There has been a number of significant judgements coming out of the United States Supreme Court around areas of interest to Family First. These judgements on everything from young people accessing pornography to allowing parents to remove their children from LGBTQ+ curriculum in schools.
While all of this is happening in the United States, we believe that these changes will eventually impact New Zealand as well – not in a legal way, but by increasing the pressure for cultural change and the return to family values.
Texas and pornography
The State of Texas had passed a law to ensure that pornographic websites had age verification to allow only those 18 years and older to access them. This law was challenged by some free speech and pornography groups.
The case before the Supreme Court is titled Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Justices said the State of Texas is allowed to have such a law. As Justice Thomas noted:
“Adults have the right to access speech obscene only to minors … but adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification.”
The majority of Justices did not see how freedom of speech was being impacted in many material way.
From our perspective, they have rightly balanced the rights of adults and the protection of children. Pornography is harmful and as various guests on the Family Matters podcast have noted, children are being impacted. Melinda Tankard-Reist from ‘Collective Shout’ in Australia pointed to research showing how pornography and social media is leading to a disturbingly high level of sexual harassment of girls and teachers.
You can read the judgement here.
Tennessee and banning gender treatments
The State of Tennessee had passed a law to ban on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for transgender teenagers. This was done based on the increasing evidence of harm such treatments cause, as well as being unnecessary. The law also responds to an understanding that young people are not able to consent to such treatments, including the impossibility of consenting to treatments where effectiveness is absent, unknown, or potentially harmful.
Justice Roberts rightly observed, “Tennessee concluded that there is an ongoing debate among medical experts regarding the risks and benefits associated with administering puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence. [The Tennessee law’s] ban on such treatments responds directly to that uncertainty.”
Those opposing the Tennessee law sought to argue that the constitutional right to equal protection was being undermined – that is, if a boy is being given drugs to treat precocious puberty, then a boy should also be given the drugs if he wants to become a girl.
The Justices outright rejected these arguments as well as arguments that transgender people are a protected class. Justice Barrett in particular noted that to be a protected class, there needs to be a clear and common set of characteristics whereas those in the trans community are a “large, diverse, and amorphous” group.
Another Justice, Clarence Thomas, slammed those challenging the law as having an “outsized credit to claims about medical consensus and expertise” surrounding gender treatment. He went on to criticise gender treatment ‘experts’ as
“hav[ing] built their medical determinations on concededly weak evidence” and “have surreptitiously compromised their medical recommendations to achieve political ends.”
This is a significant win including that over half the States of the USA have similar laws which now cannot be challenged as offending the constitutional right to equal protection, nor can opponents argue that being transgender makes someone a protected class.
As with the other judgements, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 split, reflecting conservative versus liberal lines. This case is known as United States v. Skrmetti.
You can read the judgment here.
South Carolina and Planned Parenthood
For a number of years, the State of South Carolina has refused to fund the likes of Planned Parenthood. As readers will know, Planned Parenthood are an enthusiastic abortion provider and now also involved in gender transition.
Medicaid is a health service focused on the needs of lower income Americans, and funded by both Federal and State governments.
The case is known as Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic.
The key finding was that individuals do not have a right to insist on a particular provider. That decision can be made – as in this situation – by the elected representatives of the State.
This is a significant victory for pro-life groups and another financial blow to abortion providers. Abortion is not healthcare, and taxpayer funds should not be used to fund it. It is very likely this judgement will have repercussion across other States. Also of note, the Trump Administration is currently looking to stop federal funding to Planned Parenthood as well.
You can read the judgment here.
Maryland and LGBTQ+ curriculum
In a case known as Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court has reinforced the rights of parents to opt their children out of school curriculum they disagree with based on their strongly held religious beliefs.
This is an important victory in terms of child protection but also religious freedom and pluralism. But is also a nuanced ruling. At the heart of the issue was a group of school boards in the State of Maryland insisting that children must attend classes discussing LGBTI+ topics and read associated books. Parents disagreed, wanting to ensure they could guide the development of their children.
The Court’s ruling stresses that there are an array of views on various matters, including around sexuality, and because of this there must be choice – in these instances, an ability for parents to remove their children from such classes. The Justices particularly noted how aggressive the curriculum was around such topics, allowing no room for discussion or contrary views on LGBTIQ+ issues. This stridency coupled with an inability to opt-out led to the Supreme Court’s ruling.
You can read the judgement here.
*This article was written by Family First staff
