Alaina Browning is everything a new mother would want if she’s considering giving up her child for adoption. Browning, who’s 30, and her husband have a stable income and a nice home, and they’ve been foster parents in the past. They have a five-year-old daughter and they could conceive again if they wanted to, but they felt adoption was the right path forward for their family. They knew the process would be complicated, as it always is, but they were as qualified as anyone else.
The biggest complication, it turned out, is the fact that they’re non-religious.
Browning reached out to Alabama Family Adoption Services, a private child placement agency licensed by the state, because that seemed like the best option. It wasn’t a faith-based company, for one, and they even appeared to be the only such agency in the state that worked with same-sex couples. So when she asked if her non-religiosity would be a problem… she was hoping for the best.
She was quickly told it was a problem: “I am sorry, we could not work with you. We are not specific about one’s faith but the biological families that we work with do request that our adoptive families have a spiritual life.”
A bit of misinformation here I think. No one says they can't adopt...they just aren't being helped by the institution...because the birth parents want their child to be with a religious family. Not the same thing as what the title of the article implies. Classic misinformation article...If they state says they can't adopt period...that would be another thing.
Because christian families like the Duggars are such healthy environments for children.
Do I really need the [] tag?
Why confront any child with facts and reality when you can comfort them with lies, falsehoods and unfounded hope?
It will be interesting to see how all the religion-inspired, draconian laws and policies being set in place in Bible-belt states like Texas and Alabama affects their populations over time. Will they attract more people? Or will those states' populations decline relative to more liberal states like California and Washington?
It sounds like it's not a state law, but just how it is in Alabama and likely other states. Such a shame for the kids waiting to be placed in loving homes, but don't even get the chance with some hopeful parents.
It's a fallacy that a "good Christian home" means a loving non-violent nurturing home. There is no guarantee of non-violence or no child abuse in any home, no matter if it's religious or not.
I raised 2 happy healthy fair-minded kids totally without religion. My kids could see the neighbor children out in the back yard collecting switches for their parents to use on them next time they mis-behaved. I believe my kids were very thankful then that we were not raising them up by way of the rod.
Many of our religious neighbor kids ended up on the wrong side of the law and teen parents. That tells me going to church religiously and forcing kids to memorize bible passages is not necessarily the way to a happy childhood. I was not able to spoil my kids but they did learn good values.
I was raised in a religious household where child abuse was tolerated and simply swept under the rug. While my upbringing wouldn't be tolerated in modern days, I only mention it to say that having religion in one's life does not necessarily make it a non-violent fair life, nor guarantee good family values will be modeled.
Not surprising considering the ‘yewt’ originated there!!
Been giving this a lot of thought since first responding.
If they are licensed by the state, this is definitely a violation of the Non-establishment Clause. The state is effectively allowing them to discriminate based on religious belief, or lack thereof.
This also violates the Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment.
The ACLU should take this up immediately. As well as the DoJ.
This is so much bullshit.
Alabamastan has rules to keep the state safe for the religious bigots.
I"m glad I live in Illinois instead of Alabama. It's a little better about not letting religious bs get in the way.
So much for being pro-family.
Not to mention violating the Constitution.
As the Adoption Agency is a ... "private agency" ... that is merely ... "licensed" ... by the State(run by a gaggle of FUCKTARDS)...I don't think the ACLU will be able take the case as the Agency may be "technically immune" from the separation of Church/State clause in the Constitution...if the Agency has a signed Agreement with the childs mother I would think it would be viewed as a ... Valid, Binding, Contract ... the Agreement the mother signed breaks no Law ... it sucks but they have a loophole that they can crawl back into the sewers with. Even if there is no Written Agreement, there can be a Verbal Agreement which both parties strive to adhere to ... Again, breaking no laws. I hate the Religious BS as much as we all do but it is a minefield of legal loopholes...smfh
@phoenixone1 If you consider Regulatory Agencies in general, they are run by un elected people making up rules that fit them, usually with little oversight (except Lobbyists) and no Due Process.....at least for regular people.
Probably 80% (?) of our government is run by unelected people. The budgets "process" is pretty much on auto pilot