By Jean Mondoro
Article Source
The notoriously left-wing Biden administration is continuing its promotion of the LGBT agenda with a proposed rule that would require foster families to “affirm” a child’s gender confusion.
On Thursday, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) – a branch of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – released a proposal to “specify the steps agencies must take when implementing the case plan and case review requirements for children in foster care who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, as well as children who are non-binary, or have non-conforming gender identity or expression.”
“A provider who attempted to undermine, suppress, or change the sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression of a child, including through the use of so-called ‘conversion therapy’ would not be a safe and appropriate placement,” the proposal states.
It cites the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to argue that efforts to help children accept their sex or heterosexuality “are inappropriate, ineffective, and harmful practices that should not be provided to children and adolescents.”
“To be considered a safe and appropriate placement, a provider is expected to utilize the child’s identified pronouns, chosen name, and allow the child to dress in an age-appropriate manner that the child believes reflects their self-identified gender identity and expression,” the proposal continues.
Failing to do so would qualify a provider as one “who unreasonably limits or denies a child’s ability to express their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression” and would render the foster home agency responsible for “not plac[ing] LGBTQI+ [sic] children” with that family, according to the text.
Additionally, the proposal recommends ensuring that gender-confused foster kids “will have access to a range of services and activities that addresses their specific health and wellbeing needs,” including “access to behavioral health supports respectful of their LGBTQI+ [sic] identity, interacting with LGBTQI+ [sic] mentors and peers, joining and participating in affinity groups, and connecting the child to available LGBTQI+ [sic] supportive resources and events.”
The proposal also opens the door to requiring foster families to go along with hormonal and surgical interventions for gender-confused kids by vaguely stating that necessary services “include[] clinically appropriate mental and behavioral health care supportive of their sexual orientation and gender identity and expression as needed.” This is defined only as practices that “are based on current evidence and generally accepted medical standards of care.”
National medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics have voiced support for so-called “sex changes” for gender-confused minors even though officials have also admitted the adverse effects of such measures, including the probability of infertility among children who take puberty blockers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also issued a warning for certain puberty-blocking drugs, citing serious negative reactions.
Similarly, the use of cross-sex hormones in the name of “gender affirmation” has been shown to cause increased risk of heart attack and stroke as well as suicidality. Those who have gone through a “transition” have publicly shared their regret, with some of them filing lawsuits against the adults who enabled them to make such irreversible choices as troubled kids.
Regarding religious liberty and beliefs that object to gender ideology, the proposal declared that the “ACF takes seriously its obligations to comply with the Constitution and Federal laws that support and protect religious exercise and freedom of conscience, including the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA].”
“Accordingly, under RFRA, we first assess whether the particular application of the rule substantially burdens the provider’s exercise of religion. If so, we assess whether applying the requirement furthers a compelling interest and whether there are less restrictive alternatives available. Thus, even if the rule substantially burdens a religious practice, an exemption would not be required if the burden is necessary to the advancement of a compelling government interest through the least restrictive means possible.”
Written comments from the public may be submitted until November 27 through the Federal eRulemaking Portal found here. To find the document and submit a comment, type the following Regulatory Information Number (RIN) into the search bar: 0970-AD03.