Posts

Posted on

Why the Supreme Court Needs to Uphold the Texas Age-Verification Law on Pornography

[We are called to protect and nurture God’s Good Creation, and nowhere is this responsibility more sacred than in caring for our children. It is our solemn duty to guard their hearts, minds, and futures, ensuring they grow in the light of truth and love.]

Today, the Supreme Court takes up a case with serious implications for the digital age: the Texas law requiring age verification for accessing online pornography. The case has drawn a spotlight on the critical issues of child protection, free speech, and technology’s role in shaping our society. A group of social scientists and experts—Jonathan Haidt, Jean Twenge, Jason Carroll, Brian Willoughby, and Brad Wilcox—have lent their voices in an amicus brief supporting the law. Their arguments draw from extensive research on the harms of pornography exposure to minors, and here’s why they believe this law matters.

The Case for Age-Verification Laws

The amicus brief makes a clear case: the digital age has transformed the accessibility and nature of pornography. Smartphones and the internet have made explicit content readily available, with minimal barriers. Research cited in the brief reveals that a staggering 97% of boys and 78% of girls between ages 12 and 17 have been exposed to pornography. Many encounter it as early as age 10. Unfortunately, this exposure is not to innocuous content—it often involves violent, degrading, and harmful depictions of sexuality.

This environment is particularly harmful to minors, whose cognitive and emotional development makes them more vulnerable to the effects of such media. The experts argue that traditional methods of limiting access, such as parental controls or content filters, have proven woefully inadequate. In this context, age-verification laws like the Texas statute aim to offer a more effective solution to protect vulnerable populations.

The Harms of Pornography on Minors

The brief underscores a range of negative outcomes associated with early and frequent exposure to pornography:

1. Unhealthy Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors

Minors exposed to pornographic content are more likely to develop permissive sexual attitudes and engage in risky sexual behaviors, such as unprotected sex. This increases the risk of poor health outcomes, teen pregnancies, and emotional distress.

2. Aggression and Violence

Research shows a troubling link between viewing violent pornography and real-life aggression. Minors exposed to such content may normalize or even imitate these behaviors, leading to an increase in sexual harassment, dating violence, and other harmful interactions.

3. Mental Health Challenges

Compulsive consumption of pornography among minors has been linked to addiction-like behaviors, depression, anxiety, and issues with self-esteem and body image.

4. Relationship Instability

Early exposure to pornography is associated with difficulties in forming and maintaining stable, healthy relationships later in life. This has long-term implications for family stability and societal well-being.

A Balancing Act: Free Speech vs. Child Protection

Critics of the Texas law argue it infringes on First Amendment rights by creating barriers to access for adults. However, the amicus brief emphasizes that reasonable restrictions, like age verification, are not about censorship but about protecting minors from demonstrable harm. The brief draws parallels with existing laws on age-restricted content, such as alcohol and tobacco, which reflect society’s commitment to safeguarding youth.

Furthermore, the brief notes that technological advances make it possible to implement these measures without unduly burdening adult users. In fact, many argue that the real question isn’t whether we can protect minors but whether we choose to prioritize their well-being.

Why the Supreme Court Should Support This Law

In their closing arguments, the amici warn against viewing age-verification laws as merely a matter of convenience or free speech. The stakes are higher than ever in an era where the internet saturates every aspect of our lives. Upholding the Texas law would set a precedent that states can take proactive steps to protect children in the digital age.

This isn’t about banning pornography (although I would like to) or policing morality—it’s about recognizing the unique vulnerabilities of minors and creating a framework that shields them from undue harm. For the sake of the next generation, the Court must acknowledge the compelling evidence presented by these scholars and support reasonable, well-crafted measures like Texas’ age-verification law.

The amicus brief, backed by years of research, is a wake-up call to lawmakers, educators, and society at large. It’s time we take a hard look at the costs of inaction and commit to safeguarding our children in an increasingly complex and digital world.

[SOURCE: Brief of Social Science Scholars as Amici Curiae ]

+++

Protect Our Children

The Pornographic Roots of Gender Ideology

Posted on

Grooming Future Revolutionaries: A Closer Look at Indoctrination in Military Base Schools

[I recently came across this 2022 investigative report and was struck by the extent of radical ideologies reportedly being promoted in military base schools. While I hope that the incoming administration will lead to a reduction in such practices, I’m not optimistic. This radicalism seems deeply entrenched in our institutions, and no single election cycle will be enough to undo it. True change will require sustained efforts over time. Here are some of my thoughts after reading the report.]

Schools on military bases are supposed to be places where stability, discipline, and strong values are passed on to the children of service members. But a recent report, Grooming Future Revolutionaries, reveals a very different reality. According to the investigation, these schools—run by the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA)—are becoming hotbeds for controversial ideologies, including critical race theory (CRT), radical gender theories, and activist-driven education.

If you think military schools should focus on academics and character-building, buckle up. This report might change how you see the role of education in these institutions.

From DEI to Woke Indoctrination

In 2018, DoDEA adopted a strategic plan called the “Blueprint for Continuous Improvement,” which focuses heavily on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). On the surface, these initiatives sound reasonable—who doesn’t want an inclusive environment? But the way they’ve been implemented has left many parents and educators concerned.

The report claims that DEI has shifted the focus away from traditional academic excellence toward social engineering. Key performance metrics prioritize equity and inclusion over core subjects like math, science, and engineering. What’s more, these programs allegedly shame students based on their race and encourage children to question their gender identity—often without involving parents.

Radical Gender Ideology in the Classroom

One of the more shocking findings is how radical gender theories are being woven into lessons, even for very young children. Teachers are encouraged to explore topics like pronouns and gender identity starting as early as preschool using tools like the “Genderbread Person” to challenge traditional norms. For instance, students might be asked to consider how they express their gender or even keep certain aspects of their identity secret from their parents.

Activities like these aim to challenge traditional ideas about family and gender, but they also create confusion. Instead of fostering confidence and self-understanding, these lessons often seem designed to disrupt what many families hold dear: familial trust, patriotic values, and the sacred order of God’s Good Creation.

Antiracism and Activism Over Education

In addition to gender ideology, the report outlines how antiracism education is turning classrooms into political battlegrounds. Lessons are reportedly designed to make students hyperaware of race and privilege, often framing history and society through the lens of oppression. Books like Me and White Supremacy and What We Believe: A Black Lives Matter Principles Activity Book are becoming part of the curriculum.

While promoting understanding and inclusion is important, critics argue that this approach replaces constructive dialogue with divisive rhetoric. Instead of encouraging kids to see themselves as individuals, it pushes them to adopt a group identity defined by race or gender.

The Impact on Military Families and Patriotism

What’s perhaps most troubling is how these programs are affecting military families and their values. According to the report, students are being encouraged to view their country and its symbols—like the flag and the national anthem—with skepticism. Instead of instilling pride in their heritage, the curriculum seems aimed at fostering a sense of detachment from their country.

For families who sacrifice so much in service to the nation, this feels like a betrayal. Patriotism, family values, and a belief in a higher purpose are cornerstones of military life. Undermining these principles risks eroding the foundation of what makes our armed forces strong.

A Call for Change

So, what can be done? The report suggests that parents and lawmakers need to push back. Senator Marsha Blackburn and Representative Elise Stefanik have already proposed measures to give military parents more control over what their children are taught. Unfortunately, these efforts haven’t gained much traction—yet.

But this fight isn’t just about legislation. It’s about recognizing that education shapes the next generation. If we allow schools—especially those tied to our military—to focus on divisive ideologies instead of unifying values, we risk losing more than academic excellence. We risk losing our shared identity and the moral framework that binds us together.

Final Thoughts

Education should prepare kids for life—not push them into confusion or activism. While I hope the new administration will steer us toward a more balanced approach, I’m not holding my breath. These ideologies are deeply embedded in our institutions, and it’s going to take more than one election cycle to turn things around. Still, this is a battle worth fighting—for our kids, our families, and the future of this nation.

[Source: Grooming Future Revolutionaries published by The Claremont Institute Center for the American Way of Life.]

+++

Posted on

Supreme Court Judges ‘Transgenderism.’

Today’s Supreme Court case hopefully will expose a medical scandal of significant proportions, where minors are subjected to irreversible treatments without sufficient evidence of their benefits and without proper informed consent.

The Court’s ruling (due in June ’25) should call for a desperately needed reevaluation of these practices to ensure the protection and well-being of vulnerable youth.

At least, one can hope, and pray.

Tyler O’Neil is on the case.

It’s hard to wrap your head around just how grotesque it is that many medical associations and the federal government have adopted the idea that it’s healthy to sterilize children in an attempt to “affirm” a stated transgender identity. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will shed much-needed sunlight on this medical scandal of epic proportions.

Tennessee Solicitor General Matt Rice will explain how activists conspired to flip the Hippocratic Oath on its head. Meanwhile, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chase Strangio—a female who says she identifies as male—will argue that Tennessee’s law banning Frankensteinian medical experiments on kids violates federal law by discriminating on the basis of sex.

The Supreme Court is hearing the case because of this discrimination argument. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld Tennessee’s law, finding that it doesn’t entail discrimination. But the Biden-Harris administration appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court took up the case—now known as U.S. v. Skrmetti after Jonathan Skrmetti, the Republican attorney general of Tennessee.

Read the whole thing.

+++

Embrace, Don’t Affirm