Bill Description: Senate Bill 1368 would broadly criminalize adoption-related advertising by anyone other than a licensed adoption agency.
Rating: -1
NOTE: Senate Bill 1368 is similar to Senate Bill 1307, introduced earlier this session.
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 without 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 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if such person or organization advertises in any periodical or newspaper, by radio, or by any other public medium that the person or organization will place children for adoption; accepts, supplies, provides, or obtains children for adoption; or causes any advertisement to be published in or by any public medium soliciting, requesting, or asking for any child or children for adoption."
It would also say, " Any person, organization, association, or corporation without a valid and unrevoked license to place children for adoption issued by the Idaho department of health and welfare that places any child for adoption shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a birth parent."
The broad prohibitions contained in this bill could criminalize advertisements for a consulting service that provides introductions or guidance to those involved in the adoption process.
The bill's prohibition against "soliciting, requesting, or asking for any child or children for adoption" 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)
