Could Addiction Cost You Custody? H.R. 9076: A Trojan Horse for Marginalized Families
Spread the word!
Could Your Addiction Lead to Losing Custody of Your Children? H.R. 9076: A Trojan Horse for State Control of Families
At first glance, H.R. 9076 appears to be a noble attempt to protect vulnerable children, but beneath its well-intentioned surface lies a set of policies that could unravel the fabric of marginalized families across the country.
The State’s Growing Power Over Family Decisions
Much like China’s infamous One-Child Policy, which dictated family sizes with intrusive measures, H.R. 9076 places the state in an uncomfortably authoritative role over the most intimate aspects of family life. The bill's Substance Abuse Provisions dangerously equate addiction with unfit parenting, giving the state broad powers to remove children from homes, often without addressing the systemic issues that contribute to these conditions. This could result in a new wave of family separation, disproportionately affecting Black, Indigenous, and marginalized families. The parallels to China’s One-Child Policy are striking; just as China used state power to regulate family size, H.R. 9076 uses state power to regulate family structure under the guise of child protection.
Disproportionate Harm to Marginalized Communities
In China, the One-Child Policy disproportionately targeted rural families and ethnic minorities, using state intervention to enforce rigid family planning measures. Similarly, H.R. 9076’s provisions could criminalize poverty and addiction, reinforcing cycles of inequality and family separation. Families already facing financial hardship or addiction issues would bear the brunt of a system that conflates these struggles with unfit parenting, even though these challenges are often rooted in systemic inequities rather than parental incompetence.
Government Surveillance and Privacy Risks
One of the most alarming features of H.R. 9076 is its introduction of digital portals designed to connect families to child welfare resources. While this may appear innovative, it risks turning into a surveillance tool, monitoring families under the pretense of offering assistance. This mirrors the surveillance inherent in China’s One-Child Policy, where family planning was heavily monitored by the state. In both cases, the state’s intrusion into personal lives raises concerns about privacy and the potential for overreach.
Erosion of Family Autonomy
Just as the One-Child Policy removed personal choice from family decisions by limiting the number of children, H.R. 9076 undermines parental authority by giving the state the power to remove children based on subjective determinations of addiction or parenting competency. Families would be forced to navigate life-altering decisions in a system that could potentially strip them of their autonomy, much like the forced compliance under China’s population control measures.
Moral Justifications for State Overreach
The One-Child Policy was justified by the Chinese government as a necessary step to ensure economic growth and sustainable development. Similarly, H.R. 9076 frames its actions as essential to protecting children and improving child welfare. However, in both cases, the policies rely on a moral argument to justify invasive state intervention in family matters—interventions that disproportionately affect marginalized communities and fail to address the root causes of these issues.
The Hidden Dangers of H.R. 9076
While the bill claims to be a reform that prioritizes child welfare, it could ultimately be a Trojan horse for further eroding family rights. Instead of addressing the systemic issues that lead to family separation—such as poverty, addiction, and racial inequities—H.R. 9076 empowers the state to make sweeping decisions about who can keep their children and who cannot.
As with China’s One-Child Policy, the bill risks using government power to control and regulate families in ways that could harm the most vulnerable. The bill’s failure to address racial disparities in child welfare, its potential to turn digital resources into surveillance tools, and its overreliance on subjective criteria for child removal all echo the harmful legacy of state control over families.
A Call for Vigilance and Accountability
As a society, we must demand that policies like H.R. 9076 be reexamined. We need to ensure that child welfare reform does not come at the expense of family autonomy, privacy, and equity. Just as we rejected the excesses of China’s One-Child Policy, we must resist any legislation that seeks to strip away the rights of marginalized families under the guise of protecting children.
This is not just a legislative issue; it is a moral one. We must hold lawmakers accountable to a vision of reform that uplifts families without tearing them apart.