In an article published today in Deseret News titled, “Religious foster care plays a vital role for our most vulnerable children” Tom Farr, President of the Religious Freedom Institute (RFI); Eric Patterson, Executive Vice President of RFI; and Byron Johnson, RFI Senior Fellow, were among a multi-faith group of ten authors to write an op-ed that refutes “Several prominent social science narratives [that] have sprung up around [Fulton v. City of Philadelphia],” a major case decided yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This case began in March 2018 when the city of Philadelphia stopped placing foster children with parents who partnered with Catholic Social Services (CSS) of Philadelphia. The city interpreted CSS’s refusal to place foster children with unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, consistent with Catholic teaching on marriage as the union of husband and wife, as a form of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, which is forbidden by city ordinance.

Many opponents to religious freedom support expelling those faith-based institutions from the field of adoption and foster care that adhere to traditional teachings on marriage and sexuality. Foremost among the false narratives surrounding this case is that allowing Catholic Social Services and other religious entities the freedom to place children with families in accord with their religious beliefs reduces the total number of foster parents and harms children, especially youth who identify as sexual minorities.

Countering the first narrative, the authors argue:

The claim that allowing religious agencies to stay open while staying true to their religious beliefs will reduce the number of foster parents is conjecture at best and a drastic exaggeration at worst. Indeed, none of the justices appear to have bought this argument, as the majority opinion states, “if anything, including (Catholic Social Services) in the program seems likely to increase, not reduce, the number of available foster parents.”

Addressing the second narrative about harm to children, the authors contend:

Scientifically, there is no research that suggests sexual minority foster youths have worse outcomes when raised in traditional religious homes. (And the faith-based agency in this case served all children regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.) More generally, the literature on the effects of religiosity on LGBTQ health is more complex than many think, with many studies showing positive effects.

The authors conclude: 

In a matter as complex as foster care, all should be careful to look at the facts, and the Constitution, when deciding whether faith-based agencies that have helped children in need for centuries should be allowed to continue that work. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did just that.

Read the full article: Religious foster care plays a vital role for our most vulnerable children.