Woke SCOTUS Judges Aim to Parent Your Kids In The Worst Way

After a flurry of recent Supreme Court decisions, parents still have the right to teach values to their own children. For now.

If the three minority, leftist justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — had their way, public schools, rogue doctors, and the internet would be parenting instead.  

In dissenting opinions on three key cases, these three life-long appointees revealed how little they care for children.   

In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, they argued it is unconstitutional to keep kids safe from porn if it means adults have to pause when entering an internet smut site long enough to prove they are over 18 to leer at  “hardcore pornographic content and videos,” many of which depict “sexual violence, incest, physical aggression, sexual assault, non-consent, and teens,” the majority opinion notes.

According to Kagan, who wrote the minority opinion, “Obscene-for-children speech is constitutionally protected speech for adults.” She repeats this concept many times.

Kagan and her gals really believe it is more important to preserve adult access to videos depicting sexual crimes than it is to keep it where it belongs: far away from children. In truth, there should be no market for this marriage-damaging, mind-altering, addictive content at any age.

Some porn is made with real trafficking victims, sometimes minors.

For example, Michael Pratt, leader of the GirlsDoPorn sex trafficking ring, pleaded guilty in federal court this month to many sex trafficking counts, according to the Department of Justice, for using “force, fraud, and coercion to recruit hundreds of young women – most in their late teens – to appear in GirlsDoPorn videos.”

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson want to assure adults don’t have to prove their age before viewing these crime victims, no matter the consequence it may have on children.   

In Skrmetti v. United States, the Supreme Court majority found the “Tennessee law prohibiting the surgical and chemical castration of minors does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause,” The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood reported last week.  

Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion that Kagan and Jackson joined in part and in full, respectively.

“Transgender adolescents’ access to hormones and puberty blockers … can be a question of life or death. Some transgender adolescents suffer from gender dysphoria, a medical condition characterized by clinically significant and persistent distress resulting from incongruence between a person’s gender identity and sex identified at birth,” Sotomayor wrote in a long opinion that never questions the validity of permanent, body-altering treatment for children before they are mentally old enough to consent.

She does not suggest mental health therapy. Judges are supposed to deal with the truth, but instead she fearmongers that without early access to drugs, kids will kill themselves.

Parents confronted with this issue should never be pressured or legally forced to chemically castrate their children. If the leftists had the majority, such ideas could become law.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case in which Maryland parents protested the Montgomery County Board of Education adding “LGBTQ+-inclusive” books to the public school curriculum.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, sided with the parents, saying, “A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices that the parents wish to instill … And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents’ acceptance of such instruction.”

But that is not how the three leftists see it. In fact, they see parents — especially religious ones — as roadblocks to education.

Public schools offer children of all faiths and backgrounds “an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society,” says the dissenting opinion, written by Sotomayor and joined by Kagan and Jackson. “That experience is critical to our Nation’s civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs. Today’s ruling ushers in that new reality. Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that parents wish to instill in their children.”  

Sotomayor spins this irrational fear to a ludicrous level, imaging a world where religious parents will object to every imaginable lesson, opting their kids out of this and that, until the only option is for schools to teach what parents want their kids to learn.   

“The Court’s ruling, in effect, thus hands a subset of parents the right to veto curricular choices long left to locally elected school boards. Because I cannot countenance the Court’s contortion of our precedent and the untold harms that will follow, I dissent.” Sotomayor misses the point entirely.

Yes! Parents want control over what their children learn. And if school boards get it wrong, as they too often do, the win should go to the parent.

Religious parents, and anyone who believes parents have the right to raise their own children without government interference, are thanking God that leftists are still the minority on the Supreme Court.   

Beth Brelje is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. She is an award-winning investigative journalist with decades of media experience.