Adoption Agencies Could Refuse Same-Sex Couples Under Measure Approved By House Panel ( pizzagate )

submitted by carmencita

https://ktla.com/2018/07/12/adoption-agencies-could-refuse-same-sex-couples-under-measure-approved-by-house-panel/

The House Appropriations Committee passed an amendment on Wednesday that, if implemented, would allow adoption agencies to refuse gay couples based on their moral or religious beliefs.

The amendment, which was introduced by GOP Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama, would allow child welfare providers to decline to “provide a service that conflicts with its sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions,” according to the congressman.

Because of this provision, the amendment would allow more religious organizations, such as Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services — examples Aderholt provided — to operate child welfare agencies.

“The reason for this is simply because these organizations, based on religious conviction, choose not to place children with same-sex couples,” he said in a statement.

He continued: “The amendment I introduced seeks to prevent these (state) governments from discriminating against child welfare providers on the basis that the provider declines to provide a service that conflicts with its sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions,” he said in a statement.

The amendment could have consequences for LGBTQ-friendly states. It would require the US Department of Health and Human Services to withhold 15 percent of the federal funds for child welfare services from states and localities don’t meet the same standards for protecting religious adoption groups.

Progressive Democrats in the House are speaking out against the amendment, saying it would deny same-sex couples the right to adopt.

“Same-sex couples are six times more likely to foster and four times more likely to adopt. Denying kids loving parents is wrong,” Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan, a gay congressman from Wisconsin, said in a tweet.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the amendment a “disgusting, deeply immoral and profoundly offensive effort.”

“House Republicans chose to sacrifice the well-being of little children to push a bigoted, anti-LGBTQ agenda, potentially denying tens of thousands of vulnerable children the opportunity to find a loving and safe home,” the California Democrat said in a statement.

The office of House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Pizzagate related because Govt. trying to regulate the placement of orphaned children into homes run by religious organizations.

Because of this provision, the amendment would allow more religious organizations, such as Catholic Charities and Bethany Christian Services — examples Aderholt provided — to operate child welfare agencies.

This Is Just What We Do NOT Need. This Will Increase The Number of Religious Agencies. They are responsible for so much of the abuse

caused by agencies that CPS and religious agencies use to hold many of the foster care children until they are placed.

Geo_synchronous

Thats good. Gay baits will brain wash their adopted children and create more gay fuck tards.

carmencita

That is the plan. We have to stop it. My main worry is the pedophiles.

septimasexta

THE SNAKES CRAWL OUT FROM UNDER THE ROCK "Progressive Democrats in the House are speaking out against the amendment, saying it would deny same-sex couples the right to adopt.

“Same-sex couples are six times more likely to foster and four times more likely to adopt. Denying kids loving parents is wrong,” Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan, a gay congressman from Wisconsin, said in a tweet.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the amendment a “disgusting, deeply immoral and profoundly offensive effort.”

“House Republicans chose to sacrifice the well-being of little children to push a bigoted, anti-LGBTQ agenda, potentially denying tens of thousands of vulnerable children the opportunity to find a loving and safe home,” the California Democrat said in a statement."

In a fallen world, there is no perfect solution for abandoned/orphaned children. I know someone who, in a state that forbid gay adoption at the time, became a surrogate for her and her gay brother's partner...TWICE. The fertility clinic was in on it, as well as the judge that presided over her and her husband "giving up their child" to her brother for a single parent adoption. The fertility clinic had a data base of egg donors and their bios/physical description. The donor egg was selected for features that approximated the brother's features, and the sperm was donated by the brother. The sister gave birth to her own nephew...TWICE. She had 3 young children of her own at the time. She also provided child care for the babies, so her children were forced to deal with this unnatural relationship at an early age. A changed heart with no desire to harm children, or turn them from God is the only lasting solution.

carmencita

It's all Beyond Sick. Pocan is THE SNAKE THAT CRAWLED OUT FROM UNDER THE ROCK. I propose that these should not be called Progressives, but Deep State. Were there Republicans that voted against this? I can't imagine a Deep State Rep. voting for this. There are politicos off all stripes that are in favor of this, behind the scenes. Notice McCain and Flake speaking out against Trump, they should be backing THEIR President. Pullleeeezzze. Pocan marches to the Drum of Brown the Gov. and Jesuit Priest. What would we expect?

septimasexta

REPOST "The amendment, which appears in a new funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, would cut 15% of federal adoption funding for states that penalize adoption agencies that reject same-sex parents-to-be on religious grounds. It would also bar the federal government from refusing to work with those agencies."

So, the Feds couldn't refuse to work with the Church of Satan adoption agency? Scientology Adoption Agency?

We really need to see the exact wording of this amendment. Things might go from bad to worse.

carmencita

I agree it sounds shaky. By that I mean that it is sneaky wording, and the outcome yes, could be the exact opposite of what we would want.

septimasexta

OOPS! Should read "that approximated the brother's partner's features"

septimasexta

Sorry! My above post was confusing. Let me simplify: There is a husband and wife with 3 children. The wife's gay brother and partner want 2 children. The gay brother talks his married sister into being a surrogate, because in their state it was illegal for a same sex couple to adopt, but law did allow for a single parent to adopt. She went to a gay friendly fertility clinic with her brother and using a descriptive data base, selected a donor egg that might have similar features to her brother's partner. Her brother was the sperm donor. The sister carried the baby (a boy) and gave birth to her nephew. Technically, the baby belonged to the sister and husband, so they arranged an adoption with her brother, which was approved by a gay friendly judge. This sequence was repeated later for the second son. The sister provided daycare for the 2 babies/toddlers and so her own children were aware of the unnatural relationships, and had no choice but to accept it.

think-

Upvoat, Carm! Thanks for posting.

carmencita

Thank You! Well, this has brought up some interesting ideas, views and subjects as is many times the case. It's all good. The discussion, I mean. We should remember to not get so heated that we lose members, but remember that we are all on the same page mostly, the Safety of Our Children. All Our Children.

cantfindmenow

They're more likely to adopt because they can't procreate in the usual fashion. I don't know seems a bit anti-LGBT to me.

carmencita

LGBT is being hijacked just like our religions and other org. especially those connected to children. Most gays are as horrified as we are as to what is going on with Our Children, but then there are those that are jumping on the bandwagon along with NAMBLA and the elite pedos trying to push gay adoptions and bathroom issues to gain access to children for their nefarious purposes. I believe the way around this is Very Tight and Scrupulous Scouring of All Adoptions. We have had articles on here about both sex couples also committing sexual abuse with their foster and adopted children as well. BUT we also must remember that there is a serious move by certain pedo groups and those elite pedos behind them to gain access to Our Children. And not because they just want to give them a good home.

carmencita

Well, I have nothing against gays, but a faction of them have been taking advantage of our laws in order to take kids for nasty reasons. I think you know what I mean. We need to put a stop to this. Read Oh_Well_Ian's comment. You must know what is going on here.

carmencita

OMG. Thank you for posting that former thread! @Cc1914 You need to look at this. Look at your comment in the thread! Amazing and MUST be read by all.

Cc1914

Wow 28 upvoats .. I’m happy people read it , and maybe finished reading the rest of the gay manifesto . Look what I just saw for the first time ! http://www.houstonpress.com/news/finally-documented-proof-of-the-homosexual-agenda-7709079

carmencita

Bronski had also thought "Michael Swift" was a pseudonym, and likens the homophobic groups who still disseminate his "manifesto" as "very much like people who would've taken Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal seriously. I mean, he didn't really intend...to eat Irish babies.”

WHAT? to eat Irish babies? WTH? I have to read that WHOLE Manifesto.................. did you see that?

Cc1914

Wait what? I didn’t see that .. I’m reading it now ( gay manifesto) and I think we should revisit it . This .. 😮“ The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. “

YogSoggoth

Yeah, some imagination that Swift had, huh? The Houston Chronicle writer used the Jonathan Swift 'Elites eating poor children' as a reference to debunk the gay manifesto. Now we know they were indeed sacrificing poor Irish children, so how much else of this fiction is "accidentally true," like the manifesto writer's last name actually being Swift?

Cc1914

But is he the actual writer though ? I thought it was this guy .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wittman

YogSoggoth

Unless there is two gay manifestos ... I have no frigging Idea! Is this some kind of media obfuscation? Wikipedia is known for censorship, while at the same time asking for donations. If so, I would go with the earlier Houston Chronicle gay guy just because of the timeline. How am I going to explain to my family I have become a Gay detective, and still stay fashionable at the picnic? It's like I am living a double life here.

Cc1914

I share your same frustrations 😐

YogSoggoth

I can tell you that someone is going down here, even if I ain't the one. Search engines are enough to piss me of for life, until dead.

carmencita

It sounds insane to me. Whoever wrote it is a hard core pedophile. Unfortunately I don't think we will be able to find out who it Really Is, Who wrote it. I have a feeling it may be someone that is a NAMBLA member or someone pushing the normalization propaganda. A Soros Org possibly could be behind this person. It sounds OFF THE WALL. PEDO EXTREMISM and NOT NORMAL GAYS. The Push Has Been On for sometime now.

Cc1914

Definitely not normal gays , but how can we ignore what is said from this poem that was written many years ago , and now we see spot on results of it ? Just sends chills

carmencita

I does send chills, I agree. It is actually very frightening. I wonder if any have researched this person. If I find time this after, I may start digging.

Cc1914

Here we go .. Carl Wittman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Wittman And he committed suicide ..

Carl Wittman (February 23, 1943 – January 22, 1986) was a member of the national council of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and later an activist for LGBT rights. He co-authored "An Interracial Movement of the Poor?" (1963) [1] with Tom Hayden and wrote "A Gay Manifesto" [2] (1970). Wittman declined hospital treatment for AIDS and committed suicide by drug overdose at home in North Carolina.

Wittman, while self-identified as gay since the age of 14, remained closeted until coming out in the late 1960s in an article, "Waves of Resistance," published in the November, 1968 issue of the antiwar magazine, Liberation.[4][5]

In 1969, Wittman wrote Refugees from Amerika: A Gay Manifesto published by The Red Butterfly cell of the Gay Liberation Front January, 1970.[2] It is considered one of the most influential gay liberation writings of the 1970s.

carmencita

I think he committed suicide because he was angry about the health and medical rules and regulations for gays, but actually for all and he deemed that since he had AIDS he would make his own decision as to when to bow out so to speak. I don't know if he was abused when younger, by older men or his father, for a lot of young boys were, just because they thought since they were gay, they would like it. So wrong. Anyway, from what I have read about him, I think he experimented with other gay kids around his own age, as other teens do with each other. Not advocating that, but it is what it is. But it's a lot better than being abused by older adults. I don't know what was behind his manifesto, there is not much written about his personal life. Some info available, but does not go too deep. He was married to a woman as it says in his wiki, so there was repression. I did not find any info on his having sex with children or pedophile or abuse accusations. If others do, please post.

Oh_Well_ian

Also on the thread, notice the concern trolling by @DeathtoMasons ...

That is actually my post ( locked out of my old account ) and I've been driving this point, consistently.

We had a kid fucking President who is married to a tranny. He's a pedophile and so are his lemmings.

Obama said his favorite show was 'Modern Family' and he dressed the White House in rainbow lights.

TRAITOR / PEDOPHILE

carmencita

I am going to look at the whole thread now......Good God.

Cc1914

Perfect timing after our conversation a few days ago . I don’t know what to think of this . And what Mrs goat hill said (House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the amendment a “disgusting, deeply immoral and profoundly offensive effort.”) because she is the authority on morals ya know ?

carmencita

Yeah, Nancy knows, right? Dontcha know? I can't even. This whole thing is suspect and needs to be looked into. What is it truly all about and what will be the end of the story. I hope it will handcuff CPS.

pixiesbitch

Good.

carmencita

I think so too. But they have a way of turning things around and they don't turn out right.

Shizy

How will this increase the number of religious agencies? And not all states are structured for CPS to use private adoption agencies to place children. Every state is different and some handle their own placing and adoptions, while others use private agencies for all foster and adoption placements (i.e. California).

carmencita

If this is meant to cut down on the nasty biz by CPS, then maybe this is their way of starting somewhere. Something, better than nothing. If religious agencies have not opened agencies because of religious reasons, not wanting to place children with gays, then this will free them to feel like they can now operate within their own faith. The freedom to not have to service same-sex.

carmencita

Maybe this article will help clear things up http://www.newnownext.com/license-to-discriminate-adoption-bill/07/2018/

The U.S. House Appropriations Committee has voted in favor of an amendment that would allow adoption agencies funded by taxpayer dollars to discriminate against LGBTQ couples.

The amendment, which appears in a new funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, would cut 15% of federal adoption funding for states that penalize adoption agencies that reject same-sex parents-to-be on religious grounds. It would also bar the federal government from refusing to work with those agencies.

septimasexta

"It would also bar the federal government from refusing to work with those agencies." So, the Feds couldn't refuse to work with the Church of Satan adoption agency? Scientology Adoption Agency?

carmencita

You are asking too many smart questions. WOW. That sure spells it out. I feel dyslexic for not seeing that!

shewhomustbeobeyed

“Same-sex couples are six times more likely to foster and four times more likely to adopt. Denying kids loving parents is wrong,” Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan, a gay congressman from Wisconsin, said in a tweet.

six times more likely to foster and four times more likely to adopt

six times more likely to foster and four times more likely to adopt

six times more likely to foster and four times more likely to adopt

And suddenly it becomes painfully obvious.

Can't get an archive, sorry.

carmencita

And he is gay. That says it all. The problem is the adoption agencies. They are ready to hand them over for a govt. payout and do not do their work check prospective parents out. Too many taken from homes and too many handed to the wrong people. This law is not going to be good for Our Children.

shewhomustbeobeyed

Name the couples in every city and state and you have just outed their whole trafficking infrastructure.

carmencita

I was thinking the same thing! They will surely even contact them, asking if they are interested in becoming parents. That is odd we both thought of it. I was thinking that when there is a gay wedding they are registered. That is their list as well. Where they pull from to contact. It's really disgusting, almost like clients. Sick. A list of clients.

shewhomustbeobeyed

The Witches made it kind of obvious, didn't they? Been wondering what the message was behind their death.

carmencita

Oh Yes, The Hart Witches? I don't know that they are dead. They are valuable since they did their jobs. They are connected to the NXIVM Bronfmans's in Montreal so possibly they have been MK Ultra. The little boy I heard, Devonte the one looking for Free Hugs, he fought to the last minute to give himself up their brainwashing, not give up his soul. It Breaks My Heart.

shewhomustbeobeyed

Without knowing their bloodlines I wouldn't be able to guess as to whether they are still alive or not. My guess is they are dead, they fucked-up somehow, maybe the fame-whoring, idk but a loud message was sent.

carmencita

I hope so, for we know the children are. It would only be fair since the children are the good ones and they were not. But they deserved worse. They stole those children from good homes and people that loved them. They were loved.

carmencita

Which witches?

shewhomustbeobeyed

Over the cliff.

carmencita

If their organs were harvested, which I think they were (the children I mean) then possibly even the sheriff could have removed them. He is also the coroner. Sick business.

shewhomustbeobeyed

If the organs were taken it occurred prior to accident, Can't have saltwater damage. The cliff was the cover-up.

carmencita

Yes. Then they must have put the rest of them into the water and on the beach. The foot/ankle was found, inside of a shoe, of the little girl. I nearly threw up. This stuff is hard.

shewhomustbeobeyed

Please don't forget where those children are now, whose arms enfold them and whose whispers dry their tears. Rejoice!

carmencita

That's comforting yes, but they just wanted so much to be alive, you could tell, I guess the sad thing for me is that so many failed them.

carmencita

Now that I think about it this is one of those Double Sword Laws. This may increase the number of religious adoption agencies BUT it also says that “The amendment I introduced seeks to prevent these (state) governments from discriminating against child welfare providers on the basis that the provider declines to provide a service that conflicts with its sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions,” he said in a statement.

SO it will also prevent state govts. from descriminating against child welfare providers. WAIT! Will this also prevent CPS of doing the same?

ESOTERICshade

The "double sword" was the first thing I thought about too. Its also a slippery slope. Will they be able to deny the "far right" the ability to adopt as well? Its late here and I have not had time to think about this one yet.

carmencita

I know. It sounds convoluted. Backwards and Upside down and business as usual. It sounds like Double Speak. I too am somewhat perplexed by this. Let's think about it and wait for the thoughts of others as well.