Watch the fine print | WORLD
Logo
Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

Watch the fine print


You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get started for as low as $3.99 per month.

Current WORLD subscribers can log in to access content. Just go to "SIGN IN" at the top right.

LET'S GO

Already a member? Sign in.

Of course we should help runaway and homeless youth—shouldn’t we? The U.S. Senate, a great deliberative body, is considering S.262, a bill written by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., that would reauthorize the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. The RHYA brings funding to services for young people, many of them identifying as LGBT, who are on the run and could benefit from a safe place to stay.

The RHYA may or may not be a good thing, depending on whether those services really help a homeless young person or merely enable him to keep running—but the fine print is really troubling. A good watchdog group, the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance (IRFA), points out that S.262 not only forbids discrimination but “(1) applies to the religious hiring practices of faith-based grantees; (2) applies to privately funded programs offered by grantees, which could make it illegal to offer private programs that require religious activity or that teach that LGBT conduct violates religious standards; (3) applies far beyond the program for runaway and homeless youth to EVERY grant program authorized by the Administration for Children and Families in the [Health and Human Services] Department—TANF services, marriage and fatherhood programs, refugee programs, child care, abstinence education, and much much more.”

S.262, if passed as is, would discriminate against many effective religious organizations, forcing them either to violate their faith or give up serving young people in need. The bill’s sweeping language could become a precedent in other federal programs. One precedent already exists in the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which an inattentive Congress passed without noting its sweeping, religion-unfriendly provisions. No one wanted to vote against vulnerable women.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was supposed to take up the bill today but didn’t, partly because of concerns related to the discrimination language. Meanwhile, IRFA hopes to call more attention to S.262’s flaws. Angelic folks could also call Senate offices and point out the devil in the details.


Marvin Olasky

Marvin is the former editor in chief of WORLD, having retired in January 2022, and former dean of World Journalism Institute. He joined WORLD in 1992 and has been a university professor and provost. He has written more than 20 books, including Reforming Journalism.

@MarvinOlasky

COMMENT BELOW

Please wait while we load the latest comments...

Comments