A coalition of child advocates, lawmakers, parents and labor representatives could barely contain their invectives yesterday as they described at a news conference anti-homosexual amendments proposed for a bill originally intended to spur adoption of abused and neglected children.

"What has happened is incredibly unethical," said Susan Davis, executive director of Every Child Inc., an adoption placement agency headquartered in East Liberty, where the news conference was held.

"It is really reprehensible that we have to be dealing with an extreme social agenda that has the potential to deny 3,500 children in Pennsylvania families," said state Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, of the amendments that are scheduled to be debated Monday.

"These amendments fly in the face of basic human decency and compassion," said Neal Bisno, an official with District 1199P of the Service Employees International union, representing many state workers.

Among other things, the proposed amendments would forbid state and local governments from extending work benefits to the partners of homosexual government employees.

"Please don't play politics with children's lives," said Scott Hollander, director of KidsVoice, which represents abused and neglected children.

Originally, the bill had one simple purpose: to shift costs from counties to the state. Counties now pay 10 percent of adoption subsidies, which are similar to foster care payments but are given to people who adopt difficult to place children, such as those older than 6, sibling groups and youngsters with mental and physical disabilities.

These payments eliminate the disincentive to converting a relationship from foster care to adoption. Some counties, however, are hesitant to pay, thus limiting adoption of these hard-to-place children.

The bill would shift this cost to the state, and, it is hoped, increase the number of foster children who are adopted as a result.

But earlier this year, state Rep. Jerry Birmelin, R-Wayne, offered about 50 amendments. They would outlaw taxpayer-funded same-sex work benefits, ban adoption by gay couples and reinforce a 1996 state law forbidding same-sex marriages.

Hollander noted at the news conference yesterday that some of the amendments are unconstitutionally vague. For example, homosexuality is not defined and no test for it offered.

Davis said that characteristics such as sexual orientation, race, age and marital status are not those that her agency uses to judge whether applicants are qualified to adopt.

She and Hollander pointed out there's no waiting list of potential parents to adopt these children, who often carry with them profound problems. On the contrary, there are hundreds of children awaiting parents.

Davis said there's no evidence that a parent's sexual orientation affects his or her ability to serve as a parent, so children should not be denied the security of adoption because the potential parent is homosexual.