafficking Victims


http://daymax.com/ImagesJPG/CONGRESS.jpg
(
Bipartisan Senate Version Of VAWA Deserves A Vote In House

WASHINGTON – Today, Representatives Gwen Moore (D-WI), John Conyers (D-MI), and Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), introduced the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act as an amendment to fix the partisan and discriminatory proposal put forth this week by House Republicans. The Senate’s version, which passed by a strong bipartisan vote of 78-22, extends the law’s crucial protections to LGBT, Native American and immigrant victims, provides for more rape kits as well as a national registry of forensic evidence from sexual assault cases, strengthens criminal anti-trafficking statutes, provides for temporary housing for victims and addresses domestic violence on American college campuses. Moore, Conyers and Slaughter urged members to support the bipartisan, inclusive Senate version of VAWA, instead of the partisan Republican proposal, which was written behind closed doors and waters down crucial protections against domestic violence.

“These games must end,” said Rep. Moore. “Republicans have introduced their version of VAWA, under the Senate bill number and the Senate title. I guess they thought no one would notice their bill fails to adequately protect LGBT, Native American, campus and sex trafficking victims and actually weakens current law. Their bill title may say VAWA, but it is far from the Senate bill that works to protect all victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and human trafficking and passed with a strong bipartisan vote. Today I joined Representatives Conyers and Slaughter to introduce the real VAWA – the Senate VAWA. We have the support; we are waiting on Republican leadership to bring our VAWA bill to the floor for a vote.”

“The Senate has passed a strong bipartisan bill that contains critical protections for all victims of domestic violence,” said Rep. Conyers, Ranking Member on the House Judiciary Committee.  “The House, and victims of domestic violence deserve an up or down vote on this critical legislation.  But instead the House Majority is playing politics and pushing through a partisan version of VAWA that they know is dead on arrival in the Senate. It’s time for the House Republicans to join their colleagues in the Senate and stand up for all victims.”

“We’ve heard no explanation for why the Republican Majority is opposed to protecting the lives and persons of anyone in the United States from domestic violence,” said Rep. Slaughter, Ranking Member on the House Rules Committee. “As an original author of the Violence Against Women Act, it never crossed my mind that this law would ever be used as a vehicle for discrimination. The bipartisan Senate proposal deserves an up-or-down vote in the House, but unfortunately, we anticipate another closed rule on a discriminatory, partisan version of this landmark law, which has been responsible for reducing domestic violence incidents by over 60 percent since its passage.”

***Below, please find a fact sheet prepared by the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff comparing the bipartisan, inclusive Senate version of VAWA with the partisan, discriminatory House Republican version of VAWA.

House Republican VAWA Weakens S. 47
Partisan Substitute Deletes Critical Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence

          This week, the House will consider a substitute version of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.  While the bill has been noticed as S. 47, the version before the House is significantly different than the legislation that passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 78 to 22 and with the support of all Democrats, all female Senators, and a majority of Republicans.  The Senate passed bill incorporates years of analysis of the problem, and solutions proposed by law enforcement, victims, and victim service providers.  The House bill does not.

Rather than allow the House to take an up or down vote on the bipartisan Senate passed bill, the House Republican Majority is pushing through legislation that will pick and choose which victims of domestic violence are deserving of protection. The proposed House VAWA substitute is a Washington-based solution created without participation from people who work with victims in the field and without any input from House Democrats. Notably, the House substitute omits protections for LGBT victims by removing all references to “gender identity” and “sexual orientation,” despite clear evidence revealing that domestic and sexual violence affects LGBT victims at equal or greater levels than the rest of the population.

In addition, the House VAWA substitute significantly weakens the protections for Native American women. Rather than give tribes the authority they need to protect Indian women, the House substitute limits tribes to charging an abuser with misdemeanors punishable by no more than one year in prison, even if the abuser has committed rape, a vicious assault, or another serious violent crime.

The Republican substitute for VAWA also limits important protection for immigrant victims. Among other problems, the legislation fails to include a Senate provision making “stalking” one of the crimes that would allow a victim to get a U visa. Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill also jeopardizes foreign fiancés by omitting critical protections and enforcement mechanisms designed to properly regulate international marriage brokers.

Apart from these problems, the House Republican substitute of VAWA makes campuses less safe by eliminating important provisions in S. 47 that strengthened programs that help combat and prevent violent sexual crimes on college campuses. The House Republican substitute eliminates the SAFER Act, which would provide law enforcement with the critical resources it needs to ensure that perpetrators of sexual violence are brought to justice. The Republican substitute removes the bipartisan reauthorization of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act which provides essential protections for victims, as well as tools and resources for victims service providers and law enforcement.

Due to these concerns, the House Republican substitute is opposed by groups including the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Against Women, the National Congress of American Indians, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and members of the Senate.


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Virginia Passes Its First Medicaid Fraud Law

Under the guise of a morality, the State of Virginia has just passed its first Medicaid fraud law.

Reparative therapy for children is not approved as legitimate therapy pursuant to U.S. Department of Human Services guidelines.

In short, you can not bill the taxpayer to "pray-the-gay-away".



The Virginia Senate voted 22-18 on Thursday to approve a bill that would allow private adoption and foster care agencies to deny placement of children based on religious or moral beliefs, including disapproval of homosexuality.
The action by the Senate, which fell mostly along partisan lines, came one week after the state’sHouse of Delegates approved an identical bill. With Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell saying he planned to sign the legislation if it came to him, the bill is certain to become law.
“This bill authorizes every one of the 80 private adoption agencies licensed in Virginia to refuse to offer their services to any GLBT person based on a written moral policy, which they can make up tomorrow,” said State Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria and Fairfax), who is gay.
“The bill says they can do that no matter how qualified the prospective mom and dad is to become a parent,” said Ebbin in an impassioned floor speech urging his colleagues to vote against the bill.
All 20 Republicans in the chamber voted for the bill, with two conservative-leaning Democrats, Sen. Charles Colgan of Prince William County and Sen. Phillip Puckett of Russell County joining Republicans to vote for the measure.
The bill, SB 349, became known as the “conscience clause” bill because supporters say it would protect the religious rights of faith based adoption and foster placement agencies, many of whom are funded by the state.
Ebbin and other opponents of the bill said that although it doesn’t say so directly, they believe it is aimed mostly at allowing adoption agencies to turn away LGBT people as adoptive or foster parents.
The bill doesn’t change the state’s existing adoption and foster placement law and policies that allow an agency to place a child with a gay parent if the agency wishes to do so. Existing law prohibits placement of children with an unmarried couple, gay or straight, but it does not bar single parent adoptions or foster placements for gays.
“One of the most important reasons not to pass this bill is I’m sure that next year or soon thereafter we’ll be addressing a bill that seeks to directly do what this bill does do indirectly – and that is to achieve the ultimate goal to ban foster care and adoption by GLBT people completely,” Ebbins told his Senate colleagues.
In an effort to lessen the bill’s impact, Democratic opponents introduced 18 floor amendments on Wednesday. The Senate voted down each of the amendments.
One of the amendments, introduced by Ebbin, called for prohibiting a foster parent from arranging for a gay or lesbian child to undergo “reparative” therapy to change his or her sexual orientation from gay to straight.
The bill could “endanger children – GLBT children – who make up a disproportionate share of youth in our child welfare system,” Ebbin said. “Once this bill becomes law, foster care agencies contracting with the state to place our children will be free to place children in homes that are not in their best interest and potentially damaging to them,” he said.
Ebbin said studies have shown that so-called reparative or conversion therapy often causes those undergoing it great emotional distress and sometimes leads to suicide.
Sen. Jeffrey McWaters (R-Virginia Beach), the lead sponsor of the bill, said the bill was aimed only at protecting the religious and moral beliefs of adoption and foster care agencies that provide an important service for the state.
“This is completely consistent with state and federal law,” he said during the Senate debate. “It does not change who can or cannot adopt a child.”