Utah’s Real Family Values: State Cuts Vital Support for Adopted and Foster Children; Number of Homeless Children Skyrockets


In the broader debates about women’s rights to determine whether, when and with whom to have children, members of the far-right anti-choice movement insist that once pregnant, a woman must carry a pregnancy to term and give birth, no matter how untenable the pregnancy for her, her partner, or her family.

And they paint a rosy picture of options like adoption, even of severely disabled children.

Well the realities are very different and one of the most anti-choice states in the union, Utah, now shows it’s real colors by cutting Medicaid assistance to families who have adopted or foster special-needs children.

As of July 1, Medicaid no longer covers “therapeutic supervision” costs for in-patient mental health treatment. At the same time, state budget cuts reduced a supplemental subsidy fund that the Division of Child and Family Services used to help parents with such expenses.

Utah, you may remember, passed an anti-choice law earlier this year that is so restrictive it can be used to prosecute women who experience a miscarriage.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that these cuts have saddled some families who have adopted special-needs foster children with unexpected expenses and difficult choices.  The funding changes affect an estimated 40 to 50 children statewide who receive adoption subsidies. At least 12 children have been returned to state custody so far by adoptive and foster families could no longer afford the expense of their care.

“Now the state is going back to adoptive parents and asking them to make up the difference in cost [for special-needs care],” Jennifer Gardner, president of the Utah Foster/Adoptive Families Association, told the Salt Lake Tribune. “It is just hard when these were the state’s kids to begin with.”

An adoptive mom of three, Natalie, tells this story:

She and her husband adopted two brothers as infants; both were exposed to methamphetamine during their mother’s pregnancy. At the time they adopted the second boy, the couple also adopted an older sibling. 

The couple had a simple motive when they adopted three children from state foster care: They wanted to help.

But Natalie, tells the Tribune, she feels let down — even misled — about the children’s needs and the state’s ability to help her family meet them. The two boys have since been diagnosed with autism. But the biggest challenge has come with the older sibling, whom they returned to state custody recently because of severe — and undisclosed, Natalie says — behavior problems.

Meanwhile, the state has see a whopping 48 percent increase in the number of homeless school-age children since 2008, according to state data released last Wednesday and reported in the Tribune.

Nearly 12,000 children were homeless in January 2010, meaning their families had lost their homes and were typically staying with friends or relatives, officials said at the annual Homeless Summit in downtown Salt Lake City.

Statewide, the numbers of homeless children jumped from 8,016 in 2008 to 10,388 in 2009 and 11,883 in 2010.

These are issues of reproductive justice.  To ensure that every child born is a wanted child requires sustained and meaningful investment to ensure that every person has access to effective and evidence-based sexual and reproductive health education.  It requires sustained investment to ensure universal access to reproductive health services, including those that enable people to avoid unintended pregnancies, and to make meaningful choices when those pregnancies occur.  It means ensuring trusting women, and their partners when relevant, to know whether bringing a child into the world is the best thing for that family and that child.  It means understanding that some people are not equipped and do not have the resources by themselves to fund the intensive care required by many children with profound and special needs. It certainly means that when the state makes a promise to care for children with disabilities or to “celebrate every life” that children not be left homeless, on their own, out of school, without food and clothing.  It means that the state and society have a responsibility to every born child to meet their most basic human needs for medical and social care when parents are unable to do that, and that it is not okay to promise adoptive parents help that later becomes “optional” in the eyes of the state.

In a telling–and chilling–interview with Rose Aguilar, Utah State Representative Carl Wimmer (R) underscores that he feels it is the state’s right to force women to bear children, but it is not the state’s responsiblity to assist in supporting children in need.

RA: You say you care about life, so what programs will you put in place to make sure all of those children have a decent life?

CW: I’m not sure the government needs to be doing that. There are plenty of volunteer organizations that help. We need to work hard to get resources where they need to be. We might need to look at rural areas. We definitely need to make sure that counseling is in place for young women who get pregnant.

It appears there is a small gap in what those volunteer organizations in Utah are providing to the special needs children and homeless children throughout the state.

What the case of Utah tells me is that state representatives governed by and kowtowing to the ultra right talk a lot about responsibliity, but in the end take none.  And that they want women to sacrifice all of their rights, with no sustained effort by the state to meet its own obligations.  Wimmer wants to use his legislation as a “model” for other states. It’s a chilling model for all of our futures.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Jodi Jacobson on Twitter: @jljacobson

To schedule an interview with Jodi Jacobson please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • prowomen

    Why isn’t this law and similar ones being challenged in the courts?  

     

    What part of the Constitution allows a pregnant woman’s ingestion of food, alcohol, etc., to be regulated and for her to be penalized by the state to the extent she receives a jail sentence, making her other children orphans? There were no such laws when abortion was illegal.

     

    Medical information isn’t extensive or reliable enough to indicate whether or not eating, smoking or drinking anything will directly cause the death of a fetus.  (In addition, a fetus is not constitutionally protected–only those born.)  Wouldn’t they have to prove what she ingested and when and present medical evidence that supports the results of ingesting it?  The drinking of coffee has been targeted as being bad for certain conditions, then later findings indicate just the opposite.  The same holds true for alcohol and smoking in moderation.  Many healthy babies have been born to women who smoked, drank, engaged in extreme sports, etc. 

     

    Even if a substance has been scientifically proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it can cause a specific condition detrimental to a fetus, what right has the state to interfere or punish anyone for using it?  Are men punished for ingesting substances that cause sperm abnormalities which could result in harm to a fetus?  

    Women are being dehumanized as merely unfeeling incubators, instead of being recognized as actual human beings who suffer from the tragedy of about one million fetal deaths each year, according to the National Survey of Family Growth.  The tragedy of losing a baby is bad enough without self-important men, who will never be a victim of their law, playing God to punish women who are already suffering.  

     

    Have any wealthy women snorting coke or whatever been charged through such an illegal, religious extremist law?  That should happen before they start arresting poor women.