Is Age Verification to Protect Children from Pornography Constitutional?

 

On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that is historic, considering free speech, pornography, and the protection of children online.  Free Speech Coalition vs. Paxton will determine the fate of 19 state laws protecting children from access to online pornography through mandatory age verification requirements.

 

Described by Politico as “perhaps the most bipartisan laws in the country,” age verification laws empower parents to protect their children online by making it harder for kids to access harmful content like pornography. “Sexually explicit content is harming our children and resulting in a mental health crisis,” Family Foundation of Kentucky explains their support of Kentucky House Bill 241. “We need these bills to help us to protect them.”

 

Most children are first exposed to pornography when they are somewhere between seven and 13 years old, and by the time they are 18, most of them have seen it. Furthermore, today’s porn is not only addictive, but violent, and disturbingly dehumanizing. To learn more about not only the case, but the problem, and its solutions, go to the podcast episode hosted by Joseph Kohm, Policy Director at Family Policy Alliance, with Jason Carroll, senior fellow at the Institute for Family Studies, to learn just how much is at stake in this case, as well as the research needed to understand the internet’s negative impact and harm on children and families.

 

Learn more about Jason Carroll and the Institute for Family Studies, and Joseph Kohm and his work on parental rights and #LetParentsParent, and Connect with your state policy alliance to make a difference.

AI Romance & Family Law

 

Family Law is all about domestic relationships, right? Parents, children, siblings, spouses – those relationships that matter so much to you and me and those we love.  But something different is happening… according to a recent survey of people ages 12-43, 1 out of every 4 of them think they might prefer an artificial relationship.

It is beginning to become apparent that Millennials and Gen Zers are very much drawn to the notion of Artificial Intelligence (AI) sexual relationships in particular.  “After analyzing 1 million ChatGPT interaction logs, a group of researchers found that ‘sexual role-playing’ was the second most prevalent use, following only the category of ‘creative composition.’

AI friendships are just the beginning. The Psychologist bot, a popular simulated therapist on Character.AI—where users can design their own ‘friends’—has received “more than 95 million messages from users since it was created.” According to a new Institute for Family Studies (IFS)/YouGov survey of 2,000 adults under age 40, 1% of young Americans claim to already have an AI friend, with 10% stating that they “are open to an AI friendship.” And among young adults who are not married or cohabiting, 7% are open to the idea of romantic partnership with AI. “A much higher share (25%) of young adults believe that AI has the potential to replace real-life romantic relationships. Furthermore, heavy porn users are the most open to romantic relationships with AI of any group and are also the most open to AI friendships in general.”

In addition to AI relationships, the new IFS survey also asked young Americans how they feel about the changes AI technology may bring to society. “We find that their reactions to AI are divided. About half of young adults under age 40 (55%) view AI technology as either threatening or concerning, while 45% view it as either intriguing or exciting.  There are complex socio-economic findings, too, with young adults with lower incomes and less education being more likely than those with higher incomes and more education to fear how AI will affect society. At the same time, this group is more likely than their fellow Americans who are better off to be open to a romance with AI.”

The million-dollar question you may be asking is whether these AI relationships can truly replace real-life romance and domestic happiness.  According to the IFS study, 1 out of 4 young adults do believe that AI boyfriends and girlfriends can potentially replace a real-life romantic relationship.  The inverse, however, also indicates that 3 out of 4, or 75%, do not feel that way, and instead do not see AI as any type of viable replacement for human partners.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that “young men are more likely than young women to believe that AI has the potential to replace real-life romantic relationships (28% vs. 22%)” and young men are generally more open to AI friendships than young women,” paralleling the gender difference in their views of AI’s potential for romance.

 

Digging a bit deeper to combine this phenomenon with increased online pornography use by young adults (according to another recent study the IFS conducted), research is revealing that “young adults who use porn frequently are more likely to experience loneliness and depression than those who do not. It is possible that young adults who use pornography heavily are also more open to AI companionship, especially given that so-called ‘sexbots’ are already widely used.” Providing more data on this connection, the IFS study expounds: “Among unpartnered young adults, heavy porn users turn out to be the group most open to the idea of an AI girlfriend or boyfriend. Among single young adults, those who watch porn online at least once a day are twice as likely as those who rarely, if ever watch porn to say they are open to an AI romance. More than 10% of heavy porn users say they are open to it (which includes the 1% of young adults in this group who already have an AI girlfriend or boyfriend).”  

 

These trends are important in understanding not only what is happening in our culture, but what is happening to people generally. From computing, to online society, through the pandemic, to remote study or work, a greater sense of loneliness has opened extremely significant voids that are working damaging deconstruction and destruction of quality relationships; and that affects families, and the law’s efforts to restore the family.

 

As we begin this new semester at Regent University School of Law, law students will not only learn the immediate challenges facing families today (such as AI relationships and pornography), but they will also study family law from a Biblical perspective, understanding it as a meaningful expression of human experience, as a means of pursuing God’s truth, and as an act of love and community.

 

At Regent Law the Christian faith and the Bible are incorporated into the course on Family Law at every point by the use of scriptural illumination of current family law and regulation. Scripture is used considerably throughout the course, providing not only the basis of family design and formation, but also the context for development of law and regulation to protect the individuals who comprise families, and the family itself as a timeless institution. We study family law as an expression of the human condition, discovering God’s design for families and relationships, and learning how to direct family law and policy to restore people, restore relationships, restore families, and work to restore those divine ends God intended. Particularly amid tough cultural challenges, our God and His Word are such healing salves on the wounds we deal with in the law.

 

Family Law is all about domestic relationships. Parents, children, siblings, spouses – those relationships that matter so much to you and me and those we love.  And something different is happening – family restoration - and it’s happening at Regent Law.

Saving Cinderella

 

This guest post is from Regent Law 2L Jodi Barder:

 We cheer when Prince Charming saves Cinderella from her stepmother’s clutches. But ponder this: Could Cinderella’s father have saved her from her stepmother before the prince did? Yes, he could have by careful planning in his estate plan.

Life is hard and not always magical. Maybe that’s why we like fairy tales so much. We can escape reality for 74 minutes. But Walt Disney didn’t recreate Cinderella last century. The earliest “Cinderella” story appears to be from Greek or Italian roots, hundreds, or thousands, of years ago. A different era for orphaned daughters with regards to property rights, guardians, and education, but the root problem, or tale, is as old as time.

When Cinderella was orphaned by both her natural parents’ deaths, her stepmother presumably gained control of not only Cinderella herself in the form of a guardianship, but also of Cinderella’s father’s estate. Blended families require careful consideration. 

Not all stepparents are like Cinderella’s selfish stepmother at all. Being a parent is hard, and being a stepparent can be even harder with many additional competing factors. But when a natural parent desires for his or her estate to pass to a natural child not shared with his or her current spouse at death, careful estate planning is required.

As an estate-paralegal-turned-law-student, I witnessed many estate plans where blended parents signed sweetheart wills, intending for leftover assets to be evenly split between all blended children upon the second spouse’s passing. But when the first spouse passed away (usually the father), the other spouse (usually the stepmother), would create new estate planning documents, giving everything to her natural children and leaving her stepchildren with nothing. 

Moving to the estate administration side, when the modern day “Cinderella” finds out her father’s estate does not exist, she feels abandoned. Ultimately, freedom of disposition is left to the testator, her step mother. And if Cinderella’s father intended for his daughter to inherit nothing, his estate plan certainly accomplished his goal. 

Blended families should consider the blended family factor when choosing a will or trust. But no matter how you choose to have your assets distributed, consider leaving a letter to your Cinderella communicating your legacy – your faith and love for her. That is far more valuable than any monetary gift you can leave. Cinderella turned out just fine, but her father’s careful planning could have saved her a lot of pain.  That's what family restoration is all about.

 

In the New Year: A Will Can Be More… for your Family

 

This guest post is from Audra Jones, Regent Law 2L:

Many modern-day Americans are sitting down with their attorneys to draft their wills this very day. Their will determines where all their assets go after passing away. It is comprised of papers infused with legal jargon that one’s relatives will likely by pass to see exactly what was given to them. For something that is one’s only chance to talk to his or her loved ones beyond the grave, it is usually a document with little love attached and often stirs up resentment among those given or not given one’s estate. While reading this, consider whether a will can be more…

In biblical times, a will, or at least an oral will as scholars assert was mentioned in the story of Jacob who had twelve sons. As he lay dying, Jacob called his sons together to bless and prophesy over them. This act was the beginning of Jewish ethical wills also known as "tzava'ot." Traditionally, these ethical wills were written and included Jewish values and traditions, historic moments of one’s family, and peaceful blessings to one’s family and to those benefiting from the deceased in their pages. Today, ethical wills are still used in Jewish communities and have many of the same elements but are separate documents from legal wills that most write.

As for non-Jewish culture today, ethical wills or even legal wills with any hopeful message seem lost because of people’s lack of awareness of passing on more than their assets upon their death. For Americans of a non-Jewish heritage, this unawareness was not always the case as demonstrated by American Founders such as Patrick Henry whose will communicated that, although he could only give his family a small and meager inheritance, he knew that “[t]he religion of Christ can give [his family] one which will make them rich indeed.” He espoused his religion and belief in something beyond earthly possessions to comfort his family.

So for the person reading this article and all modern-day Americans of various religious, ethnic, and racial backgrounds, consider your legacy and how you want your last words to your family and those receiving parts of your estate to be when you draft your will. Will your will show your love? By way of ethical or legal will, will it promote hope and blessings and bring comfort to others?

Essentially, will your will be more than what a will has come to be in this modern age? May it bring love and peace to your family.

Blessings to your Family this Christmas

 

"In our world too, a Stable once had something inside it that was bigger than our whole world." The Last Battle - C.S. Lewis

"But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord." Luke 2:10-11

                                                                Grace & Peace in His Name,

                                                                FamilyRestoration

An Estate Plan for the Dutton's of Yellowstone

 

This guest post is from Grace Henson, Regent Law 3L:

Paramount’s Yellowstone is full of drama surrounding land battles, relationships, and family, but it also raises several topics relevant to estate planning. John Dutton and his family are fighting to save their sixth-generation Montana cattle ranch from various attacks, one being development by a large corporation into an airport and ski resort. Dutton implores several tactics in order to save his ranch, most recently being his election as Montana governor.

It seems that John Dutton could benefit from a good estate planning attorney because it appears he does not have a will, and he faces several threats to his life. Without a will, Dutton’s assets will pass intestate. Given the strained nature of his relationship with his son, Jamie, Dutton would likely want to dispose of his property differently than it would pass intestate. Also, the unique nature of the land contributes to the need for this land to pass through Dutton’s specific wishes in a will because he wants someone to own the land who is passionate about running the ranch and is also committed to keeping the land within the family.

          Before his election as Montana Governor, Dutton placed the 750,000-acre ranch in a trust with his daughter, Beth, as trustee and both Beth and his youngest son, Kayce, as beneficiaries. Yet, this action was not as straight forward as it might seem. Dutton’s adopted son, Jamie, is an attorney and during certain parts of the show, actively fights against the family for the land. Jamie tries to claim future ownership in the land as an heir because he ascertains that the trust is invalid in Montana as Beth filed it in Salt Lake City, Utah. At that time, it is unknown to viewers and to Jamie that he is actually adopted by John, but that does not make a material difference because in Montana, adopted children have the same inheritance rights as biological children. Jamie’s claim, however, is incorrect because a trust need not be filed in a specific state to be enforced in that state. Instead, the state law that governs the trust is either the state law specified by the trust or the state in which the assets within the trust are located (in this case, Montana). Since Jamie is not a named beneficiary of the trust, he likely has no future interest in the land. Additionally, conflicts of interest would arise because Jamie is the Attorney General of Montana.  

          John and Beth also consider placing the land in a conservation easement with a land trust to avoid development. A conservation easement would permanently limit use of the land for specific conservation purposes and would eliminate the possibility of the land being developed into an airport and ski resort. Dutton would be compensated for essentially donating his land for conservation purposes by receiving a tax deduction. The family would continue living on the land, and the land could be passed to Dutton’s heirs, but all future owners of the land would be bound by this easement agreement.

          Yellowstone is evidence that estate planning is an important aspect of family restoration because it can work to create family harmony if it is done well, or family chaos if it is not.

Abortion at the Ballot Box in 2024

 

Reprinted from the Center for Christian Thought and Action at Regent Univ. 

Abortion was on the ballot in 7 states in last week’s election. Even with the presidential choice and those of numerous federal and state representative positions, the life issue dominated much of the American political conversation.  

That media colloquy was effective. Enshrining the abortion right into their state’s constitution became a reality in most states that considered the option. Arizona, Nevada, Montana, and New York now have enshrined a state constitutional right to abortion. Nebraska has protected the right to abortion in the first trimester, and Colorado and Maryland have enshrined the right to abortion throughout pregnancy, with Colorado adding the use of tax dollars to pay for that termination of life.

Florida and South Dakota were among the few states to say NO on a constitutional right to abortion. While Nebraska’s amendment “cement[ed] the state’s current 12-week abortion ban in the state constitution, a competing amendment to codify the right failed.”

The ballot in Missouri enshrined a new right to abortion.  This flipped that state from a completely pro-life state to now make abortion legal throughout pregnancy. This means that “citizens effectively voted to overturn their state’s abortion bans.”

Although the language of these amendments could have been intentionally vague, the lack of clarity does not change the fact that these outcomes have added a right to abortion to those state constitutions.  Comparing the numbers is enlightening:

AZ Trump 52.3% Abortion 61.6%

MO Trump 58.5% Abortion 51.6%

MT Trump 58.5% Abortion 57.6%

NV Trump 50.6% Abortion 64.2% (a second vote is still required to pass the measure)

NB Trump 55.9% (1), 76.3% (3), Abortion 55.1% for 1^st Trimester, 51.2% against

How did so many voters voice their conservative views on the presidential election but were not conservative on abortion?

One explanation may be that pro-lifers are not as predominant as one may think. According to a 2023 Statista survey, only 44% of Americans identify as pro-life, meaning they oppose abortion, while 52% of Americans identify as pro-choice, meaning they would accept abortion as a valid decision in pregnancy.

Another explanation may be that voters were responding to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, putting voice to a sort of backlash against what might have appeared to be judicial removal of a federally enshrined right.

Yet another, and dare I say more likely, explanation may be that in 2024 pro-life voters voted for abortion rights. This may come as a shock for some. Being pro-life generally carries with it a level of integrity.  The reality may be, however, that many who claim to be pro-life may not be so much at all. Sentiments may appear something more like, “I’m pro-life, but I believe in the exceptions – rape, incest, life of the mother, and my situation.” It is quite clear from the statistics that many who claim to be pro-life voted for abortion.

What does this mean for the pro-life movement going forward and how should Christians respond?

While we know the critical role that governing bodies play in our lives and how important it is for citizens to vote, these results provide some insight into a possible lack of veracity or authenticity in many who may give homage to a pro-life position. That can only change by a clear understanding that abortion is life-ending, killing a child. And it leaves a woman scarred forever by that decision to willfully take the life of her own child. The pro-life movement must give an empathetic voice to that understanding.

There are also some key indicators of the path that lies ahead for the pro-life movement politically speaking. This was the first time that any state blocked abortion rights. Thankfully, three states (Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota) blocked the bad initiatives from passing, actually winning on abortion at the ballot box.  There is hope for voters to uphold life. 

The losses in Arizona and Missouri are a bit more devastating because of the protections for the unborn that were already in state law.  With the passage of the amendments, Arizona went from restricting abortion after 15 weeks to restricting any state interference with abortion up through fetal viability (about 24 weeks).  Missouri went from protecting all unborn children to establishing a “right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives, without any governmental interference.”  Both states eliminated the protections that existed in law for women and children.   

And yet, according to Human Life Action, this is not a time to be discouraged. “Progress in the post-Roe world created by Dobbs will take determination, perseverance, and hard work. Facing the challenges before us, we must create plans to educate people on the deadly proposals that abortion proponents are pushing and, above all, on the possibilities before us to nourish and protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us. A majority of citizens are not looking for abortion on demand or abortion without restrictions.  In the same way, people also understand the need to protect young girls from abusers and predators through parental and informed consent.” 

Citizens who wish to protect life at all stages, for both mother and child, must be ready to take opportunities that may arise to defend life and the vulnerable among us.  The success of the three states that fended off abortion amendments can serve as a guide. 1) Have a head of the State (a Governor) who wholeheartedly backs the pro-life position. 2) Work a grass roots effort that is effective, and 3) Labor to make a future that respects life at all stages of development. 

The bottom line is this: the life issue will continue to dominate much of the American political conversation. Your next chance to vote to protect human life can make a big difference to the future of a child – whether that child has a future at all - or not. And whether that mom can be encouraged to protect the life of her child, rather than end it.

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” (Deuteronomy 30:19). Choosing life genuinely and faithfully in our personal lives and decisions, and in the ballot box, will make all the difference for family restoration.

Can Your Pet Inherit Your Money?

 

This guest post is from Isabell Wooddell, Regent Law 2L:

Every dog or cat owner wishes that their pet could live forever. Unfortunately, owning a pet comes with the recognition that you’ll eventually have to say goodbye to your furry friend.

More than likely you’ll outlive your pet, but, this isn’t always the case. Sometimes, you may die first. What exactly happens to your pet in the unfortunate event that you cross the rainbow bridge first?

Every year, thousands upon thousands of pets are surrendered to pet shelters simply because they outlived their owner. There’s no guarantee that these pets will be surrendered to no-kill shelters or even that they will end up in loving homes.

There is actually a way to guarantee that your pet will be cared for even after you die - by creating a “pet trust.” What is that?

A trust is a document whereby one individual places assets under the management of another individual or institution for the benefit of a third person. In the case of a pet trust, your pet would be the third party benefiting from the trust funds. It allows you to set aside funds in a trust to provide for the care and maintenance of your pet if you’re unable to. By establishing a pet trust, you are able to provide immediate care for your pet in the event that you die first, become ill or incapacitated.

Some people criticize pet trusts because your money can arguably be put to better use. Take for example, Leona Helmsley. She was a real estate billionaire who left $12 million in her will to her dog, while she left nothing whatsoever to two of her grandchildren. These types of situations are correctly criticized, however, one has to remember that the Helmsley case is an extreme one.

Setting aside funds for a pet trust can actually be a great use of your funds once you pass on, as long as you don’t take things too far (like Helmsley). Giving a reasonable amount of funds for the care of your pet if you are no longer able to can actually be a biblical pursuit. God entrusts us to care over the Earth, including the animals that preside on it, by giving us dominion over the Earth. Furthermore, Proverbs 12:10 (NIV) tells us that “a man who is right with God cares for his animal, but the sinful man is hard and has no pity.”

Setting aside extra funds you may have to guarantee that your pet is cared for after you pass on is a way that you can honor your biblical duty to take care of those over whom you have dominion.