Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
Sometimes a Bill, even one well-intentioned, fails so miserably or creates greater problems that one is compelled to oppose it. So is the case with HB 5908 and 5909, both of which supposedly seek to 'protect' a child placing agency in making a placement for adoption that violates its written religious or moral convictions or policies.
The bills have a number of problems, some of the most notable are as follows:
- The language in the Bills may be more encompassing than intended. The House Legislative Analysis on these Bills says that 'child placing agency' as used in HB 5908 means a private agency licensed under the Child Care Licensing Act to place children for adoption. However, several attorneys have noted that that language is pretty broad and that it is feasible a governmental agency would be pressured to develop 'policies' to exclude certain 'placements' which would likely be challenged by those denied services.
-- Enactment of the Bills may result in loss of Federal funds for serving children and families in public adoption and foster care services and increase the costs to Michigan taxpayers for these services. The State is currently reimbursed with Federal matching funds (approximately 50 percent of the costs) for Adoption services and Foster Care services provided by the State and Child Placing agencies the State contracts with to serve there children and families. It is reasonable to assume that the Federal Government would permit use of these Federal funds by agencies that would have the right to refuse to provide services to a family or child based on religious or moral convictions or policies based on those convictions.
-- Passage of HB 5908 and 5909 is highly likely to result in litigation. This would be costly for taxpayers to defend.
-- I note that several religious leaders spoke quite eloquently in opposition to HB 5908 and 5909. Religious opposition centers on the fact that the bills would invite discrimination among holders of religious beliefs. Various competing churches, for example, would likely find 'moral' reasons for denying an adoption based on a competing sect or religion.
-- Experts in the field of child adoption oppose the bills, most notably the Family Law Section of the State Bar and the Michigan Department of Human Services, both of which noted that the bills have the potential to negatively impact adoption and foster care services. The bills would also prevent children from being placed with qualified adoptive parents, due to the prejudices of the placing agency. The bills would allow the government to engage in invidious discrimination -- and otherwise unlawful discrimination -- through the vehicle of a discriminating agency.
Lastly, although I note that this is not an exhaustive list, the bills fail in one other significant aspect -- the highest priority should be on the best interests of the child and not on the personal or organizational beliefs of the child placement agency.
Thus, because of these reasons, I voted 'no' on HB 5908 and HB 5909."