Dear Friends,
Brian and Julie Wuoti wanted to open their home to children in foster care. They had the space, the love, and the commitment to help kids who needed families. The state of Vermont stepped in and told them no.
Why? Because the Wuotis refused to pledge they would affirm and promote any foster child’s chosen sexual orientation and gender identity, regardless of their deeply held religious beliefs. Vermont’s “Policy 76” requires all prospective foster parents to make this pledge or forfeit their ability to serve vulnerable children.
When loving couples like the Wuotis and another family, the Gantts, refused to abandon their faith, Vermont denied them foster licenses entirely. Think about that for a moment. Vermont would rather leave children without families than allow people of faith to provide loving homes.
This isn’t just misguided policy. It’s a fundamental violation of the First Amendment that puts ideology ahead of children’s welfare.
That’s why my office joined a 22-state coalition challenging Vermont’s unconstitutional foster care policy. Foster parents shouldn’t be forced to choose between their faith and serving children in need.
You might wonder why Idaho is getting involved in what’s happening in another state. The reason is that attacks on religious liberty and constitutional rights don’t stay contained to one state forever. Vermont’s policy is already being watched by activist officials across the country who want to copy it. If we don’t push back now, Idaho families of faith could face the same discrimination when they try to help children in foster care. We’re not waiting for that fight to come to our doorstep. My office joined this case by filing what’s called an amicus brief—which is Latin for “friend of the court.” It allows states like Idaho to weigh in on important cases even when we’re not directly involved, especially when the outcome could affect our own laws and citizens. When 22 state attorneys general file one together, it sends a strong message to the court that this isn’t just Vermont’s problem—it’s a threat to constitutional rights everywhere.
Idaho has shown there’s a better way to help foster kids. Rather than imposing one-size-fits-all requirements that drive away faith-motivated families, we use targeted matching programs that place children with compatible families while protecting everyone’s constitutional rights. Our approach first licenses safe, stable homes through standard safety evaluations, then carefully matches children with families sharing similar values and backgrounds.
Idaho law prioritizes placing children with foster parents of the same religious faith or tradition and explicitly protects foster parents from discrimination based on their sincere religious beliefs. The results speak for themselves. We’ve increased our foster home-to-child ratio from 0.75 to 0.9, successfully ended a temporary housing program for youth in foster care, and achieved placement stability where fewer than sixteen percent of foster children experience multiple placements.
Vermont’s approach is not only constitutionally deficient but also counterproductive. It prevents faith-motivated families from serving children while also denying religious foster children the opportunity to be placed in homes that share their values. When government forces people to abandon their deeply held beliefs as a condition of public service, it violates the very foundation of religious liberty.
This case matters far beyond Vermont’s borders. If states can condition foster care licensing on abandoning religious beliefs, what’s next? Will they require adoption agencies to violate their faith? Will they demand that religious schools teach content that contradicts their core beliefs? The precedent Vermont seeks to establish threatens religious liberty nationwide, and we must be proactive to stop it.
I will continue standing with people of faith and for the constitutional rights of all Idahoans. We’ve proven that protecting those rights and serving children’s best interests aren’t competing goals; they’re complementary ones. Idaho families know that children thrive when they’re placed with families who share their values and can provide not just homes, but hope rooted in faith and love.
One reply on “Labrador Letter: Fighting to Stop Vermont’s Anti-Faith Policy”
FIRST AMENDMENT ALERT!
“This isn’t just misguided policy. It’s a fundamental violation of the First Amendment….”
Are you sure about that? Or, instead, could this common-place attack on Christianity actually be one of the horrific consequences of the First Amendment – the First Commandment-violating, polytheism-enabling First Amendment?
Religious Freedom and Christian Liberty are NOT the same thing. In fact, Christian Liberty (aka biblical dominion) was sacrificed on the altar Religious Freedom.
Without the parameters of the Bible’s moral law, the First Amendment has proven to be a toxic brew. For example, Amendment 1 condemns the prohibition of speech, whether spoken or written. Does the Bible provide for free speech or does it limit speech? What about freedom of speech and freedom of the press as it concerns Yahweh Himself? Does God grant us freedom to curse Him or blaspheme His name, without serious consequences?
On the other hand, freedom of speech and freedom of the press is used to provide protection for those who promote false religions, in utero infanticide, sodomy, lesbianism, “transgenderism,” drug abuse, violence, and other abominations condemned by Yahweh, God of the Bible.
The provision in Amendment 1 for United States citizens to assemble peaceably appears innocuous. But is it harmless to give sodomites, infanticide advocates, and Satanists the right to assemble peaceably? If you are a proponent of the Constitution and a defender of Amendment 1, you must also champion the rights of such criminals and anti-Christians to assemble and promote their wicked agendas.
Homosexuals and infant assassins claim freedom of speech and the right to assemble to combat Christians who speak out or assemble against these heinous people and their brazen debauchery. By labeling what Christians do as hate crimes, these immoral people are able to employ Amendment 1 against Christians speaking and/or assembling against these atrocities.
According to the First Amendment, it is the alleged religious right of these sodomites, baby killers, and Satanists to use Amendment 1 against Christians.
For more, see Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at bible versus constitution dot org. Click on the top entry on our Online Book page and scroll down to Chapter 11.
Find out how much you *really* know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that *examines* the Constitution by the Bible.