Anna North
" The proposal is part of a bigger pattern."
Vox, November 7, 2019
The White House recently proposed a new rule regarding discrimination against gender identity and sexual orientation in programs funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Anna North breaks down the new rule, emphasizing its potential effects on affected foster care programs. The rule removes certain language from the previous administration's policies that would now allow certain HHS-funded programs to be exempt from laws protecting discrimination against gender identities and sexual orientations. As it was praised by many for upholding religious freedoms, North claims that it would have an adverse effect on children in the foster care system, especially those of LGBTQ identities. Her primary reasoning is that certain programs would not allow non-Christian or same-sex couples to adopt, thus keeping kids in poor facilities longer and likely sending more to juvenile correctional institutions. Another potential outcome comes through the absence of protection for LGBTQ kids who are introduced into the system, as North claims that foster care programs under the new rule could legally turn away kids of LGBTQ identity from entering under their jurisdiction. She uses statistical data to support her claims of the disproportionality of adoption for same-sex couples, but much of North's persuasive tactics lie in her emotional detailing of a personal story of a student who grew up in a poor foster care facility. Being of Liberian descent, a Muslim, and a homosexual, North uses her as an example of the potential cruelty that foster care programs could act with regarding children of certain identities. As with much of her work, North relies heavily upon assumption and speculation, and so flaws naturally find themselves standing out in such logical processes. Nevertheless, she effectively and thoroughly compiles many relevant facts to validate her perspective, though she is unable to acknowledge or subsequently refute the stances that may invalidate her reason throughout the piece.
Of course same-sex couple adopt far more often than heterosexual couples, but that 21.4% that the author mentions still falls short in comparison to the ~39% of ALL married couples who have children (US Census Bureau). While the author's concerns of certain religious foster care agencies not allowing same-sex couples or even non-Christian couples to adopt are warranted and follow sound reason, it sounds like a stretch to say that those same agencies would discriminate against LGBTQ children in the system, as the traditional, Christian moral and scientific understanding of homosexuality would point to the opposite result. Additionally, Ms. North makes perhaps too many assumptions regarding the foster care system as a whole, implying that it almost always has negative impacts on all children compared to any other living environment, and that the system is too quick to punish children and send them to juvenile correction facilities. While I would much rather see those children grow up in healthy, stable households with two married and morally-educated parents, it is difficult for one to insist that letting agencies decide what kind of family is best for the future health of a child would lead to negligence.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea you pose that although the author makes an effective argument, she lacks addressing another perspective or thought about the topic. This instantly makes her audience doubt her ability to refute other ideas. Personally, I believe this is an important piece of an argument and makes her argument less credible.
ReplyDelete