Close this search box.

CWA Fights Against Unsafe Gender Confusion Promotion in Foster Care Rules

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Concerned Women for America (CWA) filed official comments against a new U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Foster Care Proposed Rule that puts children and families at risk by imposing a one-sided perspective that effectively labels any view that doesn’t fully support so-called gender affirming care as potentially abusive. The comment states:

Today, too many young people are being influenced by a culture that aims to confuse them about identity, not provide security and understanding in their natural development. This Rule caters one way – to the misguided trend of identifying kids as “trans,” “nonbinary,” “pansexual,” etc., based on a mere declaration of “LGBTQIA+” identity that they may not understand. The Rule imposes unsubstantiated requirements aimed at amplifying, not remedying, a serious and controversial trend of “transgenderism” and the imposition of identity labels that are now irresponsibly declared “fixed” and negatively impact the mental and physical health and well-being of youth.  

The Rule states: “For a placement to be considered safe and appropriate for a child who identifies as LGBTQI+, we propose to require that the title IV–E/IV–B agency make available and ensure that a child is placed with a foster care provider ( e.g., foster family home, child care institution) who: (1) will establish an environment free of hostility, mistreatment, or abuse based on the child’s LGBTQI+ status, (2) is trained to be prepared with the appropriate knowledge and skills to provide for the needs of the child related to the child’s self-identified sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, and (3) will facilitate the child’s access to age-appropriate resources, services, and activities that support their health and well-being.”

The consequential assumptions underlying this Rule are as flimsy as the authority you claim. What authorizes a mandate to label a young person as “LGBTQIA+ youth” under a false premise that this “identity” is real, enduring, or the key to flourishing? What is ACF’s proof that “safe and appropriate” placement is not in a home that assists children in addressing the underlying issues at the root of gender confusion and in aligning with their actual sex or natural sexuality? Where is ACF’s authority to promote a one-way ideological viewpoint in determining what constitutes “safe and appropriate”?    

This Rule is turning a blind eye to the growing evidence of malpractice surrounding the labeling of youth as “trans kids.”  California is rapidly becoming the target of opposition for its strident approach to pushing youth with identity crises into foster care, removing custody from concerned parents and charging them with “abuse and neglect” for not buying into an ideology that their kids are “trans kids” and “born in the wrong body.”

For this Rule to be justifiable, it must account for the totality of expertise and experience in this field. Instead, it does more harm than good by imposing a one-sided perspective that effectively labels any contrary view as potentially abusive. You are greasing an imprudent and harmful slippery slope.   

Click here to read our comments in full.