Article  Human Dignity  Life  Marriage and Family  Religious Liberty  Adoption

Explainer: New federal regulation would protect faith-based adoption and coster-care

What just happened?

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed a new regulation on Friday, Nov. 1 that will help ensure faith-based organizations can continue serving vulnerable children and families through foster-care and adoption services.

Commenting on the proposed rule, ERLC President Russell Moore said:
 

“This new regulation from the Trump administration is a welcome signal that the child-welfare system is about the welfare of children—not proxy culture wars. The previous administration’s policy change excluded faith-based organizations with convictions about the need for a child to have both a mother and a father. The children in our foster system are facing a crisis, as tens of thousands age out of the program each year. Every American ought to be able to come together to solve this problem. Today’s move is a good start in that direction.”

Why is the rule needed?

Before leaving office in January 2017, President Obama implemented a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation among federal grantees. As a result of the rule, religious-based child welfare providers, such as adoption agencies, were required to abandon their deeply held religious beliefs in order to continue receiving federal funding for their services.

A collective effort from public servants, law firms, and advocacy groups—including the ERLC—advocated for the need to bring these regulations back in line with all other federal nondiscrimination law.  

What does the rule do?

The HHS summary states that the proposed rule would:

  • Require grantees to comply with applicable nondiscrimination provisions passed by Congress and signed into law.
     
  • Provide that HHS complies with applicable Supreme Court decisions in administering its grant programs.
     
  • Not re-impose the exclusion from allowable costs in grants of penalties due for failing to comply with Individual Mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Trump Administration has already eliminated the penalty associated for failing to comply with the ACA’s individual mandate.
     
  • Reissue the other provisions of the 2016 regulation.

What is a regulation, and why is HHS allowed to make such rules?

Regulations are rules that have the force of law because they are issued by various federal government departments and agencies to carry out the intent of legislation enacted by Congress. The executive branch, through the various regulatory agencies, carries out most interpretation of legislation. Regulatory agencies handle administrative law, primarily by codifying and enforcing rules and regulations. When Congress passes a new law it usually goes to a regulatory agency to determine how the law will be put in place.

What was the process for creating this regulation?

When Federal regulatory agencies translate Congressional directives into regulations they must follow provisions set out in the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (5 USC 551-702). This act establishes procedures for developing new regulations, including steps for soliciting and responding to public comment.

Before establishing a new regulation, an agency must issue a draft regulation, obtain and consider public comment, and then issue the final regulation. Each step must be published in the Federal Register—the “official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.”

This regulation is currently in the public comment period. Objections raised during the public comment period must be addressed before the final regulation is adopted. After it is adopted, the final regulation is incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations and becomes official government regulatory policy that must be followed.



Related Content

Colorado

ERLC and Colorado Baptists oppose “Kelly Loving Act,” a radical gender ideology bill

Bulletin insert for Colorado churches

The Colorado House of Representatives passed a bill that would promote radical gender ideology...

Read More

Explainer: Supreme Court hears arguments in case about states defunding Planned Parenthood

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic—a...

Read More

Explainer: Supreme court hears oral arguments in religious autonomy case

Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Review Industry Commission

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a significant religious autonomy case. Catholic...

Read More

Explainer: Supreme Court to hear states defunding Planned Parenthood case

On April 2, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a critical...

Read More

Explainer: Supreme Court to hear gender ideology indoctrination case

Mahmoud v. Taylor

On April 22, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding parental rights and...

Read More

Explainer: Supreme Court to hear faith-based tax-exemption case

Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Review Industry Commission

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor &...

Read More