{T} he passage of the abortion ballot measure in Ohio earlier this month was not only a huge disappointment for the pro-life movement, it was also the latest example of the ever-growing threat from progressive ideologues who are after America’s children. Parents must ready themselves to guard against these continuing attacks, and taking a page from the playbook of religious-freedom advocates will help.
The amendment approved by voters to the state constitution of Ohio includes a grave and purposeful undermine of parental consent. Its language giving an “individual,” not an “adult,” rights to “carry out one’s own reproductive decisions” that include but are “not limited to” abortion opens the door to excluding parents from their minor children’s health-care procedures such as abortion or even sex-change surgeries.
An individual, of course, can be a minor. No wonder Ohio governor Mike DeWine described Issue 1 as “a radical proposal.” With respect to parent rights, he said it would “threaten a law we had on the books for many years requiring parental consent if we’re dealing with a minor.” He was right.
Concern for the future of parental rights in the Buckeye State is particularly well-founded, given who was behind Issue 1 in the first place: the ACLU. Not coincidentally, for years the ACLU has been committed to frustrating parents whose children are contemplating abortion. It is now turning its sights on gender-transition procedures.
The attack on parental rights isn’t limited to state ballot measures. Nationally, the Biden administration is continuing the assault. Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services unveiled proposed rules regarding foster care. According to the agency, these “would require that child welfare agencies ensure that each child in their care who identifies as LGBTQI+ receives a safe and appropriate placement and services that help them thrive.”
At first, HHS defines such a home with innocuous language, such as being free of mistreatment and abuse and supporting the child’s health and well-being.
But what comes next is sinister.
The rule adds that “to be considered a safe and appropriate placement, a provider is expected to utilize the child’s identified pronouns, chosen name, and allow the child to dress in an age-appropriate manner that the child believes reflects their self-identified gender identity and expression.” This demand, of course, excludes any agency or prospective foster family unwilling to bow to the demands of gender ideology.
With respect to the fate of faith-inspired foster-care placement agencies, the administration provides a typically cagey answer. It asserts that it “takes seriously” its obligations to comply with laws that support and protect religious exercise and freedom of conscience and that it is “fully committed to thoroughly considering any organization’s assertion that any obligations imposed upon them that are necessitated by this proposed rule as finalized conflicts with their rights under those laws.” Such “thorough consideration,” however, does not include allowing faith-inspired placement agencies or individual families to serve “LGBTQI+-identifying youth.” Earlier this month, a group of Republican lawmakers introduced a bill that would prohibit HHS from implementing the proposed rule.
Let’s not kid ourselves where this is heading. When the federal government defines as “safe and appropriate” only those homes that affirm a child’s “gender identity,” parents of minors afflicted by the contagion of gender ideology should be on high alert.
Once again, it looks as if parents may be forced to rely on our nation’s last line of defense: the Supreme Court. Cases brought by religious-freedom advocates including Becket Law, Alliance Defending Freedom, and First Liberty Institute have culminated in decisions vindicating the free-exercise right and clarifying that the establishment clause must not frustrate it. Among these decisions are ones that reaffirm the Constitution’s fundamental respect for the role of parents in the care, custody, and education of their children.
The Court’s profound respect for parental rights, for example, animated its decisions to invalidate discriminatory restrictions in school-choice programs and affirm the autonomy of religious schools in key employment matters. The Court’s reasoning is nothing new, but instead part of a long-standing tradition that recognizes that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
The influence of Big Abortion and the dark fantasies of gender ideology on American culture is frightening. Parents must push back. But we have to do so smartly and effectively.
Lawsuits that marry principles of religious freedom and parental rights are already challenging overreach by government officials in Montgomery County, Md., (parental opt-outs), California (special-education services for students at religious schools), and in Massachusetts and Oregon (eligibility to adopt). Ohio’s Issue 1 and HHS’s assault on our nation’s foster-care system should face the same scrutiny. Doing so may be parents’ best chance to stave off the relentless attacks of progressive ideology on our nation’s children.