Can public schools force elementary-age students to participate in gender and sexuality instruction, with no notice given to parents and no ability to opt out? Can a state protect minors from medical transgender procedures? And can a state block abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds?
In the next few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide on all three of these issues, and Christians are hoping that the rulings will support the rights of individuals and states to operate in ways that value human life and God’s created order.
Mahmoud v. Taylor
In Maryland, the Montgomery County Board of Education requires elementary school teachers to read to students storybooks that celebrate gender transitions, Pride parades and same-sex playground romance. Initially the board allowed parents to opt their children out of those sessions, but then it reversed course, announcing that no opt-outs would be permitted and that parents would not even be notified when the storybooks were to be read.
A coalition of parents is arguing that compelling elementary-age children to participate in instruction contrary to their parents’ religious convictions violates the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution. But a federal district court and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both sided with the school board. The court of appeals said the parents’ constitutional rights were not being burdened because no child was forced “to change their religious beliefs or conduct.”
After the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 22, many observers pointed out that several of the conservative justices seemed skeptical of the school board’s position.
“I don’t think anybody can read that and say, ‘Well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,’” said Justice Samuel Alito, referring to the book Uncle Bobby’s Wedding. “It has a clear moral message.”
And Chief Justice John Roberts asked the school’s attorney: “You said that nothing in the policy requires students to affirm what’s being taught or what’s being presented in the books. Is that a realistic concept when you’re talking about a 5-year-old?”
Rena Lindevaldsen, professor of law at the Liberty University School of Law, told Decision: “This case is going to have to address the question, do you waive your parental rights over everything when you put your kids in public schools? That’s essentially what Maryland is arguing here, that ‘once you drop your children off at the schoolhouse doors, we decide what values they need and how we’re going to give them those values.’”
Lindevaldsen said the appeals court’s ruling that “unless it’s going to make you change your beliefs, it’s not a burden” is a drastic and “incredibly incorrect” standard.
“I’d like to think they’re going to reverse that on the standard alone,” she said. “But I also am hoping for a good opinion from the Supreme Court to clarify that parents have the Biblical right to parent, not the government.”
United States v. Skrmetti
The state of Tennessee prohibits all medical transgender treatments for minors, but that ban is being challenged. The suit was originally brought by three transgender teens and their parents, and the Biden administration joined the case. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the state’s ban, so the Biden administration and the families appealed to the Supreme Court.
Although the court heard oral arguments in December, the Trump administration notified the court in February that in its view, the state’s ban does not violate the Constitution. It urged the court to issue a decision, however.
Among the groups that submitted amicus briefs in support of Tennessee was a coalition of Christian and conservative medical associations. They pointed to scientific research showing that children who undergo transgender medical procedures almost always experience lifelong adverse consequences.
“Sound medical ethics alone demands an end to the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and sex reassignment surgeries in children and adolescents,” the brief stated.
Lindevaldsen noted that although she believes the court will uphold Tennessee’s ban, a ruling to that effect will only mean that a state has the right to pass such bans, not that these procedures will be banned nationwide.
“So even with a good decision,” she said, “we need to be very active in our legislatures, to get the states to adopt the right laws.”
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic
After the state of South Carolina determined that Planned Parenthood was not qualified to receive taxpayer funding as part of its Medicaid program, a federal district court forced the state to restore Planned Parenthood’s funding, concluding that Medicaid recipients have a right to choose their preferred provider.
The state’s position that abortion facilities are unqualified to provide family-planning services through Medicaid is in keeping with a state law prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions. Even though the Medicaid funds can’t be used for abortions directly, giving any money to abortion clinics would free up resources for them to provide more abortions.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing the state, argues that states should be free to use taxpayer dollars in accordance with their own state laws and priorities. “No citizen should be forced to fund facilities that perform life-ending and medically fraught procedures like abortion,” ADF said.
Lindevaldsen said the court’s decision may actually rest on whether or not Planned Parenthood even has the right to sue in this case. “If the federal government believes South Carolina is violating Medicaid laws, then it is the one who should sue—not Planned Parenthood,” she said. “It would create chaos if every time a state interprets something, anybody in the state who is impacted could sue.”
The court is expected to rule on these cases by the end of June or early July.
