Ninth Circuit sides with Oregon mom denied adoption over not affirming gender ideology – Washington Examiner
A federal appeals court for teh Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Jessica Bates, an Oregon mother who was previously denied the ability to adopt because she refused to affirm the state’s gender ideology requirements. The court’s 2-1 majority decision found that Oregon’s policy mandating adoptive parents to “respect, accept, and support” a child’s gender identity, expression, or sexual orientation likely violates Bates’s First Amendment rights by infringing on her sincerely held religious beliefs. The ruling granted a preliminary injunction preventing Oregon from disqualifying Bates as an adoptive parent based on this policy. While two judges supported Bates, one dissented, arguing that the state was within its rights. The case highlights tensions between state adoption policies and religious freedoms, with proponents emphasizing that the foster care system should prioritize children’s best interests over ideological mandates.
Ninth Circuit sides with Oregon mom denied adoption over not affirming gender ideology
A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday in favor of an Oregon mother who was denied the ability to seek adoption by the state after she refused to affirm gender ideology as part of the application.
A three judge panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of Jessica Bates, finding the Oregon policy requiring adoptive parents to “respect, accept, and support” a child’s gender identity, expression, or sexual orientation, likely violates the First Amendment for infringing on her “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Judge Daniel Bress wrote the majority ruling, joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, while Judge Richard Clifton dissented from the majority.
Bress wrote in his ruling that while “no one doubts Oregon’s valid interest in ensuring the safety and well-being of children in its foster care system,” the state must balance “valid governmental objectives” with following other laws, including religious freedom.
“No one thinks, for example, that a state could exclude parents from adopting foster children based on those parents’ political views, race, or religious affiliations. Adoption is not a constitutional law dead zone. And a state’s general conception of the child’s best interest does not create a force field against the valid operation of other constitutional rights,” the ruling said.
The appeals court found Bates was likely to succeed in her case and granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Oregon Department of Human Services from deeming her ineligible to be an adoptive parent based on the statute it had previously cited.
In his dissent, Clifton argued that the state was within its rights to deny Bates under the statute and disagreed with the majority’s holding that the state violated her First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit was initially filed in April 2023, after the state rejected Bates’s application to adopt based on the gender affirmation requirement. A federal district court in Oregon had denied Bates’s request for an injunction, a decision the appeals court reversed Thursday.
SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRUMP TO FIRE THREE DEM-APPOINTED CPSC MEMBERS
Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative law firm that argued on behalf of Bates before the appeals court, released a statement Thursday celebrating the ruling.
“Because caregivers like Jessica cannot promote Oregon’s dangerous gender ideology to young kids and take them to events like pride parades, the state considers them to be unfit parents. That is false and incredibly dangerous, needlessly depriving kids of opportunities to find a loving home,” Jonathan Scruggs, ADF Senior Counsel and Vice President of Litigation Strategy, said in a statement.
“The 9th Circuit was right to remind Oregon that the foster and adoption system is supposed to serve the best interests of children, not the state’s ideological crusade,” Scruggs added.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
