« DimWittery Alert | Main | The SSCI Bites Back on NSA Wiretapping »

February 04, 2006

LA Times Thinks Child Molestion Not "Harmful"

More outright dishonesty from the mainstream media concerning a "woman's" right to choose. In an editorial piece ridiculously called "Spin the Bottle, go to Jail", the Times pompously intones:

IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE PARENTS who would want their teenage children arrested for confiding in a teacher or school nurse about French-kissing. Yet, taken to its extreme — and the Kansas attorney general is about as extreme as they come — that could happen under the contested interpretation of a wrong-minded state law.

The 1982 law prohibits sexual activity by people younger than 16 — even consensual activity between those that young. Intercourse isn't the only banned activity; practically anything beyond a chaste peck qualifies. It's hard to imagine what the Kansas Legislature intended by this, but it's doubtful lawmakers envisioned police raiding the back rows and balconies of movie theaters.

Among the more remarkable interpretations of the Times' opening salvo is the notion that the Attorney General is somehow wrong for trying to enforce a law that expresses the legislative intent of the citizens of Kansas. But according to the Times, anyone who considers a law "silly" ought to be free to disregard it - even those who are paid by the taxpayer to ensure compliance with the law.

But the Times really goes off the rails here:

Legally, the state of Kansas is staking out weird territory. Molestation has a predator and a victim. Under the Kansas teen-sex law, the predator is the victim and vice versa. The state law on reporting molestation specifies that the sexual act needs to have been harmful to the minor, giving doctors the leeway not to report a 15-year-old girl who seeks birth control because she's in a long-term relationship with her 18-year-old boyfriend.

It is difficult to imagine under what circumstances an unwanted pregnancy and a subsequent abortion could possibly be considered "not harmful to the minor". But wait - it gets even better:

Kline argues that all sexual activity by those younger than 16 is by definition harmful and therefore subject to the reporting requirements. He is entitled to his personal opinion, but this smacks of prosecutorial overreach. On a practical level, Kline's apparent intent is to scare teenagers out of seeking birth control and abortions.

No, Kline does not argue this. He argues that sexual activity between a minor and someone over the age of consent is against the law and when an abortion results, the minor has, in fact, been harmed. Furthermore, the Times conveniently "forgets" to mention that girls as young as 10 or 11 have obtained illegal abortions from the targets of the Kansas AG's investigation.

By what stretch of the imagination can a 10 year old girl either give informed consent or be considered unharmed by a pregnancy and subsequent abortion?

The Times conventiently does not tell us, preferring to shield child molesters behind the convenient rallying flag of a "woman's right to choose".

Posted by Cassandra at February 4, 2006 12:16 PM

Comments


To their tongue in cheek credit, they do state that it is 'hard to imagine' that the lawmakers had an extreme in mind, but there again, what a way to craft an argument. Couch it in hyperbole and the rallying cry of some imagined rights abuse and you have the makings of a crisis.

Posted by: Crckt [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 4, 2006 04:20 PM

Ten? Eleven?
No death is too cruel to satisfy, but it can never amount to justice.

Posted by: spd rdr [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 4, 2006 10:35 PM

What floors me is the media's argument that just because you don't agree with a law, it should be disregarded.

This is the same sort of civic nullification practiced by the NY Times and James Risen: if you subjectively decided a law isn't worth obeying, just bypass it.

Posted by: Cassandra [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 08:59 AM

mr rdr, I cannot believe you want to impose your neandrathal vision of morality on these 'women'.

Posted by: Cassandra [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 5, 2006 09:48 AM

I read a story over the weekend about a 15 year old baby groom who supposedly left his 37 year old wife, as she is nearly due with their child.

I nearly vomited. Truly, I detest this molestation of children. It is sickening and the left is going to set themselves up for another major hit on this one. I can only say this: Not with my kids they don't.

Posted by: Crckt [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 6, 2006 04:10 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)