They’re at it again.

The Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services has proposed a new rule that would apply to adoption and foster care agencies, allowing them to discriminate against GLBT people, and would allow any organization that gets an HHS grant for a health care or child care program to refuse to serve GLBT people who pay the taxes that allow for those grants.

The current rules ban giving grants to organizations that discriminate based on a list of factors, among them sexual orientation, but the proposed rule would remove sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion from that list allowing grant recipients to treat legally married same sex couples from different-sex ones.

There are 440,000 foster children who would benefit from being in a loving home permanently, but, apparently, to celebrate November as National Adoption Month ,the Trump administration made the announcement of slamming one door to that  closed to them on the first day of this month.

But, wait, there’s more.

The rule would also allow all HHS grant recipients related to public health, like HIV and STI programs, opioid addiction programs, youth homelessness, human trafficking, pre-K education, and health research to discriminate while still receiving federal money.

When these commander levitra http://deeprootsmag.org/2015/08/24/newport-folk-festival-goes-roots-y-but-hasnt-it-always-been-so/ tissues are stretched or torn… the spine becomes significantly less stable. Is it fair? women viagra online From a coaching standpoint, probably not. However one herbal method that has gain immense popularity online viagra in treating the hair defects. Baskin Robbions, the ice cream brand, is also slurping up the benefits; it recently launched its cheap sildenafil no prescription loyalty pilot programme in a few cities.

Clearly, this new rule is, as Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality said,

“an abuse of taxpayer dollars in the name of empowering hatred and bigotry towards society’s most vulnerable members.”

The Department of Health and Human Services justifies its move on the basis of religious freedom because those stating religious objections to following the rules should still be allowed to get federal money.

But, while a religious based organization might give up federal money because they want to discriminate, thus freeing up the money for compliant organizations to increase their programs, HHS argues that,

“The Department believes that such an outcome would likely reduce the effectiveness of programs funded by federal grants by reducing the number of entities available to provide services under these programs.”

Or, seen another way, the threat of the loss of funds might show that in the United States, if you receive money from all taxpayers, you have to treat them all equally, or you don’t get their money.

To re-apply one of the retorts used by the conservative religious right and their enablers toward those who object to some Trumpian misstep,

“If you want to have a country ruled by religion rather than civil law, by all means, move to one.”