This post originally appeared at https://wifamilycouncil.org/radio/high-court-protects-minors-life-religious-freedom/

2025 | Week of July 7 | Radio Transcript #1626

Late last month, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered three landmark rulings—Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, and Mahmoud v. Taylor—each underscoring the Court’s determination to protect parents’ rights, religious liberty, and state authority in pressing moral and social policy disputes. We applaud this legal tide in defense of family values, parental choice, and the sanctity of life.

In a 6–3 ruling, the Court upheld Texas’s requirement that internet pornography platforms verify users’ ages, applying intermediate scrutiny (§1983 standard). This affirms states’ right to shield minors from online adult content.

As advocates for strong families, we view this decision as a resounding affirmation that states may enact reasonable measures to protect children. The internet no longer remains a wild frontier: parents and state governments must have tools to safeguard youth. The Court’s principled deference to states in this domain strengthens the role of responsible adults over unregulated online content.

While some dissenters warn about First Amendment implications, every society understands that minors deserve a higher standard of protection. We commend the justices—led by Justice Thomas—for supporting common-sense regulatory approaches that prioritize childhood innocence.

Earlier this year, our state Assembly passed an age-verification bill with solid bipartisan support. The bill is awaiting action in the Senate. Assuming the Senate passes this bill, we would assume the Governor would sign it into law since the bill has Democratic support and also since he has deemed this year “The Year of the Kid.” Signing this bill would be proof-positive that he means what he says.

In Medina, the Court—by a 6–3 margin—ruled in favor of South Carolina’s right to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid network. Critics denounced it as a partisan move to weaken abortion access, but the ruling instead reinforces states’ authority to manage their Medicaid programs.

For years, Planned Parenthood has wielded its Medicaid status to secure taxpayer dollars while performing abortions. Now, states can responsibly direct Medicaid funding away from providers whose services conflict with the moral convictions of pro‑life citizens and get it to federally qualified health centers—Wisconsin has over 150 such centers—that provide health care for low-income individuals, but do not refer for or perform abortions.

This is a victory not only for fiscal responsibility, but also for conscience. Wisconsin taxpayers do give Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin Medicaid funds, ostensibly only for non-abortion care, but since all money is fungible, this really frees up money for the abortion giant to continue to push its abortion agenda, which is its biggest money maker.

Medina empowers states like Wisconsin to assert moral leadership—meaning not giving money to entities that perform abortions while still ensuring legitimate health care is available.

In perhaps the most dramatic decision, the Court ruled 6–3 that public schools must notify parents in advance of any instruction using LGBTQ+-themed books and allow parents to opt their children out.

Justice Alito’s opinion holds that compelling religiously objecting families to partake in instruction conflicting with their beliefs constitutes a burden on free exercise rights. We see Mahmoud as an unequivocal vindication of parent-driven education: parents—not state bureaucrats—must retain the fundamental right to guide their children’s moral and spiritual formation.

Detractors claim this opens the door to banning books like Harry Potter or lessons on evolution, but the ruling itself is narrowly drawn. It demands advance notice and an opt‑out mechanism—not blanket censorship. Yet courts and administrators must now respect the deeply embedded family authority in matters of conscience and values.

These cases, when viewed collectively, reveal a decisive shift in judicial philosophy. Each of these rulings affirms an ideological worldview held by Wisconsinites who believe in limited government, strong family oversight, and the sanctity of life. They reinforce the confidence of pro-life, pro‑family and religious entities that our values may once again guide public policy.

These Supreme Court decisions are not abstract slap‑on legalese—they are invitations to thoughtful policy aligned with traditional values and constitutional freedom, and as such should guide policymakers at both the local and state level. Wisconsin families deserve nothing less than policies that respect parental authority, safeguard childhood innocence, and affirm the sanctity of life. We welcome and champion these rulings. These are not theoretical wins; they are real protections for Wisconsin families, religious convictions, and moral clarity.

For Wisconsin Family Council, this is Julaine Appling, reminding you that God, through the Prophet Hosea, said, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

Learn more at WIFamilyCouncil.org