Adopt the Child Placement Services Preservation Act

Brief

What this bill does

If it passes, what actually changes?

This is a religious-conscience protection bill for foster care and adoption agencies. It creates a new act, and it spends no money.

• Sections 1 to 7 create the Child Placement Services Preservation Act.
• Section 4 lets an agency decline any service conflicting with its sincerely held religious beliefs.
• Section 4(2) requires a declining agency to hand over contact information for another capable agency.
• Section 5 bars the state from pulling an agency's funding, contract, or license over that refusal.
• Section 3(5) extends that bar to state agencies and to cities, counties, and other subdivisions.
• Section 6 lets an agency raise a violation as a defense in any proceeding.

What it says it is for

Does it do what it claims?

The title is accurate as far as it goes. But what gets preserved is the agencies' position, not any level of service to families.

• Section 1 adopts the act under the exact name the title promises.
• The title promises severability, and Section 8 supplies it.
• Every operative duty in Sections 4 through 6 runs to agencies, not to families.
• The bill amends and repeals nothing; section 71-1926 is borrowed only for a definition.
• "Preservation" is never defined, and no section preserves any level of placement service.

Where Scripture bears on it

What does the Bible say about this?

Tri mode is on (both keys set; Grok and Groq both answered). Here is the passage:

LB1060 asks whether the state may revoke a child placement agency's license, contract, or funding because the agency declines a service on religious grounds — and, beneath that, who answers for the child while the adults settle the question of conscience. Scripture speaks directly to the duty owed the fatherless, and in one place holds that duty together with the duty to keep faith unspotted; on the licensing and funding mechanics the connection is thematic, not direct.

• "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." James 1:27
• "Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy." Psalms 82:3

These verses name an obligation to the fatherless and a call to unspotted religion, but they do not say who must carry that obligation, whether a state may attach conditions to a license or a public contract, or whether the referral required by Section 4(2) discharges the duty — those the bill decides, not the text.

**Tri tail.** All three legs independently chose the same two verses, James 1:27 and Psalms 82:3, and all three quoted them verbatim against the candidate list (I checked each word). Grok (`grok-4.3`) held to the two-bullet cap and framed the limit as funding/licensing conditions. Groq (`openai/gpt-oss-120b`) broke the cap with five bullets — adding Galatians 4:5, Romans 3:31, and 1 John 2:1, which reach "adoption" and "law" only by word-match, not sense — so its extras were dropped. The synthesis above is my own draft; the unanimous verse pick raised confidence in it, and I sharpened the limits sentence to name Section 4(2)'s referral, which neither external leg mentioned.

The case each way

What is the strongest argument for, and against?

The disagreement is whether shielding religious agencies grows the pool of available homes or shrinks access for some families.

• For: Section 2 finds children needing placement outnumber the Nebraska homes available.
• For: Faith-based agencies stay in the system instead of exiting over a conflict.
• For: Section 4(2) requires a referral, so a declined family still gets somewhere to go.
• Against: Agencies holding public contracts could turn away qualified applicants and keep the funding.
• Against: "Sincerely held religious beliefs" is undefined, so the shield's limits get set case by case.
• Against: Section 3(5) overrides city and county rules without naming which ones.

What is unsettled

What should I be careful about?

This brief reads only the bill's own words. It cannot tell you how the act would work in practice.

• The bill carries no fiscal note, appropriation, or cost estimate of any kind.
• Nothing here requires the department to actually build the web page in Section 4(2)(c).
• "Promptly" in Section 4(2) is not given a deadline in hours or days.
• Section 7 orders liberal construction, leaving courts wide room over the act's reach.
• Section 6 supplies only a defense; no lawsuit, damages, or fees are created.
• "To the fullest extent permitted by state and federal law" leaves federal limits undecided.

Text (1)

• Introduced (application/pdf)

Each link opens the Legislature's own document. The text itself is not in our database yet (fetched lazily); when it lands these pages will carry it verbatim.

All Actions (5)

Votes (0)

There have been no roll call votes on this bill.

Sponsors (1)

• Sen. Dave Murman [District 38] — primary sponsor

Amendments (0)

There are no amendments to this bill.

Fiscal Notes & Statements (2)

• Fiscal Note — Fiscal Note
• Statement of Intent — Statement of Intent

The Legislature's own companion documents; each link opens the official copy.

Committees (1)

Related Bills (0)

No related bill information was received for LB1060.