 |
| Mike Pence |
The article, Pence praises rule that would let adoption agencies exclude gay parents, said in part:
During an event celebrating National Adoption Month, Vice President Mike Pence praised a proposed Trump administration rule that would allow federal funding to flow to adoption agencies that refuse to place children with LGBTQ families, among others.
"We’ve reversed the rule implemented in the closing days of the last administration that jeopardized the ability of faith-based providers to serve those in need by penalizing them for their deeply held religious beliefs," Pence said at an event Tuesday at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington. "We will stand for the freedom of religion and we will stand with faith-based organizations to support adoption."
Pence said he "couldn't be more proud" of the "decisive action" taken at "President Trump's direction" on this issue.
The article also focused on the negative effect the rule would have on the LGBTQ community and children seeking adoption and foster care.
On Thursday afternoon, the article's author, Tim Fitzsimons, tweeted out the following:
I asked Katie Waldman the following question:— Tim Fitzsimons (@tfitzsimons) November 14, 2019
Fitzsimons: "This allows groups that decline to place these children with same-sex parents to receive federal money. Am I incorrect there?"
Waldman: "No."
She went on to claim reverse discrimination.
While Fitzsimons didn't indicate what the vice president's office wanted changed, from his description of the conversation he had with Waldman, Pence's press secretary, it appears to center around what exactly Trump's rule would do. Perhaps Pence's office isn't happy that the article focused in part on how the rule would harm the LGBTQ community and children, instead of attempting to make it sound like a victory for religion and faith, like Pence attempted to do.
And Waldman's claim of reverse discrimination is odd. Is she saying that not allowing faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to discriminate against the LGBTQ community, while having access to LGBTQ tax dollars, is some sort of "reverse discrimination?" The idea is an illogical stretch of the definition of discrimination.
But then again that illogical stretch would be coming from the Trump Administration. And if there's one thing we all should have learned after three years is to not put anything past Trump or anyone who works for him.
Editor's note -Fitzsimons also made another point with regards to Waldman. Take it as you will:
https://t.co/5gOjLdUMnL More on Waldman here— Tim Fitzsimons (@tfitzsimons) November 14, 2019
I find the phrase "deeply held religious beliefs" to be not only irritating but almost meaningless. What exactly does "deeply held" mean? How does one measure the depth of one's belief? By applying some draconian torture or electric shock? Or is it merely self-reported? And if it could be measured, is there a cut-off between deeply held and sorta-kinda believe where one would be allowed to discriminate or not?
ReplyDelete