No apology needed over adoption law
THE attorney general of California, upset about a law approved this year by the Legislature, has banned state-funded travel to Oklahoma effective later this month. We’re not sure whether to view this move as punishment or a reward.
Xavier Becerra says he acted because of a California law that prohibits state-funded and state-sponsored travel to states with laws that discriminate “on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” Eight other states have been similarly cited by California since the law took effect last year.
What has Becerra’s hackles up is Senate Bill 1140, which prevents child-placing agencies from being forced to engage in any placement that would “violate the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies.”
SB 1140 ensures that organizations affiliated with, say, the Catholic Church, that have religious objections to same-sex marriage don’t have to facilitate adoptions to same-sex couples (or unmarried opposite-sex couples). These religious providers feared that without the law they could be forced out of business, as has happened in some states.
Opponents of the law said it was discriminatory, and California agrees. Becerra said the law “allows discrimination against LGBTQ children and aspiring LGBTQ parents who must navigate the adoption process. California taxpayers are taking a stand against bigotry and in support of those who would be harmed by this policy.”
We’re among those who supported SB 1140, because we believe needy children are better served by having numerous providers working on their behalf and don’t believe there’s a need to artificially restrict provider numbers. This law doesn’t keep same-sex couples from adopting in Oklahoma; it simply keeps them from going through Catholic or other faith-based organizations.
Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter rejected California’s move as politics, which it is. And it’s particularly rich given California lawmakers’ lack of respect for those in their own state whose worldview clashes with theirs. The best example involves abortion.
Under California law, pregnancy centers that don’t provide abortion are made to advertise the availability of state-subsidized abortion, including a phone number to call to get abortion services. The law, which is being challenged at the U.S. Supreme Court, was crafted in a way that only nonprofit centers that oppose abortion are required to post these notices.
These pregnancy centers contend, understandably so, that their free-speech rights are being trampled because the law compels them to spread a message they don’t support. California officials counter with a straight face that the purpose of the law is to protect women from being misled and ensure they’re fully informed of their options.
Yet doctors in private practice aren’t impacted by the law, nor are general practice clinics. Neither are pregnancy centers that are willing to dispense abortifacient drugs. That leaves nonprofit clinics that oppose abortion. And California wants to lecture Oklahoma (or any other state) about being discriminatory?
With SB 1140, Oklahoma acted to protect faithbased institutions, not try to bring them to heel, and has nothing to apologize for.