Kansas committee advances bill to bar preemptive exclusion of foster or adoptive applicants over beliefs on sexual orientation, gender identity

The House Committee on Child Welfare and Foster Care advanced House Bill 23‑11 to consideration for final action after a public hearing and a committee vote that divided members.

HB 23‑11, as described at the hearing by a representative of the Revised Statutes Office, would add a section to the state's child‑welfare code that "would prohibit the secretary for children and families from adopting, implementing, or enforcing a policy ... that would require a person to affirm, accept, or support a policy regarding sexual orientation or gender identity that may conflict with that person's beliefs," and would bar a per‑se exclusion of otherwise eligible foster or adoptive applicants on that ground. The bill also would allow a person aggrieved by a violation to seek actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

Supporters told the committee HB 23‑11 would protect Kansans of faith from being excluded from foster and adoptive service because they will not affirm a government position on sexual orientation or gender identity. Lance Kinzer of First Amendment Partnership told the panel similar litigation has arisen in other states and said the bill "protects folks across the spectrum with respect to their beliefs on this issue." Britney Jones, director of policy and engagement for Kansas Family Voice, said the legislation is intended only to "ensure that there's not a preemptive bar to these families of being part of the foster adoptive care system." Proponent witnesses including foster and adoptive parents and faith leaders argued the change would increase the pool of potential homes for children in care.

Opponents — including foster parents, child‑welfare professionals and civil‑rights and faith‑based organizations — said the bill would put LGBTQ+ foster youth at risk and could enable placements in homes that do not affirm a child's identity. "Kids need the state's protection from all forms of neglect and abuse," said Chloe Chaffin, a Douglas County CASA volunteer, adding that placing children "in homes with foster parents who will invalidate their queerness ... only compounds existing traumas and risk[s] dangerous mental health crises." Laurel Burchfield of Mainstream Coalition warned the bill "weaponizes so‑called religious freedoms to discriminate against LGBTQ+ Kansans." Dr. Brianna McGough, a University of Kansas social‑welfare researcher, told the committee rejecting behaviors that affirm a child's identity is linked to higher risks of suicidality, substance use and placement instability.

Committee members pressed both sides on how the measure would interact with placement decisions. The bill's text, as read at the hearing, includes a subsection stating subsection (a) "shall not be construed to prohibit the secretary from considering the beliefs of a child, the child's family, or the community ... when determining if such placement ... is in the best interest of the child," and that the secretary may "make selections as otherwise required by law." Supporters said that language preserves the department's ability to place each child based on the "totality of the circumstances." Opponents said the bill's private‑cause‑of‑action and the language protecting applicants could chill caseworkers or enable placements that compound trauma for LGBTQ+ youth.

Committee action and votes: Representative Johnson moved to suspend the rules, declare an emergency and advance HB 23‑11; Representative Humphreys seconded. Members later recorded opposition from Representatives Owlsley, Page and Carr when the chair announced the ayes had it and the motion passed. A subsequent motion to table the bill failed. Representative Johnson then moved to pass HB 23‑11 out of committee favorably; Representative Barth seconded and the motion carried. The clerk recorded three no votes on final passage in committee: Representatives Paige, Owlsley and Carr.

Witnesses on both sides cited numbers and examples in testimony: proponents pointed to a statewide shortage of foster families and stated (by witness testimony) that Kansas averages about 6,000 children in care and fewer than 2,500 licensed foster families at times; opponents and experts noted estimates (testimony) that roughly 30% of youth in foster care identify as LGBTQ+ and warned that unsupportive placements drive worse mental‑health and stability outcomes.

The bill will be considered by the full House following the committee's favorable report. Committee members and witnesses signaled that if HB 23‑11 proceeds it is likely to be the subject of amendment and additional floor debate.