Appeals Court Bans Blue States Gender Identity Mandate For Adoption

A federal appeals court has blocked Oregon from rejecting a Christian mother’s adoption application based on her refusal to affirm radical gender ideology.

The ruling is a major win for free speech and religious liberty—and a serious warning to states pushing ideological conformity on families.

Key Facts:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Jessica Bates, who was denied adoption certification in Oregon for refusing to affirm gender ideology.
Bates, a Christian widow and mother of five, objected to being forced to use pronouns and support gender transitions as a condition for adopting children.
The court found Oregon’s policy violated constitutional rights, including free speech and religious freedom, and applied strict scrutiny to the case.
The court noted that Oregon’s training program required potential parents to promote LGBTQ ideology, even if it conflicted with their faith.
Oregon’s Department of Justice is considering whether to appeal the ruling to the full 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Rest of The Story:

Jessica Bates applied to adopt siblings from Oregon’s foster system.

But when she told state officials she would not participate in activities like taking children to pride parades or endorsing hormone treatments, Oregon denied her application.

The rejection came after Bates expressed disagreement with the state’s “Resource and Adoptive Families Training” (RAFT), which instructs applicants to affirm a child’s gender identity—including use of “infinite” pronouns and participation in gender-related medical procedures.

Bates’s case was first dismissed by U.S. District Judge Adrienne Nelson, a Biden appointee, who claimed that refusing to affirm a child’s LGBTQ identity harms the child.

But the 9th Circuit reversed that decision, calling Oregon’s policy an overreach that compelled speech and punished religious beliefs.

Judge Daniel Bress, joined by Judge Michael Hawkins, wrote that the policy failed the Constitution’s strictest test, noting, “Such respect and support inevitably both restricts and compels speech.”

The court rejected the idea that the state’s interest in LGBTQ affirmation overrides parents’ constitutional rights.

The court also emphasized that Oregon’s training materials, while not officially law, were treated as de facto requirements.

Bates’s views were only investigated after she voiced concerns about RAFT.

Her legal team argued that Oregon’s enforcement was inconsistent and targeted dissenters.

Commentary:

The court’s decision is a welcome victory for parental rights, religious freedom, and common sense.

Oregon crossed a line by trying to force citizens to choose between adopting children in need and surrendering their beliefs.

Mandating that parents affirm “an infinite number of pronouns,” display ideological symbols, and even support irreversible medical treatments like hormone shots, all before a child is even placed, is nothing short of ideological coercion.

Jessica Bates never said she would mistreat any child. She simply wanted the right to raise children according to her faith and conscience.

Oregon responded by labeling her “unfit”—not because of what she did, but because of what she believes.

This ruling rightly pushes back against the trend of governments punishing citizens for not bowing to political orthodoxy.

The court stated it clearly: constitutional rights don’t disappear just because the government has a “conception of the child’s best interest.”

The First Amendment exists to prevent precisely this kind of viewpoint discrimination.

Oregon’s RAFT training didn’t just teach; it demanded obedience to a narrow set of beliefs—that’s indoctrination.

Democrats and progressive bureaucracies continue to push these mandates under the false banner of “inclusion,” when in reality they are suppressing speech and targeting faith-based families.

They seek to turn essential public services into loyalty tests.

The good news is the Constitution remains a powerful defense.

The 9th Circuit’s ruling is a reminder that even in the most left-leaning jurisdictions, the law can still protect Americans from ideological tyranny.

This is not just about one mother or one state.

It’s about whether the government can force citizens to affirm beliefs they don’t hold—or deny them the chance to love and care for children if they refuse.

Thankfully, the court answered: No.