Jill reblogged the post and I feel it is so clear and important to understand, along with being really glad that Gronda is posting again, I also want to spread the post. Hugs. Scottie
These people want the right to adopt LGBTQIA kids, then force them to be straight cis kids. This is not about finding homes for these kids, or they would support same-sex couples and single people fostering kids, especially LGBTQIA kids who would enjoy being in a home with people like themselves. Nope, this is about trying to change the kids, to put them through conversion therapy, or find other ways to stop their development as the person who they are. How can these people be so backwards and regressive in 2023? Again as I said before, if they want to live in the past, OK. Just don’t demand everyone live that way also. Be like the Amish or Mennonites. Oh and did you all hear about the republican GOP leader and his wife who was the co-founder of Mom’s for Liberty? Seems the very people attacking gay kids and insisting on straight cis family values were having three ways with another woman. Yes, the co-founder of the group trying to erase gay people from society was having lesbian sex and her husband who pushed the idea of one man / one woman marriage only sex was into 3 way sex with two women. Hugs
Quote from the article, again ask your self why these highly religious anti-LGBTQIA people are demanding the right to foster kids who are LGBTQIA!
But the attorneys general do not believe this is enough. Their letter argues the proposal violates freedom of religion because those unwilling to support LGBTQ foster children “would be excluded from providing care to as many as one-third of foster children ages 12-21.”
Missouri’s child welfare agency already offers guidance to foster care providers asking them to use a child’s ‘preferred name and pronouns’ and provide ‘physically and emotionally safe and supportive care and resources regardless of one’s personal attitudes and beliefs’
A qualifying foster parent under the proposed federal rule would need to be educated on the needs of the child’s sexuality or gender identity and, if the child wishes, “facilitate the child’s access to age-appropriate resources, services, and activities that support their health and well-being” (photo illustration by Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder).
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey this week joined with 18 other states to oppose a proposed federal rule that aims to protect LGBTQ youth in foster care and provide them with necessary services.
The attorneys general argue in a letter to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services that the proposed rule — which requires states to provide safe and appropriate placements with providers who are appropriately trained about the child’s sexual orientation or gender identity — amounts to religion-based discrimination and violates freedom of speech.
“As a foster parent myself,” Bailey said in a news release Tuesday, “I am deeply invested in protecting children and putting their best interests first.”
“Biden’s proposed rule does exactly the opposite by enacting policies meant to exclude people with deeply held religious beliefs from being foster parents.”
The rule is part of a package of federal proposals on foster care and is an extension of the Biden administration’s broader push to protect LGBTQ kids in foster care.
“Because of family rejection and abuse,” the Biden administration said in a September press release, LGBTQ children are “overrepresented in foster care where they face poor outcomes, including mistreatment and discrimination because of who they are.”
State agencies would be required under the rule to provide safe and appropriate foster care placements for those who are “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex,” along with children who are “non-binary or have non-conforming gender identity or expression.”
A qualifying foster parent would need to be educated on the needs of the child’s sexuality or gender identity and, if the child wishes, “facilitate the child’s access to age-appropriate resources, services, and activities that support their health and well-being.”
An example of a safe and appropriate placement is one where a provider is “expected to utilize the child’s identified pronouns, chosen name, and allow the child to dress in an age-appropriate manner,” according to the proposal, “that the child believes reflects their self-identified gender identity and expression.”
The attorneys general characterize that as “forcing an individual to use another’s preferred pronouns by government fiat,” in violation of the First Amendment.
Robert Fischer, director of communications for Missouri LGBTQ advocacy organization PROMO, said the freedom of religion “doesn’t give any person the right to impose those beliefs on others, particularly to discriminate.”
“Any state official who claims to put ‘children’s interests first’ and in the same breath is willing to risk their well-being and opportunity to thrive in the name of religion — I think that speaks for itself,” Fischer told The Independent.
The rule prohibits retaliation against children who identify as LGBTQ or are perceived as LGBTQ.
Public agencies would need to notify children about the option to request foster homes identified as “safe and appropriate” and tell them how to report concerns about their placement.
Agencies would also have to go through extra steps before placing transgender, intersex and gender non-conforming children in group care settings that are divided by sex.
The “majority” of states, according to the proposed rule, would have to “expand their efforts” to recruit and identify providers who could meet the needs of LGBTQ children.
Missouri guidelines
Laws and policies for protecting LGBTQ youth in foster care — relating to kids’ rights, supports, placement considerations, caregiver qualifications and definitions — currently vary by state.
According to a federal report published in January, which reviewed states’ laws and policies, Missouri does not have laws or policies explicitly addressing any of those five categories.
Most states — 39 states and Washington, D.C. — have “explicit protections from harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression,” according to a federal report, as of January. Missouri is not one of them.
Twenty-two states and D.C. as of January, require agencies to provide tailored services and supports to LGBTQ youth, and eight states and D.C. offer case management and facilitate access to “gender-affirming medical, mental health and social services.”
Children’s Division, the agency within the Missouri Department of Social Services that oversees foster care, offers guidance on their website for providers and child welfare staff in “supporting LGBTQ youth in foster care,” but still does not appear to have official policy on the issue.
A spokesperson for the Missouri Department of Social Services did not respond to a request for comment.
Those guidelines include using the child’s “preferred name and pronouns,” along with establishing a supportive environment and providing “physically and emotionally safe and supportive care and resources regardless of one’s personal attitudes and beliefs.”
The Department of Social Services is part of the administration of Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, and the guidelines were in place the entire time Bailey was serving as Parson’s general counsel — the second highest ranking job in the governor’s office.
Asked whether he raised any objections to the guidelines during his tenure with Parson, Bailey’s spokesperson said he “had no involvement in crafting [the Department of Social Services’] ‘best practices’ as general counsel.”
AG arguments
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey speaks Jan. 20 (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).
The 19 attorneys general contend the federal rule would “remove faith-based providers from the foster care system” because of their “religious beliefs on sexual orientation and gender identity.”
They cite Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a U.S. Supreme Court case that ruled a public agency couldn’t force private, religious foster agencies to allow same-sex foster parents.
The proposed rule itself also acknowledges the Supreme Court case and alleges that by not requiring religious foster-care providers to welcome LGBTQ children, it is complying with the court’s precedent.
But the attorneys general do not believe this is enough. Their letter argues the proposal violates freedom of religion because those unwilling to support LGBTQ foster children “would be excluded from providing care to as many as one-third of foster children ages 12-21.”
“In addition to discriminating against religion, the proposed rule will harm children by limiting the number of available foster homes, harm families by risking kinship placements, and harm states by increasing costs and decreasing care options,” the letter says.
The rule would “discourage individuals and organizations of faith from joining or continuing in foster care,” the attorneys general argue, and “reduce family setting options.” Without faith-based foster parents, the attorneys general say, children would be more likely to be placed in congregate settings.
They also say the rule could disqualify family members who volunteer as placement, or kinship care, if the family member does not agree to support the child’s sexuality or gender identity with age-appropriate resources, as the rule entails.
Last night was the big debate between Govs. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Gavin Newsom (D-CA). We’d like to give you a link so that if you missed it, and would like to watch, you could do so. However, at Fox, the news is a business and not a public service, and this was (technically) a regular episode of Hannity. So, if you want to watch it, you have to pay for Fox’s streaming service. Sorry. That said, here’s a pretty good 3-minute rundown of the highlights.
We watched it, of course, because that’s part of our responsibilities. And we’re going to give you our assessment by focusing on the four entities that were (or, in one case, were not) a part of the debate:
Newsom: Newsom may have been going into hostile territory, but he almost certainly had the easier task, which was to establish himself as a credible candidate of national stature. And he managed to achieve his goal.
Newsom would love, love, love to be butter-smooth, like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, but he’s not that. It’s probably not a coincidence that all three of those men were either college professors or actors; two jobs that force you to learn how to read and respond to an audience. Newsom is also not a passionate, fire-breathing true believer, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT); not that the Governor is shooting for that.
No, Newsom is a wonky debater, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). That’s not an insult; Warren was a champion debater who was good enough at it to earn a college scholarship. Being like Warren means that Newsom had strong command of facts and statistics, that we was well-prepared for DeSantis’ lines of attack and was generally able to parry them, that he generally was capable of thinking on his feet and adapting when needed, and that he got off the occasional bon mot. Certainly the line of the night (which was undoubtedly pre-written) was when Newsom looked at DeSantis and said that “[what] we have in common is that neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024.”
DeSantis: DeSantis, meanwhile, had de facto home field advantage, but he had the harder task, namely to try to change the trajectory of the 2024 GOP primaries. The Governor did not come within a country mile of doing that.
To start, DeSantis showed once again that he has exactly one facial expression, which is “grimace.” And he has one tone of voice, which is nasal/whiny. No matter what he says, whether it’s pro-Democratic or pro-Republican, it’s going to be kind of a turn off because he is kind of a turn off.
Beyond that, however, DeSantis’ remarks and responses had three themes: California sucks, Democrats suck and Joe Biden sucks. If you can explain how any of those three messages help explain why you should vote for DeSantis instead of Donald Trump, then you are cleverer than we are.
It is also the case that DeSantis seems to live in a fantasy world (but definitely not in Fantasyland, where he’s not welcome). Most obviously, his version of California is that it is a dystopian hellscape. This comports with Republican talking points, but not with reality. At various points, DeSantis claimed that California has made it legal for unhomed people to defecate on the sidewalk (he even held up a map of defecation hotspots in San Francisco) and to light their own encampments on fire, that it takes twice as long to shop in California because everything is under lock and key to prevent theft, and that women in the state can never wear jewelry in public because they are certain to be mugged. The Governor shared similar fantastical ideas about Democrats and about Biden.
This is not to say that everything that came out of DeSantis’ mouth was a lie or an exaggeration, or that some of his ideas about California don’t have SOME basis in reality. For example, (Z), who walks around Los Angeles a lot, has seen human feces on the sidewalk… twice. At his local drug store, the razors, baby formula, cigarettes and liquor are under lock and key… while 95% of the inventory is not. And he knows a couple of women who turned their wedding rings around while in downtown. On the other hand, he’s been to Florida, and he’s seen most of these things there, too.
Maybe there are people out there who accept everything DeSantis says uncritically. Probably there are. But anyone watching with even a sliver of an open mind surely has to be left with the impression that he’s as truth-challenged as Trump is, while being considerably less effective at selling his lies and exaggerations.
Hannity: Hannity made clear that he should never, ever, ever be allowed to moderate a real debate, even if it’s candidates for assistant dogcatcher of East Cupcake. The first problem is that despite the fact that it was his show, and his studio, with microphones ostensibly controlled by his staff, he had absolutely no ability to enforce discipline. The candidates constantly talked over each other. Not only was Hannity unable to control it, but he eventually became petulant and whiny, at one point complaining that “I’m not a potted plant here!”
The second problem is that a disproportionate number of Hannity’s questions were, to be blunt, stupid. For example, he asked the two governors to “grade” Joe Biden, while not allowing them to explain their choice of grade. Surprise, surprise; DeSantis gave Biden an “F” and Newsom gave an “A.” What on earth was the point of that exercise? What could possibly be learned from that? And there were a lot of questions of that sort, that basically boiled down to: “Please give me your talking point on [Subject X].”
And the third problem is that Hannity started the debate by promising to be a neutral arbiter, but then spent the entire debate putting his thumb (and the rest of his hand, and arm) on the scale for DeSantis. To take one example, Hannity’s staff had a pre-prepared graphic that revealed that since 2019, California has had 19 mass shootings that killed 4 or more people while Florida has had 9 such shootings. This was part of the discussion of gun-control laws (California) or lack thereof (Florida), and was meant to help DeSantis make his point that gun-control laws don’t work.
We are not experts on gun-violence statistics, but we suspect some cherry picking here. At very least, with such a small number of qualifying incidents per year, there has to be some amount of random variation here, which means that 4 years is too small a sample size. Also, the population of California is 39.24 million, while the population of Florida is 21.78 million, which means California has 180.1% of the population that Florida does. Meanwhile, 19 is 211% of 9. So, it would seem the primary difference between California and Florida when it comes to the total number of mass shootings is… California has way more people. And there were at least a dozen things like that, where Hannity and his team had chosen statistics or had made infographics clearly designed to prop up DeSantis.
The Audience: One of Newsom’s requirements for attending the debate was “no audience,” and he got what he wanted. And wow, even with the two governors yelling over each other on a constant basis, the absence of an audience was still noticeable and a vast, vast improvement. Debates are not a football game, and the viewing audience does not need to be told what to think or feel by a bunch of howling yahoos.
Who knows if this is a one-off, or if it will establish some sort of tradition? We tend to suspect that DeSantis will not be eager to repeat the experiment, once someone tells him that he did himself absolutely no good when it comes to the 2024 presidential race, but that’s just a guess. (Z)
I am struggling emotionally. I am sorry I am posting videos. It keeps me from having to acknowledge or admit my current feelings. I just admitted to my husband of 33 plus years something I had kept vague, and every thing about humans says would make me damaged. So I just don’t want to deal with life really, I guess. But that is not a choice, so I am moving gently forward. Hugs. Scottie
Florida governor—and failing 2024 presidential candidate—Ron DeSantis sold his Party’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law as a way to protect children in elementary schools from LGBTQ+ “sexualization.” Then it was expanded through grade 12. Now, a Republican proposed legislation to expand it to the workplace. These efforts to restrict LGBTQ+ rights are never really about the children, and it’s time Americans wake up and realize that.
Breaking with a lot of the EU, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez and Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo delivered a clear joint statement on the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding at the hands of Israel.
Please notice what reason they gave for not protecting LGBTQIA kids from abuse, bullying, and not getting equal treatment. It violates their religious freedom to be kind and treat those kids fairly. Yes, read the article. I am so sick of these people trying to force their religion on everyone. Yet they claim to be removing LGBTQIA from society and the public to protect children. But they demand the right to abuse LGBTQIA kids? All this rule does is prevent gay kids from being placed with fundamentalist religious people that feel entitled to force these kids in to conversion therapy, which has been proven to be harmful and dangerous. Hugs. Scottie
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey this week joined with 18 other states to oppose a proposed federal rule that aims to protect LGBTQ youth in foster care and provide them with necessary services.
The attorneys general argue in a letter to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services that the proposed rule — which requires states to provide safe and appropriate placements with providers who are appropriately trained about the child’s sexual orientation or gender identity — amounts to religion-based discrimination and violates freedom of speech.
“As a foster parent myself,” Bailey said in a news release Tuesday, “I am deeply invested in protecting children and putting their best interests first. Biden’s proposed rule does exactly the opposite by enacting policies meant to exclude people with deeply held religious beliefs from being foster parents.”
Read the full article. Missouri’s state child care agency already provides pro-LGBTQ guidance to prospective foster parents.
But… who else will they push to suicide? How else will they guarantee to calm their god’s vengeful spirit and avert natural disasters if not through human sacrifice!? /s
He needs to complete that sentence: enacting policies meant to exclude people with deeply held religious beliefs from being foster parentsto LGBT children they’d shame and torture.
I join you in that hate. It is constantly bandied about, but never defined, tested or challenged in court.
Kim Davis waved her “sincerely held” card, yet never had to prove it. She was an adulteress, divorced and changed her religion. Doesn’t sound too sincere to me.
Because religion in general, and Christianity in fucking particular, enjoy undue and unbridled entitlement and privilege and special rights i9n this fucked up country.
Because they are a powerful voting block and are pandered to by one part.
“In God We Trust” is the official motto of the United States as well as the motto of the U.S. state of Florida. It was adopted by the U.S. Congress in 1956, replacing E pluribus unum, which had been the de facto motto since the initial design of the Great Seal of the United States
I wouldn’t mind if they tried to play deeply religious kids with foster parents who would support their religious activities. That seems fair. So why don’t they want the same for lgbt kids. Oh right. Their “right” to be bigots means inflicting their bullshit on everyone, even if it drives them to suicide.
There would be very few children in the foster care system if *heterosexual* parents didn't abuse and abandon their children by the tens of thousands every year. https://t.co/mWvMWaLxs7
Notice it just requires them to be “trained” on LBGTQ+ issues, not even believe or support them. But I guess that’s a bridge too far for these fuckers.
“which requires states to provide safe and appropriate placements with providers who are appropriately trained about the child’s sexual orientation or gender identity”
This is a US Christian Taliban. Your faith, your family religion, what you wish to teach your children about gods and the world be damned as unimportant and wrong. Only his religion is worthy of respect and rights, all others are just pretenders to be removed from society. His god, his version of Jesus is the one that everyone should be forced to follow. He is just like the people demanding all books / media with LGBTQIA characters be removed from libraries so no one’s kids could read them, even is their parents were OK with it. These people feel entitled to run your life, they feel entitled to raise your children in a way against your wishes. They feel entitled to force you, your family, your kids to live in accordance to their church doctrine and they can not be reasoned with. They are on a mission from their god. But don’t dare tell their kids god is not real, or the ark couldn’t have happened, or that LGBTQIA kids deserve respect, no never do that they will scream and rant that you have no right to say those things, as they tell your child that Santa is not real and your religion is wrong because only theirs is correct. Hugs. Scottie
The Grinch tried to steal Christmas. Dressed as The Grinch, David Grisham carried a sign during the morning drop-off at Sleepy Hollow Elementary in Amarillo, Texas that read “Santa is Fake. Jesus is Real.” Parents, as you might imagine, were not happy to see him. One dad grabbed the sign and threw it on the ground.
“I understand why they’re upset,” Grisham said. “They’re upset because they’re prideful and don’t want to admit that lying to their child is wrong in spite of what God’s word says. They’re more concerned with the traditions of men rather than the truth. They don’t want to be seen as a liar in the eyes of their child. But the facts say they are.”
Read the full article. Judging by his Facebook post below, Grisham is affiliated with the notorious anti-LGBTQ hate group of street preachers whose leader, Ruben Israel, dropped dead earlier this year. They’re the ones you see at Pride events waving “You Deserve Hell” signs. Grisham would also like you to send him money.
Grinch tries to steal Christmas, stands in front of elementary school with 'Santa Is Fake' signhttps://t.co/Lg7g7iJsfA
There is no hunger in the world, no poverty, no injustice. That’s why these people have so much time to get steamed up about how we celebrate holidays. The overpowering commercialization of Christmas doesn’t bother them either.
School vouchers are all the Republican rage right now, particularly in my home state of TN. This is why that’s bad. Tour/book: http://www.traecrowder.com
Scottie's Playtime 