Written by Don Byrd
Health care mandates aren’t the only area of government regulation generating controversy among some faith-based organizations. In Michigan, the legislature is poised to vote on a bill that would allow faith-based adoption services to refuse placement with a couple if doing so would violate the agency’s religious beliefs.
The Battle Creek Enquirer has more:
Rep. Kenneth Kurtz, a Coldwater Republican who chairs the House Families, Children, and Seniors Committee, said he plans to hold a committee vote on the adoption conscience bills on Wednesday.
They would prohibit the state or a local government from denying a child-placing agency a grant or contract if it objects to facilitating, referring or participating in an adoption that violates the agency’s written religious or moral convictions or policies. Nor could the government consider the agency’s objections in funding or contracting considerations.
This tension between government’s desire to protect the interests of all citizens and faith-based organization’s need to stay true to their faith is a never-ending balancing act. As long as service providers want to participate in the mechanism of the state, or receive federal funds to support their activities, the potential for significant conflict will be there.
There are no easy solutions to problem like this one. The only simple answer is one that refuses to hear the honest and real needs of the opposing view. The best approach is one that respects and understands the concerns of all sides. In the battle over rights of conscience, especially, we need legislators who understand the earnest objections of some. We also need faith-based providers who understand government’s role in treating all citizens equally and fairly and without discrimination.
The best way to have your faith-based cake and eat it too is to decline the allure of federal funds and service mechanisms. Where that isn’t possible, we should strive for a thoughtful process that honors, as best as can be, the important principles at stake, even – no, especially – where we disagree.
You can read the proposed Michigan House Bill here.
