To Create The Keep Kids First Act; And To Provide For Protections From Discrimination For Adoption And Foster Care Providers Acting In Accordance With Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs.
HB1669, the “Keep Kids First Act,” creates a new state-law conscience protection for private child placement agencies and individuals involved in foster care and adoption. The bill states that faith-based providers should be able to continue serving children without being required to take actions that conflict with their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs, particularly beliefs related to sexual orientation and gender identity. It also says the state should not take discriminatory action against a provider or prospective provider because of those beliefs or because the provider will guide or raise a child in a manner consistent with those beliefs.
The bill defines “discriminatory action” broadly to include adverse tax treatment, denial or alteration of grants, contracts, licenses, certifications, benefits, penalties, employment actions, and other state actions. It bars the state from requiring a private child placement agency to participate in a placement that violates its beliefs and allows a person to raise a violation of the act as a claim or defense in court or administrative proceedings. Successful claimants may recover declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees, and the bill waives sovereign and governmental immunities to the extent needed to enforce those remedies.
In practical terms, HB1669 would add a new section to Arkansas Code Title 9 governing child welfare agencies and would create a statutory cause of action for faith-based adoption and foster care providers. It preserves existing best-interest-of-the-child standards and says the act does not prevent the state from considering a child’s or family’s religious background in placement decisions under current law. It also states that the new protections are in addition to existing federal, state, and constitutional free-exercise protections.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and voting history appears favorable among supporters, with the measure advancing through both chambers and receiving substantial majorities on third reading and on concurrence with a Senate amendment. The bill’s findings frame it as a way to preserve and expand the number of foster and adoption providers and to protect religious liberty for faith-based agencies. At the same time, the structure of the bill suggests likely concern from opponents about discrimination in child placement, especially where religious objections intersect with sexual orientation and gender identity, because the bill expressly shields agencies from adverse state action based on those beliefs.
HB1669 would amend Arkansas child welfare law by adding a new conscience-clause provision for private child placement agencies and related individuals. It would restrict state and local government actions that could penalize, condition, or otherwise disadvantage foster care and adoption providers because of sincerely held religious or moral beliefs, and it would create an express private right to sue or defend against alleged violations. The bill also waives immunity to the extent necessary to provide the remedies it authorizes, which could increase litigation exposure for state actors and expand legal protections for faith-based providers.
The bill appears to have had generally positive support in the legislature, as shown by repeated favorable third-reading votes and concurrence on a Senate amendment. The bill’s stated purpose and findings emphasize child placement stability, religious liberty, and preserving a broad network of providers, which aligns with support from lawmakers favoring faith-based service providers. No committee transcript was provided, so the available record does not show detailed debate, but the vote margins suggest the measure was politically viable despite likely partisan or ideological disagreement.
The main point of contention is the bill’s protection for agencies and individuals who refuse to participate in placements that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs, especially beliefs concerning sexual orientation and gender identity. Supporters would view this as a free-exercise and provider-retention measure, while opponents are likely to argue it could enable discrimination against LGBTQ children, prospective parents, or families and could limit placement options. Another likely dispute is the bill’s broad definition of discriminatory action and its waiver of immunity, which could be seen as expanding liability and constraining state oversight of child welfare providers.