Taking Back the Moral High Ground One Case at A Time

Last week, three major Supreme Court decisions indicated that the fight to restore decency to culture is working. The courageous warriors who fought against immoral policies should be lauded for their efforts in fighting for a more ethical society. They fought against the stiff current of moral decline and chipped away at some of our society’s moral perversion because of their perseverance.

In the present term, the Court upheld three cases of interest with decisions affirming the moral order. In April, Good Moral Compasses reported on the fight between the State of South Carolina and Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood brought the case in response to the State’s policy of withholding Medicaid from Planned Parenthood because the organization provides abortions and is in violation of the state’s present laws. South Carolina is one of the states that has significant restrictions on abortion.

Julie Edwards, the named person behind Planned Parenthood’s suit, claimed the Medicaid statute allows a patient to obtain care from any qualified provider. Edwards claimed she had the right to go to Planned Parenthood and shift all of her gynecological and reproductive health care to Planned Parenthood and demand that the state’s Medicaid program pay for it. The High Court ruled that a patient does not have the right to expect Medicaid to pay for her treatment. The case denies Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid payments, and indirectly defunds the organization determined to kill many babies yearly.

Another win for the moral order came with an affirmative ruling in a case involving school districts’ overreaching and policies against parents’ rights. In Montgomery, Maryland, the school district mandated that elementary parents cannot opt out of their children’s instruction that includes LGBTQ+ themes. The parents behind the suit were diverse, including Muslim, Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents.

The dispute started in 2022 when the school board approved LGBTQ+ books in their language-arts curriculum. One example was Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, telling a story about a little girl’s reaction to her Uncle’s homosexual marriage. Initially, the school board allowed an opt-out, but changed its policy in 2023, contending it was too difficult to enact that policy in a large school district.  The group of parents filed suit in federal court, ultimately making its way up to the Supreme Court. 

In a 6-3 ruling, the Court affirmed the parents’ right to refuse to have their children present during LGBTQ+ instruction. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. Here is an excerpt of his opinion:

“The Board’s introduction of the “LGBTQ+-inclusive” story books, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt-outs, substantially interferes with the religious development of petitioners’ children and imposes the kind of burden on religious exercise.  The books are unmistakably normative. They are designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated, and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected.”

The question of age verification and sexually explicit content was settled by the Court agreeing with the State of Texas law prohibiting minors from such material. Texas law, H.B 1181, signed into law in 2023, relates to the publication of sexual material harmful to minors on an internet website. U.S. District Court Judge Alan Ezra agreed with the adult industry and blocked the law from taking effect. Ezra claimed the law likely violated the First Amendment by interfering with adults’ access to protected speech.”

Justice Thomas disagreed. “The First Amendment leaves undisturbed States’ traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective. That power includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech. It follows that no person—adult or child—has a First Amendment right to access such speech without first submitting proof of age.”

The decisions in these three cases are a positive step toward stopping the erosion of morality in our society. Although there is a long way to go, it is a start, and it encourages others to fight against those who wish to suppress their religious rights and eradicate God’s law in the public sphere. Slowly but surely, courageous and religious people must fight against the forces bent on suppressing religious freedom.