Policies and legislation censoring speech and infringing upon religious freedom, such as those in California, Maryland, and other states in the Union, are in direct opposition to constitutional law.
Vigilance against these infractions is crucial right now, as states continue to push the boundaries of the liberties outlined in our nation’s founding document. To use a perhaps outdated but well-fitting word, Americans should contemplate redirecting and redefining their sense of “wide-awakeness” toward our freedoms as individuals, rather than being “woke” with closed eyes, lest we allow our hard-won liberties to slip through our hands.
Despite states including Washington and Iowa scoring major judicial and legislative wins for First Amendment rights, a major undercurrent of ideological and cultural censorship continues to gain ground. Many legislators, largely from the left side of the aisle, have remained laser-focused on leveraging their positions to dictate the intimacies of individual speech and religious conscience.
RESTORING AMERICA: FINALLY, TAX DOLLARS CAN FUND A CHRISTIAN EDUCATION INSTEAD OF GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS
A federal court in Washington ruled on April 22 that the First Amendment rights of a Christian couple may have been violated in the case of DeGross v. Hunter. The court sided with the DeGrosses when Judge David G. Estudillo rejected a motion by the defendants to dismiss the entire case, citing potential discrimination and religious freedom violations.
In 2022, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families in the Evergreen State denied Jennifer and Shane DeGross an unrestricted foster care license due to their religious beliefs. The DeGrosses, who previously fostered four children, stated their desire to care for future children but didn’t want to use compelled speech that would be in direct conflict with their faith. However, a state mandate compels foster parents to agree to affirm a child’s decision to change their gender and use the child’s chosen pronouns, regardless of their birth sex.
In the recent decision, the judge ruled that the case may proceed, writing that the policy “plausibly constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination” and may constitute a “First Amendment violation of freedom of religion.”
Over in Iowa, lawmakers enacted legislation the same week of the DeGross decision to protect the religious freedom of would-be foster and adoptive parents. The new policy bans the state from requiring affirmation of a child’s chosen gender identity. It also prohibits blocking adoption and foster care approval due to an individual’s religious beliefs. It’s set to take effect on July 1.
In the face of these victories, other states continue to push mandates surrounding forced language and censorship of religion to foster children.
California and Maryland, for instance, have policies requiring foster parents to affirm a child’s chosen gender identity, regardless of the parent’s religious beliefs. Legislation already exists in the state of California requiring foster parents to use a child’s chosen pronouns, completely disregarding the constitutional liberties of the foster parents, as well as parental guidance.
And Maryland continues to push back against First Amendment rights. The Maryland Catholic Conference in February advocated against the state’s intent to formalize into law an existing policy that would discriminate against and prohibit caregivers from fostering children based on religious grounds. The MCC stated that “the proposed bill would infringe on religious freedom without advancing child welfare.”
MAGAZINE: WHAT RELIGION DO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ESTABLISH?
Despite pushback, the legislation is currently awaiting Gov. Wes Moore’s (D-MD) signature, which is expected, and will take full effect on Oct. 1.
Deconstruction of the nation’s founding document, soaked in blood, tears, hope, and light, will not be burned in a fiery display of flagrant visibility. It’ll most likely be erased, letter by letter.
Victoria Lynn is a freelance writer.