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

Childbearing, Rightly Conceived

In a recent article Pro-Natalism is Not Enough, Emma Waters critiques several types of pro-natalism. She finds “mere pro-natalism” inadequate because it focuses solely on increasing birth rates without addressing family formation, treating children as economic solutions rather than as gifts.

Technocratic pro-natalism is also criticized for its desire to control child traits via technology, reducing children to customizable products. Both approaches, she argues, fail to address the deeper cultural issues driving the birth decline and overlook the importance of marriage and family stability.

There is much wisdom here.

+++

Our Girls – Part 1

Originally posted June 7, 2021

Okay, in my last post I made some important points about Freedom of Conscience. I defended an ordained minister in the Church of England who was perhaps not the most “sensitive” sermonizer. But I’m sure you agree, based on the facts as we know them, he should not have been reported to the Goverment Terrorist Watchdog, Prevent, or the British equivalent of Child Protective Services. And perhaps you agree he shouldn’t have been fired over this issue.

But he was.

If you followed the details link I gave you in that post and scrolled to the end you would have read the following from Rev Randall:

 “I was terrified. I did not sleep. What was I supposed to tell my family? Being reported as a potential terrorist, extremist and a danger to children are arguably the worst crimes you could be accused of.

“When I found out that they had reported me without telling me, my mind was blown trying to comprehend it. I had gone to such lengths in the sermon to stress that we must respect one another no matter what, even people we disagree with. I am not ashamed to say that I cried with relief when I was told that the report to Prevent was not going to be taken further.

“I was doing the job I was employed to do. I wasn’t saying anything that I should not have been able to say in any liberal secular institution. Everyone should be free to accept or reject an ideology. Isn’t that what liberal democracy means?

“I 100% see what has happened to me in Orwellian terms. Truth matters, but increasingly powerful groups in our society do not care about the truth.

“My career and life are in tatters. I believe that if this is the Cross that I have to carry to help prevent others from experiencing the same as me, I have no choice but to pursue justice.

***

Let me introduce you to another sympathetic voice. Actually, more than one.

Our girls are in trouble!” — Mothers

I was alerted to a new crisis about 9 months ago when I read an eye opening book by Abigail Shrier.

Shrier is a graduate of Columbia College who went on to earn a bachelor of philosophy degree from the University of Oxford and a JD from Yale Law School.  Her book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters was named a “best book” by The Economist and The Times of London. [2020, 2021]

The reviewer in the Times of London says:

“Irreversible Damage….has caused a storm. Abigail Shrier, a Wall Street Journal writer, does something simple yet devastating: she rigorously lays out the facts.”

Shrier first became aware of this problem when she investigated a disturbing trend and wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal about the spike of young girls identifying as boys. Afterwards she was contacted by many mothers, most of whom considered themselves liberal or politically “progressive.” One mother told Shrier when her teenage daughter suddenly identified as a boy she wanted to be supportive but she remained unconvinced her daughter was a “Trans-kid.” Unfortunately the daughter, affirmed by all her online “friends,” offline friends, and Internet Influencers, not to mention school counselors and therapists, began the process of transitioning from young woman to young “man,” a process that took off in earnest once she enrolled in college. But after studying the issue, the mother just couldn’t reconcile her daughter’s belief with the daughter she raised. “I know my daughter,” she said. Her daughter “dated boys” and was always a “girly girl” who didn’t show any early signs of gender dysphoria. [Up until the last few years the research literature said that virtually all gender dysphoria presented at an early age (2-4) and was almost exclusively among boys, not girls.]

Something else was going on. So this very “progressive” mother got in touch with a journalist who began snooping around for “the bigger story.”

As Shrier’s investigation grew she tried to “farm the story out” to some top notch investigative journalists, (Shrier was an opinion journalist at the time), but nobody would touch it, she said. So she did the “gumshoe work” herself. And Irreversible Damage is the result.

For her efforts she has been called a “trans-phobe” by some. It’s a untrue slur. I’ve read her book twice and have seen her give multiple lengthy interviews. She’s not a trans-phobe. In fact, she goes to great lengths to voice support for the many transgender adults she interviewed in her research for this book. She wanted to know from adult members of the Trans community what the transitioning experience was like, and whether it had been considered successful by them. In online interviews she’s reiterated that most of these transgender adults do not identify with the ideological goals of many Transgender Activists, the vast majority of whom are not Trans.

She’s a bright, compassionate observer, chronicalling a phenomenon that is literally sweeping through the Western world. Her book was briefly “de-listed” by Target after that corporation received, according to Shrier, two critical tweets about the book. [Shows you how squeamish corporations can be about this issue]. A week after pulling the book, and receiving a lot of pushback from concerned parents who thought this story should not be censored, Target made it available for sale again.

You can still get the book on Amazon. But there is one notable book that has been “de-listed” by Amazon. I’ll be posting about that book at a later time. It’s an important work as well.

***

As a journalist, Shrier had other reasons for digging into this issue. I’ll let her describe:

"You're not supposed to pick favorites among the amendments, because it's silly, but I have one, and it's the First.  My commitment to free speech led me into the world of transgender politics, through a back door.

In October 2017, my own state, California, enacted a law that threatened jail time for healthcare workers who refuse to use patients' requested gender pronouns.  New York had adopted a similar law, which applied to employers, landlords, and business owners.  Both laws are facially and thoroughly unconstitutional.  The First Amendment has long protected the right to say unpopular things without government interference.  It also guarantees our right to refuse to say things the government wants said."

I know this is a tough issue for some of my readers. But it needs to be fairly discussed, which I hope to do. We need reliable information about this phenomenon that will hopefully spur us into action.

Our girls deserve nothing less.

***

My next few posts will continue this book review of Irreversible Damage. But don’t just read about it from me. You should buy this book!

A “chair” of a work-group that puts together the clinical “bible” for diagnosing mental disorders (DSM-5) says so too:

“In Irreversible Damage, Abigail Shrier provides a thought-provoking examination of a new clinical phenomenon mainly affecting adolescent females—what some have termed rapid-onset gender dysphoria—that has, at lightning speed, swept across North America and parts of Western Europe and Scandinavia. In so doing, Shrier does not shy away from the politics that pervade the field of gender dysphoria. It is a book that will be of great interest to parents, the general public, and mental health clinicians.”

 Kenneth J. Zucker, Ph.D., adolescent and child psychologist and chair of the DSM-5 Work Group on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders

Zucker has gotten more than a little grief for his endorsement. But as of now, he is still employed at the University of Toronto. If you search YouTube for “Zucker McGill University” you will find his talk entitled “Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria.” The follow-up Q&A is posted as well. Some in the McGill community (students and staff) wanted his talk “cancelled” and a few showed up to voice their concerns. I watched two hours full of very dry statistics and a somewhat livelier Q&A. Most of us would be left wondering about the state of higher education if a talk like this by an eminent scholar in the field could be cancelled (as some wanted) because it conflicted with the “lived experience” of others.

Increasingly that is the world we live in now. Many in both the medical and academic communities feel besieged and intimidated into capitulation or silence. (Our public school teachers too!) One Canadian scholar in particular who wanted to write truthfully about this topic but thought maybe she should wait until she got tenure to do so, was told bluntly by an older colleague, “tenure won’t protect you on this one.” She has since left the Academy and has written a very important book on the subject which I’ll blog about in the future.

***

I’ll finish this post with some definitions and vital statistics gleaned from Shrier’s work and others (l’ve done a little “gumshoe work” myself in the last 9 months.)

In 2007 there was only one pediatric gender clinic in America, located in Boston. Today there are approximately 300. It seems like a great need is being met. But why all of a sudden the explosive need for these medical services? The cynical side of me suspects money may be near the root of it all. And maybe so. But, there are other important reasons too.

In the last 10 years there has been a deluge of self-diagnosing teenage girls who are convinced they are really boys. And are doing drastic irreversible damage to their bodies. In the Western world today millions are identifying as Trans. And tens of thousands are going the distance by “aligning” their bodies to match their new identity. In Oregon today a 15 year old girl can walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and without a note from a therapist or mom can walk out with doses of testosterone 40 times the natural female level. After just three months on “T” her body will be unalterably changed. It’s powerful and exhilarating stuff. This will likely start her down the path to a double mastectomy (“top surgery”) a few years later. Virtually no professional she encounters will counsel reconsideration. Nothing will be placed in her way.

What is going on?

Gender Dysphoria – a definition and some history:

“Gender dysphoria—formerly known as “gender identity disorder”—is characterized by a severe and persistent discomfort in one’s biological sex.1Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) (Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association, 2000), 579.

“It typically begins in early childhood—ages two to four—though it may grow more severe in adolescence. But in most cases—nearly 70 percent—childhood gender dysphoria resolves.2Kenneth J. Zucker, “The Myth of Persistence: Response to ‘A Critical Commentary on Follow-Up Studies and ‘Desistance’ Theories about Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Children’ by Temple Newhook et al. (2018),” International Journal of Transgenderism (May 2018); See also J. Ristori and T. D. Steensma, “Gender Dysphoria in Childhood,” International Review of Social Psychiatry 28, no. 1 (2016): 13–20.Historically, it afflicted a tiny sliver of the population (roughly .01 percent) and almost exclusively boys. Before 2012, in fact, there was no scientific literature on girls ages eleven to twenty-one ever having developed gender dysphoria at all. In the last decade that has changed, and dramatically. 

“The Western world has seen a sudden surge of adolescents claiming to have gender dysphoria and self-identifying as “transgender.” For the first time in medical history, natal girls are not only present among those so identifying—they constitute the majority.”

Source: page xxi Introduction - Irreversible Damage

Here are some other disturbing statistics. In 2018, the UK reported a 4,400 percent rise over the previous decade in teenage girls seeking gender treatments (Testosterone & Puberty Blockers). Between 2016 and 2017 the number of gender surgeries for natal females in the U.S. quadrupled. Unlike in the past, now it was biological women suddenly accounting for 70 percent of all gender surgeries.

Again, what is going on?

Let me finish this post with an explanation “tease” from ID’s Introduction. Unlike gender dysphoria in the past…

“...the phenomenon sweeping teenage girls is different. It originates not in traditional gender dysphoria but in videos found on the internet. It represents mimicry inspired by internet gurus, a pledge taken with girlfriends—hands and breath held, eyes squeezed shut. For these girls, trans identification offers freedom from anxiety’s relentless pursuit; it satisfies the deepest need for acceptance, the thrill of transgression, the seductive lilt of belonging.”

As you see, Shrier’s a fine writer too. You probably want to get this book.

To be continued….

***

If you haven’t already added your email to my list, do so and I’ll let you know when the blog is updated. 

Email: blog@blueridgemountain.life