Bill Description: Senate Bill 1307 would broadly criminalize adoption-related advertising by anyone other than a licensed adoption agency.
Rating: -1
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for nonviolent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?
Senate Bill 1307 would amend Section 18-1511, Idaho Code, related to adoption to say, "Any person or organization that, without holding either a valid and unrevoked license to place children for adoption issued by the Idaho department of health and welfare, or a valid and unrevoked license to practice law in Idaho, advertises in any periodical or newspaper, by radio, or other public medium, that the person or organization will place children for adoption or accept, supply, provide, or obtain children for adoption, or that causes any advertisement to be published in or by any public medium soliciting, requesting, or asking for any child or children for adoption is guilty of a misdemeanor."
It would also say, "Any person, other than a birth parent, or any organization, association, or corporation that, without holding a valid and unrevoked license to place children for adoption issued by the department, places any child for adoption is guilty of a misdemeanor."
The bill's statement of purpose suggests that this language is intended to target "unlicensed adoption facilitators," but the prohibitions contained here go far beyond that purpose.
The first problem with these prohibitions is that there can be a legal role for individuals outside of the formal adoption process to provide introductions or guidance to those involved. This language would broadly criminalize advertising such services.
The second problem is that this language is so broad, it could potentially criminalize something as benign as a post on social media ("any public medium") from someone who was looking for an opportunity to pursue adoption ("soliciting" a child).
Laws with the potential to limit speech must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means possible.
(-1)
