SCTOUS goes to the Playground

Regent Law 1997 graduate, David Cortman, with Alliance Defending Freedom will take the Supreme Court to the Playground – or rather, will take the playground to the High Court on April 19, 2017.

 

Trinity Lutheran Church v. Pauley has been called "the most interesting case" of this Supreme Court term by Adam Liptak of The New York Times. Operating a preschool in Missouri, Trinity Lutheran Church applied for a playground resurfacing grant from the state in 2012. Obtaining the grant would allow Trinity to receive reimbursement for resurfacing its playground with a safer pour-in-place rubber surface made from recycled tires. While Trinity’s application was ranked 5^th out of the 44 applications it received, the church was denied, as Missouri determined that its state establishment clause forbids it from providing an available benefit to children—a safe playground surface—simply because the playground is on church property.

This case is about whether a religious group should be excluded from a government program simply because the group is religious.  View the various amicus briefs for this case at the SCOTUS blog.  Family restoration often happens best at church – and a safe playground is a good place to start.

Early Sexuality Destroys Childhood ldeals of Family

"Pedophiles New Playground: How Primetime Television and Movies Are Supporting Pedophilia," by Caitlin Walters, Regent Law Juris Doctor Candidate 2011, is an excellent analysis of popular entertainment as excellent fodder for child abuse by pedophiles. After detailing some notable scenes in recent film and television, she writes,

"Primetime television and movies are making it so that pedophiles no longer have to purchase illegal pornography to fulfill their perverted desires. Pedophiles can simply turn on the television or go to the movies and see depictions of minors acting sexually or having a relationship with someone over the age of 18. These depictions could lead a pedophile to believe that it is acceptable to view children as sexual objects and acceptable for children to engage in sexual acts. Even more dangerous than a pedophile believing that children are sexual objects and that it is acceptable for adults to engage in sexual relationships with minors is that minors may start to believe that these are acceptable behaviors. It may be easy for the average viewer to only view a television show or movie that paints a minor as a sexual being for the entertainment value. However, the public needs to realize that pedophiles and minors do not have this same ability.

Society needs to decide whether the potential of high ratings and entertainment value provided by these shows is worth encouraging or supporting pedophiles and confusing and victimizing children. Section I of this paper will discuss how the media is giving pedophiles materials that they can watch privately to fulfill their desires, replacing illegal child pornography. Child pornography is a form of child abuse that presents unique dangers to the victims. This section will discuss part of the history of American court's treatment of child pornography. It will demonstrate how the line between prime time television and pornography is becoming increasingly blurry. It is disturbing to think that the types of images that a pedophile uses to satisfy their perverted desires are the same images that are shown during the largest watched time slot on television. Section II of this paper will discuss how pedophiles use child pornography to victimize children, and how different television shows and movies are making it possible for pedophiles to move away from using illegal child pornography. Pedophiles use child pornography to desensitize children to sexual acts and to give the child something to mimic. This section will discuss how the provocative scenes in movies like Little Miss Sunshine and network television shows like Glee can be used by pedophiles to seduce children. Section III of this paper will briefly question whether the increasing number of television shows and movies that sexualize children has the possibility of resulting in a greater acceptance of this type of behavior.

The media has historically desensitized society to many controversial topics. Multiple groups are fighting for recognition and support for relationships between minors and adults. Physical relationships between adults and minors are present in different shows and movies, including shows that are on "family friendly" stations like ABC Family. Research has shown that media plays an important role in adolescent sexual socialization. This role may lead to a greater acceptance of minors acting sexually, and an eventual desensitization and acceptance of sexual relationships between adults and minors."

Read the entire article here.

SCOTUS Rules Playgounds Should be Safe for Kids Regardless of Religion

Kids who play on church school playgrounds can be protected too.  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that Missouri's taxpayer-funded playground grant which was available to nonprofit programs generally could not be denied to a church school.  FamilyRestoration posted on this matter previously – a case argued by Regent Law graduate, David Cortman, with Alliance Defending Freedom.  

In a 7-2 decision Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, "[T]he exclusion of Trinity Lutheran from a public benefit for which it is otherwise qualified, solely because it is a church, is odious to our Constitution all the same, and cannot stand."  

This ruling protects children from religious discrimination, affording them and their families 1^st Amendment freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Home Visitation or Federal Home Invasion???

Health Care Reform now means home visitation for young families and expectant parents. There is a portion of the health care reform bill in the House of Representatives, HB3200, which calls for the government to send federal agents to people's homes to teach them how to raise their children. This article from TownHall.com details some concerns, as does this report by the Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke on Sec. 440 of H.R.3200: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

Proponents would say this is just meant to help low-income parents. But the wording in some areas is vague, and that raises concerns about government intrusion on parental rights. This morning I did an interview with CBN’s Heather Sells covering this important aspect of HB 3200, and particularly Sec. 440 of the 1200 page bill.

My concerns are threefold:

1. First and foremost, parental rights are inalienable, and fundamentally protected by the U.S Constitution, yet this bill takes away those rights. The framers of our constitution understood that parental rights are granted from God rather than from the state, understanding these rights as inalienable. That notion is held throughout federal case law. In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), both affirmed in a more recent case, Troxel v. Granville (2000), the Supreme Court of the United States declared these rights unapologetically, clarifying that “parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their children.” Provisions in sec. 440 not only deny this fundamental right with government mandates, but expressly prohibit judicial review of this home visitation, effectively denying parents’ rights. Moreover, this mandated home visitation both discriminates and profiles by targeting two classes: impoverished families, and “child maltreatment communities.” Social science research has revealed repeatedly that there is no negative correlation between family poverty and child rearing; in fact it reveals just the opposite, that poor families invest more in the character of their children. And what exactly is a “child maltreatment community?” Could this target church folks, people of faith, or parents who dare to discipline their children who may use spanking or time out as a last resort form of loving discipline? The provisions in Sec, 440 are so vague as to prohibit all forms of child discipline, and in no manner do they deem parental rights as constitutionally protected or as inalienable.
   
   
2. Secondly, the home visitation provisions are essentially federal dictated values. Universal federal standards leave no room for faith or individual values, but rather dictate federal desires by agents commissioned by a parenting “Secretary” or czar, who is given very free reign over America’s families (the bill states clearly that its provisions control “as the Secretary may deem appropriate.” It is apparent this bill and other provisions of this health care proposal are recycled failed House bills from prior years. Indeed, these home visitation provisions look like a rewrite of the old House bill called the “Education Begins at Home Act,” which sounds so nice, but was far too liberal for Congress to consider at the time, much like the reproductive provisions in this health care proposal, which are a recycling of the failed Senate bill proposed by then Senator Obama, the “Freedom of Choice Act” or FOCA, which was also far too radical for Congress to consider at the time. HB3200 is simply inexplicit federally dictated family values hidden in health care reform.
   
   
3. Thirdly, home visitation here is essentially home invasion. Especially sections 440 and 1904 give federal agents the authority to enter your home at any time for any reason if you have children or might be expecting some. This has strong undertones of a federal child protective service (CPS), or even federal abortion panels. I teach law students and lawyers how to handle child abuse in family law cases, and regretfully, it is an awful scenario to see any child mistreated, particularly by a parent whom he loves and should be able to trust. Every once in a while, however, a parent is wrongly accused by CPS of abuse, and that parent and family deserves a defense. My students learn that the single most important thing they can do to advise their clients is to warn them not to speak to any CPS worker without the family’s attorney present. Why is this so important? Because lawyers protect your rights. If a state or federal agent came to your door with allegations of abuse, you might think “I have nothing to hide,” and innocently let them into your home. But what you know to be innocent may look incriminating to the agent. For example, you left your belt on the bed after work, but the agent simply sees a belt out and recently used. He or she notes that and the fact that your 6 year old has a bruise on his leg (which you know came from the sliding board on the playground yesterday) but the agent converges these two observations into a quick conclusion of child abuse. And the more you try to defend yourself the deeper dug becomes the hole of self-incrimination. Whenever an agent comes into your home, that is family intrusion – and this bill is just more evidence that home visitation is essentially home invasion. 

Family strength and stability requires that American parents and expectant parents be assured that their rights as parents are inalienable and constitutionally protected as fundamental rights. They ought not have to bow to a federal agent’s values, and they ought to be free from invasion in their own homes. HB3200 is downright dangerous to families, and brings further family breakdown rather than family restoration.

3 Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on Families

In what is already a controversial session amidst the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on many cases in the upcoming months that will have wide reaching effects in American life and families. Here are three decisions you should know about.  

Health Standards: Protecting or Burdening Women?

Whole Women's Health v. Cole 

Pro-lifers across the country will want to pay close attention to this case arising out of Texas. In light of the haunting Kermit Gosnell story in 2013, the state legislature enacted safety measures for abortion clinics. The law would hold abortion clinics to adhere to the same standards as outpatient surgical centers and would require the abortion clinics to have admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles should there be health complications for the mother. If currently enforced, approximately three quarters of Texas abortion clinics would close.
Abortion advocates say this law violates the "undue burden" standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a doctrine which says any law that places a substantial obstacle to abortion is unconstitutional. In contrast, Texas argues that these are common sense health regulations, and women are not burdened because the would-be remaining abortion facilities are within reasonable driving distances throughout the state.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Texas law saying that it is not the role of the judiciary to consider the extent of a state's health laws have on restricting abortion access. The Supreme Court will determine whether the Fifth Circuit properly used the "undue burden" standard in making its decision.  

Of Nuns & Birth Control

Zubik v. Burwell 

What wins? Freedom of conscience or government interests? In Zubik v. Burwell, religious employers, such as Christian universities and Little Sisters of the Poor, are fighting Obamacare's HHS mandate which requires them to cover the costs of their employees who seek to obtain "all FDA-approved contraceptives" including abortion inducing drugs.

This may sound similar to last year's Hobby Lobby case where the Court ruled the government cannot force employers with longstanding religious beliefs to pay for coverage that violates their conscience. To comply with Hobby Lobby, the Obama administration created an exception for religious employers which exclude the objectionable content in their insurance plans.
However, the federal government is still forcing the employer's insurance companies and other third party administrators to cover the costs of their employees who seek to obtain abortion pills. This means employers are still actively involved in providing drugs in their healthcare plan which violate their conscience.

The Court will weigh whether Obamacare's HHS mandate and it's "accommodation" violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court's decision will depend on whether the government can prove whether this is the least restrictive way of advancing a compelling public interest.

A Separation between State and Playgrounds

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley

The state of Missouri prevented pre-school and daycare centers from using a government program which provides recycled tires for safer playground surfaces. The reason? The pre-school is run by a church. Missouri claims that allowing the program to serve a church-run daycare will violate the concept of separation between church and state.

The Court will determine whether excluding churches from an otherwise neutral government program constitutes a violation of the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses. 

 

All three of these cases will affect families. One way or the other, the Supreme Court of the United States will advance or burden family restoration.