Gov. Fallin signs law to protect Oklahoma adoption agencies from leftist fascists

UPDATED: Gov. Fallin signed SB1140 on Friday evening, May 11, 2018.

The Oklahoma legislature has approved (UPDATE: and Gov. Fallin has signed) a bill, SB1140, protecting the rights of an adoption agency to use its own judgment and principles in finding the best home for a child. That seems like a common-sense measure, but common sense is not so common these days.

The bill is on Gov. Fallin's desk. Because the Legislature has adjourned, she must sign the bill before it becomes law. If she opts not to sign within 10 days of adjournment, the bill is effectively vetoes, a "pocket veto." She is under pressure from fascists inside and outside Oklahoma to veto the bill. The belief that children are better off with a mother and father qualifies as hate speech in the minds of the totalitarian vanguard of the Sexual Revolution. The welfare of children is not as important as protecting "sexual minorities" against any hint of any attitude about their habits and lusts that falls short of celebration.

I sent an email through the Governor's website. In addition to emailing, you can phone the governor's office and leave a message 24 hours a day at 405-522-8857 (press 6 to leave a message), or speak to someone during office hours at 405-521-2342. (UPDATE: You can now phone to thank her for her signature.)

I am writing to urge you to sign SB1140 into law. This bill is an important protection for adoption agencies, parents giving up their children for adoption, and of course the children themselves. Agencies should be allowed to use their best judgment, informed by what their faith teaches them about families, parenting, and human nature, to provide the best possible home for children, without second-guessing from outsiders who are more interested in attacking conservative views of family and marriage than helping kids.

I've heard there's a great deal of pressure to veto this bill. Please remember that the people complaining the loudest about this bill are the same Leftists who trash-talk Oklahoma continually. They hate Oklahoma's conservatism, and they hate that Oklahomans elect Republicans like yourself to office. They won't suddenly start loving Oklahoma if you veto this bill. The Leftists won't rest until Oklahoma has been turned into another failed leftist state like California.

(When I posted this on Facebook, someone pointed out that California has a massive economy and shouldn't be considered a failed state. I pointed out the massive outward migration from California and massive income inequality. California is increasingly unaffordable for those who are neither a tech or entertainment mogul nor on the government payroll (either as an employee or a dependent) thanks to high taxes for leftist boondoggles and regulations that stifle home construction and business formation and retention. Farmers in the fertile Central Valley suffer from policies that divert water from agriculture for the benefit of cities and environmentalists. If it weren't for California's natural beauty and mild climate, the exodus would be more rapid than it is. It's hardly an example for other states to follow.)

Oklahomans for Life have issued this statement about SB1140:

This vitally important legislation promotes life by encouraging adoption. Adoption is a positive alternative to abortion for a mother who feels unable to raise a child. Senate Bill 1140 will result in more, rather than fewer, groups being able to assist in facilitating adoptions, and that will result in fewer babies being aborted.

Many women considering abortion wind up choosing life due to encouragement on religious grounds. Faith-based adoption organizations often provide that added encouragement to choose life. SB 1140 is a conscience-protection law which would protect the religious freedom of non-profit groups to facilitate adoptions consistent with their faith.

Attorney David French, writing for National Review, explains what's at stake:

...the issue is whether religious adoption agencies can be forced to place children in family arrangements that violate the agency's "religious or moral convictions or policies." In other words, if she signs the bill, then Oklahoma can't force a Catholic or Protestant adoption agency to place adopted children with, say, single parents or same-sex families. It does not prohibit or interfere with the right of any other adoption agency to implement contrary policies. It does not ban same-sex adoption in the state. Here's the key language of the statute:

To the extent allowed by federal law, no private childplacing agency shall be required to perform, assist, counsel, recommend, consent to, refer, or participate in any placement of a child for foster care or adoption when the proposed placement would violate the agency's written religious or moral convictions or policies.

In the real world, this bill would have the effect of increasing child placement options in the state. Many religious adoption agencies would rather shut down than violate their religious purpose. The statute allows them to stay open, and it of course allows different agencies with different policies to place children in the homes of their choice. It's a win/win . . . Unless, of course, you seek to use the power of the state to force religious organizations to join the sexual revolution....

French speaks from experience that religious agencies close if the law won't allow them to operate according to their religious convictions, and he links to a list of places where this has already happened -- Massachusetts, California, Illinois, and the District of Columbia. This is not a phantom menace but a real threat faced by faith-based adoption agencies.

French says that Fallin's action on the bill will have an even greater impact beyond its help for adoption agencies.

Each governor who capitulates grants the [corporate and activist] bullies greater power. Each governor who resists diminishes the threat. As red states one-by-one choose to protect religious freedom, corporations will face a real cost if they choose to prioritize extremist conceptions of "social justice" over genuine tolerance and genuine diversity. In short, the best way to end corporate boycotts is to resist corporate boycotts.

French has confidence that Gov. Fallin will do the right thing. Let's do what we can to encourage her in that direction. (UPDATE: She did the right thing. Let's thank Gov. Fallin for her wise decision.)

RELATED: Them Before Us is an organization advocating for "children's rights before adult desires." (That's their graphic up above in this article.)

"I want my mom and dad to love me, and I want them to love each other." -- Jocie, age 7

Josie's statement illustrates the universal human longing to be known and loved by the two people responsible for one's existence. Those longings should inform how we talk about marriage and family because children have the most at stake in these conversations. If children could order their own world, it would be one where their mother and father loved them and loved each other throughout their childhood. Children crave both maternal and paternal love, and they feel secure when they see their parents loving each other. It's what they're made for. It's what they long for. And yet, you will seldom hear Jocie's perspective in discussions on marriage or family. Adults dominate these conversations because they hold all of the power.

Them Before Us is changing that.

We focus the discussion on family structure around those who are hit hardest by non-marital childbearing, who are the casualties of no-fault divorce and the redefinition of marriage, or who are intentionally subjected to motherlessness or fatherlessness through reproductive technologies - the children. Kids can't organize, advocate, or defend their own interests. But we can. Them Before Us is here to advocate for children by focusing on the child's perspective through stories and studies. We'll view questions about family from their perspective through their own words.

Children deserve to be heard. Them Before Us is listening.

In their position statement on adoption, Them Before Us says the process must be about the child's needs, not adult "rights":

Them Before Us supports adoption, when it is properly understood. Adoption must always be viewed as a child-centric institution, not simply as a means for adults to have children.

No adult - heterosexual, homosexual, or single- has a "right" to adopt.

Rather, every child has a right to parents.

In adoption, the intended parents are not the clients. The child is the client....

We support adoption agencies who prioritize placing children with married heterosexual couples, especially when those couples also fulfill other needed criteria [detailed in the linked statement]. We therefore reject the assertion that gay couples or singles should have "equal access" to adopted children. Adoption agencies need the freedom to evaluate all factors when placing a child, including the gender and marital status of the adoptive family.