Rather than
stopping Miracle Hill from continuing this practice, South Carolina Governor
Henry McMaster and the Trump Administration gave their approval for government-funded
religious discrimination. In early 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services established state regulations that ensure government-funded
agencies like Miracle Hill do not deny services to the public on the basis of
religion. However, in February 2018, McMaster requested the Trump Administration provide
a religious exemption from this regulation so that taxpayer-funded foster care
agencies in South Carolina could deny the right to volunteer on the basis of
religion without losing their funding. Before receiving a response, McMaster issued
an executive order to permit such religious preference in foster care agencies.
Then, in January
2019, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a policy allowing
all government-funded foster care agencies in South Carolina to explicitly reject potential volunteers whom they deem practice the “wrong” religion. The Trump
Administration cites the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as
justification for passing this policy. RFRA claims “governments should not substantially
burden religious exercise without compelling justification.” If the government
does place a substantial burden on a belief, the government must provide a
compelling state interest for doing so, as well as prove that the government pursued
its actions in the least burdensome way.
On February 15, Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed
Maddonna v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, a federal lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court in South Carolina, to reverse this policy of religious
discrimination using taxpayer dollars. This begs the question: would requiring the
foster care agency to act against its religious convictions violate its right
to free exercise?
Although this is a controversial situation, I believe that the foster
care agency should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. After
all, Miracle Hill is funded by taxpayers, and so it seems reasonable that the
taxpayers should be able to volunteer at Miracle Hill at their free will, with
no restrictions. If this agency was privately funded and all the children
preferred to be housed by Protestant Christians, then this would be justifiable
religious discrimination. However, it is in the children’s best interest if the
foster care agency is not allowed to exercise such religious discrimination.
Relating to Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, there are
many levels to this debate, but child well-being should be at the forefront of the
argument.
To counteract my viewpoint, Miracle Hill told local press that they
refer applicants who are not accepted at Miracle Hill to other agencies that will
place children with their families. While this seems to solve the issue of
child safety, it still causes societal problems. As the largest provider in the
state, this means the denied applicants will need to travel farther from home
or deal with the state Department of Social Services in order to help these
children. These additional restrictions may decrease the number of potential
foster parents within the state.
Lastly, I do not
agree with the Trump administration’s interpretation of RFRA. I believe that
the policy enacted places more of a burden on society than a policy eliminating
such religious discrimination. The argument can be made that placing a burden
on the free exercise of the agency is necessary for dealing with the compelling
state interest of child safety and the growing number of foster children.
Based on the
policy that is already in place, I believe that the court will end up siding with
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In a similar case this year,
two foster mothers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the right of a Philadelphia Catholic foster care agency to have a contract with the city without having to
house children with same-sex couples. Although a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Easter District of Pennsylvania ruled against Catholic Social Services, this situation is
different because South Carolina already has a policy in place that is
supported by higher administration.
1 comment:
I agree with Sarah that potential foster parents should not be denied hosting children in need on the sole basis of religion. I understand the thought process behind the RFRA however, I do not believe this is relevant to this case. Any organization that receives federal funding should not be able to utilize any form of religious discrimination, even with the RFRA in place. Even though Miracle Hill refers foster parents to other organizations, if Miracle Hill is the largest operation, any sort of denial of resources is unjust in my opinion.
Post a Comment