FLDS and abortion

[madmusic]

Indeed, one news report says the state raised the number of "children" taken from the ranch "after discovering that some of the mothers who volunteered to stay with their children are younger than 18."

"Similarly, a growing number of abortion foes are questioning whether abortion clinics are covering up crimes of sexual abuse of underaged girls who end up pregnant.

"There again, it's a thorny legal issue - since patient confidentiality is concerned. But it would seem evidence of a crime would trump that consideration, and that abortion clinics should be able to - even be forced to - reveal evidence that an underaged girl has been sexually abused."

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/042708/edi_196443.shtml

[notesdev]

1. yep

People cheerleading this persecution on ain't going to like the precedent they are having set. When the same exact rationale is used to shut down Planned Parenthood clinics left and right, a lot of total hypocrites are going to be screaming out of the other side of their mouths. All it takes is one anonymous call, and it doesn't even have to be a truthful one, to set the power of the state against one's enemies.

[PSPS]

3. Hardly

I don't see any contradiction between being "pro choice" and wanting to take out a kiddie-sex cult.

[notesdev]

5. According to some

PP is just as much of an enabler of sex with children as is this cult, due to its willingness to cover for underage females who are pregnant as a result of statutory rape and who wish to get an abortion. There's really not a big leap between taking all the FLDS children away from their parents, and taking all the children of PP employees away from their parents - they wouldn't have to change a single word of their rationale, nor a single letter in the law.

People really make a big mistake when they assume that only people who think like themselves will get to interpret the law.

Ditching the 5th Amendment requirement for warrants being supported by oath is a BIG deal and no person in their right mind ought to be supporting its de facto eradication (never mind cheering it on).

Hope you have no enemies with an axe to grind and an anonymous number to call from.

[riderinthestorm]

12. Do you have any substantiation that PP is covering for statutory rape victims?

Can you provide one shred of evidence that they have done this?

[PSPS]

13. There is none, of course

Nevertheless, these incidents seem to bring out the black helicopter crowd even here on DU.

[madmusic]

28. Yes there is

Plenty. On example posted below.

Abortion Provider Caught Encouraging Minor to Lie About Age
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
May 11, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Planned Parenthood is under fire after one of its employees was recorded encouraging a student - who was posing as a pregnant minor -- to lie about her age in order to obtain an abortion without the abortion provider having to report the "statutory rape" to the police.

[riderinthestorm]

68. One. And that makes it on par with the FLDS case??

Are you fucking serious? Anecdotal evidence does not cut it.

Sorry but I don't buy that. Even if this one allegation pans out, it's not proof that there's anything like the allegations that the virtually 100% of the minor girls at the FLDS cult were raped or were in danger of being raped, and that the FLDS cult was and is doing their best to keep that under wraps.

PP provides millions of abortions, you know that right? And how many of those are "cover ups" for statutory rape? You are going to have to come forward with virtually millions more court cases to achieve parity with the FLDS case.

[LisaL]

69. Well, just because there could be millions of court cases

shouldn't stop someone who wants to protect the teenage girls.

[baldguy]

99. Is CNS propaganda now an acceptable source for honest reporting?

"Some say" RW fundie nut bags are a bunch of barbarians promoting a cannibalistic death cult.

[madmusic]

112. Is childpredators.com more reliable?

http://www.childpredators.com/


On a related note, there is

Ohio Supreme Court Rejects Appeal For Minors' Abortion Records From Planned Parenthood Clinic

Last week, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear a case by a 4-3 vote that sought to release records of minors who had obtained abortions for the past 10 years at a Cincinnati clinic operated by Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region, the Cincinnati Enquirer reports. Parents of a 14-year-old girl filed a lawsuit against the clinic for violating the state's parental consent law, which requires an unmarried minor to obtain the consent of at least one parent before undergoing an abortion.

The suit alleges that a 21-year-old man impregnated their daughter and that the daughter gave the man's cell phone number to the clinic, saying that her father could be reached at that number. Whether PPSOR called that number is in dispute, according to the Enquirer. The suit charges that the girl did not give informed consent and that the clinic failed to report suspected child abuse. The family was seeking the abortion records of other clinic patients in an effort to prove that the clinic had a pattern of violating the law (Coolidge, Cincinnati Enquirer, 1/25).

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/95338.php

[High Plains]

15. Have they ever provided abortion services for anyone underage?

I don't know, but I expect and hope they would.

The right-wing Kansas attorney general tried to get that information, but I think he failed in that effort.

But the OP makes an interesting point: Those who scream "child sex abuse" at the drop of the hat when it comes to pregnant teenagers may see it come back to bite them in the ass.

Should we be demanding DNA tests for every teen that wants an abortion and prosecuting her partner?

[riderinthestorm]

19. There's no point that's being made though

The FLDS children are clearly being impregnated by old men.

Teens at abortion clinics are overwhelmingly NOT being impregnated by old men.

If there's signs of abuse, the physician MUST report it to the state for investigation (just like the FLDS kids) but how would any physician know that were the case unless there's 1. direct evidence - very unlikely, or 2. the teen herself reports it - triggering an investigation.

And yes, I suspect a DNA test would be ordered for a pregnant child who were in state custody who wouldn't provide their correct name, birthdate, or the correct names of her parents and/or any other of her children. For everyone else who presented themselves for an abortion at a clinic, why would you do that?

[madmusic]

26. Still a crime no matter how old the father is

The pregnancy itself, like in the Texas cases, is all the proof needed.

[LisaL]

36. Then I hope CPS starts going into high schools and starts

removing all the students if a teenager there happens to be pregnant.
And of course mass DNA testing of all the students (and their parents) should be done if a pregnant teenager is discovered.

[madmusic]

40. And their parents....

In case of incest. Hadn't thought of that.

[notesdev]

29. If you can tell the age of the father

from looking at a pregnant female, then you have abilities not common to human beings.

Face it - there was no more evidence of abuse at FLDS than there is at any typical PP clinic. And now you guys have gone and advocated mass DNA testing of entire communities as a way of determining who exactly made teenager X pregnant.

I'm sure glad I'm not a teenager anymore, it's one scary world you folks are creating for them to live in.

[CTyankee]

91. I worked for Planned Parenthood of CT and what you are saying is nonsense.

The issue arose in our state and was scrutinized by the state's Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal. NOthing was found.

Millions of women have been helped by PP. It has the overwhelming support of just about everybody who isn't a right wingnut, and even some of them show up at a PP clinic for birth control and (gasp) abortions.

Now why don't you go limping back to freeperland carrying the ass we have handed to you...

[notesdev]

95. Don't know about your state

But the issue has been raised in other states, and not only was there plenty found, but it's on audio and video. It is quite undeniable that it is the truth of the matter in many places.

So in CT - if not PP, to where do underage girls go to get an abortion?

[CTyankee]

102. I know some private OBGYNs do them and here in CT there is another

women's center here in New Haven that provides abortions.

I know you fervently believe in what you have been hearing/reading from your right wing buddies, but that and a buck-ten will get you a bus ride...

[ismnotwasm]

172. Sometimes the bathroom

With sharp implements. And sometimes they die. You are completely disgusting.

[madmusic]

114. Then why did PP fight the parental notification law?

Seriously, what was its interest if minors were not getting abortions? That PP has helped millions of women is not under dispute here.

[riderinthestorm]

122. Not everyone has supportive, loving parents?

Some people are raped by their parents? Some kids are in terrible home lives and having their parents involved in these kinds of decisions jeopardizes their safety?

I can think of at least 10 good reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with allegations that PP is facilitating statutory rape.

[madmusic]

150. Good point

And maybe GPS in Texas is acting like those parents.

[Lars39]

154. The minor may not get a more timely, less risky abortion.

Caught between the parents and legal system, the window could very well shrink to nothing and the minor not be able to get an abortion.

[uppityperson]

185. There is a difference between parental notification and CPS notification.

Notifying a parent that their 17 yr old is scheduled for an abortion is different than reporting child abuse of a 13 yr old whose father raped and impregnated her to CPS. See? There is a difference.

[High Plains]

118. We support the work of Planned Parenthood.

We think this freak-out over the FLDS could have reverbrations for PP and other abortion providers if they provide services to underage women.

It's pretty simple, really.

[LanternWaste]

276. Legal reverberations?

Legal reverberations? Through which statutes-- state or federal?

Or simply social reverberation from those who plan the disruptions and from those simpletons who buy into it...?

[Marrah_G]

182. Dont even bother

These people are fucking sick in the head and have been jumping through hoops to defend these monsters.

They do not want to listen to anything you say and won't bother reading any links you might post.

[High Plains]

231. Thanks for the grown-up attitude.

Insulting your fellow DUers who don't take the same stance you do is just childish and serves no purpose, except perhaps to make you feel better.

On edit: I admit I sometimes fall victim to the same impulses, but at least I try to restrain myself. You might try it, too.

[Marrah_G]

238. I will always have contempt for those who defend the abuse of women and children

[LanternWaste]

277. But she's right-- you do appear through jump though many logical fallacies

But she's right-- you do appear through jump though many logical fallacies in what can only be described as an attempt to defend the FLDS.

Maybe one day you'll 'fess up as to why (and then consistently maintain that position rather than grasping for newer and better ones every few days...)

[LisaL]

32. Clearly?

What, is there a sign on their forehead, saying "I've been impregnated by an older man?"
If authorites can go into someone's home, see a pregnant teenager,and decide that by itself is an evidence of a statutory rape, why exactly shouldn't authorities decide that if they go into a high school and see a pregnant teenager?
I guess following the logic used on FLDS authorities then would have to remove all the high schoolers from that school to keep them safe?

[High Plains]

120. It's not so clear that it's "old men" doing the impregnating.

I saw several young fathers interviewed.

And nobody is impregnating "children." By definition.

[LisaL]

43. Just because someone belongs to FLDS doesn't mean

that someone should be treated differently from the rest of us.
So, I would say yes. If any under-aged girl wants an abortion, or is simply pregnant, then obviously her partner needs to be found out (through mass DNA testing if necessary) and then prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if any laws have been broken. What good for the goose should be good for the gander.

[PSPS]

64. Yes it does

FLDS has been known to be nothing more than a kiddie-sex cult for a hundred years. For some reason, these "religious" cults are all about kidie sex, whether it's FLDS, Waco or Jonestown.

In this FLDS case, a complaint was made and, during its invstigation, enough evidence was found to warrant the mass removal of the children (mostly girls, natch) from this kiddie sex ring. Using its self-anointed status of "religious" as some kind of shield from the law makes as much sense as forgiving bush's murder of a million Iraqis because "god told him to do it."

Why this should bring up Planned Parenthood is beyond me. If a youg girl wants an abortion, that isn't the same thing as making a complaint about being beaten and raped by your 40-years-older "spiritual husband."

This is, indeed, grasping at straws. But at least the kids got out OK unlike Waco and Jonestown, where the so-called "prophet" decided to kill himself and all of his victims rather than face justice.

[LisaL]

67. Earth to you. That complaint about FLDS was most likely a hoax.

And by the way in case you missed it, our constitution and laws don't say they might not apply to the members of un-popular religious group.

[PSPS]

259. That's pretty sad

That's sad that you think kiddie sex is somehow "religious." I'd like to think that most people don't share your apparent enthusiasm to ignore this kind of criminality.

[havocmom]

261. Original complaint may have been a hoax, but it worked to expose REAL CRIMES against young girls

Hoax all you want, you cannot change the facts and the facts are that underage young women were sexually abused and many impregnated by older men who ARE NOT husbands to them. The pedophiles can call themselves anything they want and insist Jesus made them do it. Doesn't change the facts that they practiced criminal behavior on minors.

Unpopular religious groups do not get raided and have their children taken away unless there is COMPELLING evidence of widespread CRIMES. Criminal groups masquerading as unpopular religious groups do not get protection from the law. They do seem to get a lot of defense from you, though. And that is pretty curious.

What other criminals and crimes to you defend incessantly? Are you down with bank robbery? Assault and battery? Granny bashing? Where is the line?

[uppityperson]

262. Only crimes against females.

Hummed to self
Taliban taliban tali tali taliban
tali tali tali tali tali tali taliban
taliban taliban oh love that taliban
they got the right stuff
love them taliban
ooooooooooo oooooo oooo ahhhhh

[LanternWaste]

278. But they do apply to rapists, yes?

"our constitution and laws don't say they might not apply to the members of un-popular religious group."

But they do apply to rapists, yes?

[High Plains]

124. Maybe "the kids got out okay" like in that 1953 raid?

Where authorities in Arizona and Utah tried the same thing the Texas CPS is doing now, seizing hundreds of kids and dispersing them into foster homes.

Just about everyone seized in that raid eventually ended up back home.

The end result was a deepening of FLDS paranoia about the state, not the destruction of FLDS.

[PSPS]

260. That was handled completely differently than this instance.

I see DU is full of defenders of kiddie sex, so long as it's called a "religion." Geesh!

[riderinthestorm]

263. Same thing with women's rights and equality.

The libertarians (verging on anarchists?) who shouldn't really even be on DEMOCRATIC underground, seem to lose all common sense when religion comes up. They'll defend some really terrible stuff.

Either they're libertarians or batshit crazy.

[LanternWaste]

279. What are all the precise and relevant

What are all the precise and relevant similarities between the two cases (other than it's FLDS vs. the state?).

I imagine you must be able to list an entire host of them as you've mentioned it quite a few times.

So I'm sure that if you're being honest, you can spell out through court cases, law precedents, etc., why you maintain these children will go back to their birth parents too...

[LanternWaste]

275. Maybe if she claimed she was raped...

"Should we be demanding DNA tests for every teen that wants an abortion and prosecuting her partner?"

Maybe if she claimed she was raped...

[notesdev]

24. Of course

Why play dumb? You know as well as I do that anyone who wants an abortion can get one at PP, no questions asked, and it doesn't matter how old she is. I have a first cousin who works for PP, she has no illusions about the business. As I'm typing this right now I'm listening to a recording of a PP employee promising confidentiality to a caller who claims to be 13 years old with a 22 year old boyfriend.

There's more evidence for it than there is for anything alleged of FLDS. Just put "planned parenthood" and "statutory rape" in a search engine and you will be overwhelmed by the amount of information out there on the subject. Video, statistics, you name it, whatever info you want on the subject is out there for your perusal. People have audio, video, statistics and reporting laws to back them up - more than enough evidence to pursue a RICO charge against PP, with countless accessory-to-crime charges added in, and so on.

If the same tactics and policy were applied to PP as there is to the FLDS, they could shut down the entire abortion industry overnight.

This is why standing up for rights is important, and MOST important when those whose rights are being violated are demonized and unpopular like the FLDS group. It is a simple mathematical property: if they have no rights as citizens, neither do you or I!

[riderinthestorm]

27. The protocol was followed with regard to the FLDS children

If/when someone comes up with credible allegations and brings those to the authorities about PP, I expect that action will be taken. The RR would LOVE to get that ball rolling, and if they could have, they would have.

Until that happens, I remain unconvinced of any similarity.

[madmusic]

30. The ball is already rolling

But I think the backlash against the FLDS raid will keep the momentum down.

[notesdev]

31. The "protocol" sucks

Which is what I have been trying to explain to you. The "protocol" directly violates rights that are explicit in the Constitution (specifically, in this case, the 5th Amendment requirement for a warrant to be supported by oath).

If you are saying that the FLDS people don't have those rights, then that means that you don't have those rights either. And if you don't have those rights, I hope you also don't have enemies who might make an anonymous phone call to turn your life into a living hell.

[LanternWaste]

280. Raping underage teens is a right?

Raping underage teens is a right?

[gollygee]

39. Planned Parenthood does not force anyone to have sex with anyone.

They provide abortions. If an underage girl has been raped, she has the option of not having a baby. It would be better if underage girls were raped and then forced to have a baby on top of that?

The FLDS cult forces girls to have sex with middle age men. Planned Parenthood does not force anyone to have sex with anyone.

[LisaL]

41. Obviously Planned Parenthood doesn't force anyone to have sex.

That's not what the article is about. The article is about Planned Parenthood reporting that a girl who is under-age had an abortion.

[notesdev]

44. Another psychic prosecutor

>The FLDS cult forces girls to have sex with middle age men.

There's absolutely no way you can know whether or not that is true. There's nothing on the record at all to establish that any of these girls were unwilling participants to begin with, never mind who exactly were the fathers.

None of the people actually affected who have made any such complaint; the original complaint has been revealed to be a hoax, removing with it any legal grounds this operation may have had. You're simply making assumptions based on hearsay and using that to convict them.

If you are willing to accept what has happened to these people on the paucity of information that is actually known and on the record, then you have voluntarily surrendered your 4th and 5th Amendment rights.

I'd like to keep mine, thank you.

[Breeze54]

60. Why is their leader, Jeffs, in prison?

It isn't hearsay, it's fact. Plenty of women whom have escaped FLDS have made the case.

Jeffs was imprisoned for arranging the marriages of underage girls and they had babies.

[notesdev]

72. Jeffs wasn't among them

So you've got a strawman to go along with your hearsay, but have yet to give a compelling argument as to why an entire community should have its kids taken by the government.

If the ONE pregnant teenager they found is enough evidence for you, and your point of view wins the day, I see a lot of high-school roundups coming. One pregnant teenager in school, they'll take all the students from their homes and put them into foster care while they DNA test the lot of them to find the culprit. Maybe they'll round up every black man in New Jersey for DNA testing, to ID the fathers of the one-in-five black teenagers in that state who are pregnant. Or maybe they'll just shut down Planned Parenthood entirely on the basis of evidence they've already collected.

[LisaL]

75. Jeffs was arrested and convicted, which begs a question.

As to why the authorities couldn't have arrested anyone accused of statutory rape (if they had evidence of the such), rather than removing hundreds of children from their mothers?

[Breeze54]

84. Jeffs IS their LEADER!!!

This was all his idea!! :banghead:

[notesdev]

93. What's your point?

Jeffs is already in prison. None of the hundreds of others involved here have been charged with a crime, yet 400+ children have been taken from their families on suspicion of something that occurs tens of thousands of times every year in the state of Texas alone.

Let's boil this down to its essence. Let's say that there is a pregnant teenager, and that it was due to a statutory rape.

One statutory rape - alleged only, not proven - and hundreds of children get taken from their parents?

Go look up the stats for your local high school and tell me then that there's no possibility that this same action under the same rules could not be applied to take every child at the school away from their parents on the occasion of a single pregnant female student. Now run the numbers again with actual teen pregnancy rates, and tell me who - if anyone - would be immune, under this new set of rules invented for FLDS on which you are willingly stamping your approval.

[Breeze54]

98. I think you need to look at who and what Jeffs is all about

and the doctrine and rules he set for his little child raping compound.

You seem to be in outer space about all of this and what it's about.

Ba Bye! :hi:

[notesdev]

250. We're talking past each other

You're concerned about some girls who may or may not actually object to their own situation.

My concern is to limit the power of the Fascist government, whether it be the feds or the state of Texas.

Regardless of whether intervention is the correct thing to do here, the actions of the government are absolutely incorrect, as they are blatantly illegal.

However the FLDS situation resolves with respect to the members of that group will have no effect on you or me.

What the government decides to do with its newfound power to eliminate the 5th Amendment at will, that is something which neither of us will escape the consequences of.

I'm just amazed that the fervency with which people want to "get them" - "them" being this unpopular group nobody had ever heard of a few weeks prior - makes otherwise sensible people totally willing to surrender their own rights and consent to their own future oppression, by a hand enabled by their own support of the excessive and illegal government action in this case.

[Breeze54]

100. By LAW, the state CPS MUST investigate allegations of child abuse.

That's the law. There was an allegation made and so, they investigated and when they did, despite that the call may have been from a serial caller, they saw evidence of abuse and so, under a judges ruling, they acted. I'd rather the children be separated for a time, then have them spend one more day in there, if there's a chance that they will be abused even further. It hasn't been decided how long they will be separated at all and I suspect that depends on what is found after the investigation and testing is completed and heard in court.

[High Plains]

111. Was someone accused of abusing...

infants?

prepubescent boys?

postpubescent boys?

prepubescent girls?

Why was EVERY KID IN THE COMMUNITY taken away by the state?

Are they supposed to be in imminent danger of abuse or neglect?

[LisaL]

113. I hope that CPS can keep track of all the kids they took.

http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?S=8233683
Lawyer says that two boys are un-accounted for.
CPS workers said they are not worried.
WTF?
Not worried about two children that are allegedly not accounted for?

[LisaL]

123. Another article.

Apparently some FLDS kids ended up sick and are hospitalized.
http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_9075298
What imminent danger were the two year olds in to be removed from their parents?

[High Plains]

127. "We're from the government, and we're here to help."

Who will save us from our saviors?

[LisaL]

145. CPS might still have to return at least some of the kids,

which is at least one reason as to why it would be a good idea to actually keep track of them.
And never mind if the two kids are actually not accounted for, are they simply lost in the system or something else could have happened to them?

[Richard Steele]

270. From Reagan's mouth to your DU post. You aren't even pretending anymore, are you?

nm

[Breeze54]

115. Because some of them wouldn't say who their parents were and

some of the parents wouldn't talk either and many had the same exact names!
There were something like 18 'Sarah Jeffs', etc. They couldn't tell whom
belonged with whom and they lived in dorm type shared housing group homes
and the church apparently hasn't kept any records of birth dates and marriage
dates... conveniently, as you full well know already. :eyes:

[madmusic]

47. Doesnt matter

Neither did ALL of the parents force any child to have sex with anyone at the FLDS compound, if anyone forced anyone to have sex. Even the children of magnanimous parents were taken by CPS.

[Marrah_G]

180. Against PP and pro- religious cult oppressing women? Are you on the right site?

[notesdev]

213. The only thing that I'm against

Is a government with no restraints and a citizenry with no rights.

It's very interesting how some choose to misinterpret that to their own ends for lack of ability to formulate a coherent argument.

[Breeze54]

234. I agree and you seem to lack any ability to comprehend. n/t

[Marrah_G]

241. This cult has been allowed to abuse and oppress women and children for far to long.

[Marrah_G]

178. Why are you defending criminals who enslave women and children?

[Breeze54]

2. Sounds like a stretch to me....

I don't get how they're trying to tie in the FLDS children and abortion.

Maybe I need more coffee....

[Warpy]

4. It's stretched so far it's going to break

because the one thing the FLDS was against was the ability of any woman to prevent or abort a pregnancy she didn't want.

The only status any of these women had came from how many babies she managed to birth for whatever man she was tied to.

This was a booty farm for old men.

[Breeze54]

8. Yeah, those females are seen as baby machines and that is all.

But I'm still scratching my head at the abortion tie in.

Sounds like more grasping at straws by the RW RTLers.

[High Plains]

17. The right-wing Kansas AG wanted to get abortion records of minors.

So he could prosecute the "criminals" who impregnated them. Supporting Texas CPS in its childrens' crusade implicitly lends support to that kind of thinking and that kind of politics. It's the same logic at work.

[riderinthestorm]

22. But you haven't proven that these are similar cases at all

The FLDS children and their plight isn't anything like the teens who present themselves for an abortion at a clinic.

The only way they are the same is that Texas CPS is investigating statutory rape allegations that were (purportedly) raised by a member of the cult. If/when a teen at an abortion clinic also stated that their pregnancy was a result of statutory rape, CPS would also be called to investigate.

A physician or CPS can't just arbitrarily decide to launch an investigation into a teenage pregnancy and I really dare you to suggest that's what's happening in TX.

[notesdev]

35. I suggest precisely that

>A physician or CPS can't just arbitrarily decide to launch an investigation into a teenage pregnancy and I really dare you to suggest that's what's happening in TX.

So how exactly is it different if the physician or CPS manufactures a fake anonymous abuse call and acts on that? Sounds pretty arbitrary to me, all you need is an enemy with a phone and an axe to grind, and according to the methods you support, your kids can be taken away from you on that basis alone.

[riderinthestorm]

71. And if they find a pregnant 13 year old girl living in my house

who refuses to identify herself, or her parents, then yes, I expect they will take the child away.

You seem to be working under the delusion that CPS and physicians are just child snatching agencies. In my experience, they are anything but. In fact, the decades long delay in bringing this sex cult to justice proves my point.

[notesdev]

All it's proving

Is that you have no command of the facts in this case, and you feel free to make up whatever might fit your prejudice.

FLDS first arrived in Texas in 2004. Given the speed of government in general, they acted lightning fast on this one, even apparently manufacturing a false abuse call in order to get their feet in the door.

> who refuses to identify herself, or her parents, then yes, I expect they will take the child away.

In your world, there is not even a "right to remain silent" in the face of government goons come to tear your family apart and scatter your children to the four winds.

[riderinthestorm]

76. Good luck with that meme.

Your post is too full of shite to warrant any further replies just like several others who are jumping to the defense of this sex cult. Welcome to ignore.

[notesdev]

81. Gee willikers

Guess if you can't make a coherent argument, you can always ignore those who do, keep your fingers in your ears, and chant "tra la la la la la" until everyone who intrudes upon the "Land Where You're Always Right No Matter What The Facts Are" has gone away.

[High Plains]

131. Yeah, that's the way to handle opposing aguments.

Are they causing too much cognitive dissonance for you to handle?

[High Plains]

116. Don't forget the Texas legislature changing the age of consent law

the very next year in a move aimed directly at FLDS.

What wasn't a crime in 2004 became one in 2005.

I've seen interviews in which some of the FLDS men--not middle-aged ones but young ones, by the way--claimed they didn't know the law had changed. And they expressed willingness to comply with that law. Now, if I were involved in a polygamous sect that had a tradition of marrying off teenage girls, I'd be very, very aware of the law. But that's just me...

[Breeze54]

119. The guy who said that HAD to be at least 40 years old!!

I saw the same interview and he was OLDer, not a young man at all!

And he pretended he 'didn't' know the law. What a crock.

He didn't "know" that raping a 13 year old was against the law?

[High Plains]

133. There were three guys in the interview.

Maybe it was the 40ish guy who said that. I don't remember. The other two were young fathers.

I also don't recall if he specifically mentioned raping 13-year-olds. If he was having sex with a 14-year-old, it wasn't against the law until 2005 (or maybe later; I'm not sure when the anti-FLDS law came into effect).

[LisaL]

149. Texas changed the laws in 2005.

If these people are living so isolated, no TV or internet, maybe authorities should have educated them on what is proper or what is not.

[Breeze54]

198. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse.

It doesn't hold water in court. As a responsible adult, you're supposed to know the laws.

[madmusic]

153. In that interview was bsed on 18 being the age of cosent? No wonder they were confused.

It's not 18. It's 17, which they may have known and obeyed.

[Breeze54]

186. No and no.... they weren't confused at all. n/t

[LanternWaste]

281. You have precedent of TX CPS manufacturing a fake phone call?

You have precedent of TX CPS manufacturing a fake phone call? Or is this mere conjecture on your part?

Be careful what you lie about... ex-TX CPS worker here...

[High Plains]

128. I dare to suggest that a hoax phone call launched this investigation.

[riderinthestorm]

137. Which means nothing as you've been told over and over on other threads.

Once the authorities went to investigate, and discovered credible evidence of crime, they were mandated to act.

That the initial call MIGHT be a hoax means nothing to the case that is proceeding, and the person who is alleged to have made the hoax call will be prosecuted independently of everything else.

[madmusic]

159. It might very much matter

Texas Family Law

§ 261.304. INVESTIGATION OF ANONYMOUS REPORT.
(a) If the department receives an anonymous report of child abuse or neglect by a person responsible for a child's care, custody, or welfare, the department shall conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether there is any evidence to corroborate the report.
(b) An investigation under this section may include a visit to the child's home and an interview with and examination of the child and an interview with the child's parents. In addition, the department may interview any other person the department believes may have relevant information.
(c) Unless the department determines that there is some evidence to corroborate the report of abuse, the department may not conduct the thorough investigation required by this chapter or take any action against the person accused of abuse.

[LanternWaste]

283. Your evidence for this is....?

Your evidence for this is....?

[madmusic]

45. Right wing AG

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2003-17 (June 18, 2003)

We are aware that although this opinion is limited to the question posed, the consequences of the conclusion reach further. Other situations that might trigger a mandated reporter's obligation, because sexual activity of a minor becomes known, include a teenage girl or boy who seeks medical attention for a sexually transmitted disease, a teenage girl who seeks medical attention for a pregnancy, or a teenage girl seeking birth control who discloses she has already been sexually active. Nevertheless, in reaching this conclusion we are mindful of and have followed a well-known and accepted tenet of law:

http://ksag.washburnlaw.edu/opinions/2003/2003-017.htm#N_13_

The Attorney General of Kansas, Phill Kline, is acting as an anti-abortion activist rather than the state's chief law enforcement officer. (TalkLeft background here.) And he's willing to undermine the Constitution and the privacy rights of patients to get what he wants.

What he wants: records of abortions performed on more than 90 patients in two Kansas clinics. Kline claims the records may reveal evidence of a crime, although the nature of his investigation is elusive. He couches the effort in appealing terms: a search for evidence of child molestation. The records, he claims, may show that girls too young to give legal consent to sex were victimized by older men. But the records are more likely to show that the underage girls themselves committed crimes by having sex with underage boys. And the physician-patient privilege that Kline wants to thwart is designed to encourage patients to share just that kind of personal information with doctors, free from fear that a crusading prosecutor will obtain and use that information against the patient.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/02/26/854/13949

[LisaL]

58. Why stop at teenage girl seeking birth control if she discloses

she has been sexually active? What is she seeking birth control for?
If she hasn't been sexually active as of yet then she certainly will, if she needs birth control.
Pre-emptive strike.
She needs to be reported, and her parents investigated, and her high school (or middle school) investigated.

[uppityperson]

144. Why does the school she attends need to be investigated unless it's sex with a teacher?

Does the church she attends need to be investigated? How about the Girl Scout troop or any other group she's part of?

[LisaL]

147. Do you have a problem with all children removed,

even from those FLDS members who had no pregnant teenage girls, or any teenage girls for that matter, or not even polygamous, because they are a "part of a group?"

[uppityperson]

152. You aren't answering my question, only changing to another question.

Seriously, why does the school she attends need to be investigated unless it's sex with a teacher? Home is different from school. Why does the school she attends need to be investigated unless it's sex with a teacher?

[LisaL]

170. What if it's sex with another student?

[uppityperson]

175. Then there probably is not the age difference to make it statutory rape.

Though if they are having sex in class, that might be a problem and I can see the school being investigated.

[LisaL]

177. Well, you don't know that unless you investigate, do you?

[uppityperson]

181. So if there is a pregnant teen, you want to close the school to investigate who the father is?

Why does the school she attends need to be investigated unless it's sex with a teacher?

[LisaL]

187. It was not a problem to remove all the children from FLDS

ranch to investigate, was it? Even those who are not pregnant, or can't possibly get pregnant (boys or younger girls)?
Using that logic, why not investigate the school?

[uppityperson]

189. See, YOU are trying to tie FLDS and abortions together. Difference is between a home and a school.

CPS is legally allowed to remove all the children from a home while an investigation of abuse goes on. FLDS ranch was a home. A school is different. A school is not a home.

Were all the other teachers working together to impregnate minors? Then yes, the school should be closed.

[Marrah_G]

191. Because the school and other parents aren't witnessing and approving of the crime.

God you truly are fucking dense.

[High Plains]

237. Ah, more insults from the holier than thou.

People who can't help themselves like this really should deal with their anger managment issues and bedeviling obsessions.

[Marrah_G]

239. You should really do some research on these criminals you are defending

[LisaL]

53. What's fair is fair. Pregnant under-aged girl?

The DNA must be collected from everyone around her who could have possibly had contact, paternity determined, person responsible arrested and charged if laws have been broken. And of course the girl needs to be removed by CPS to a safe place.

[notesdev]

59. oops!

Guess the State of Texas doesn't do any better with kids in its custody.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A380876

[LisaL]

65. Not just foster care.

State of TX has thousands of pregnant girls under the age of 18.
I hope they are investigating all these cases just as vigorously as they are investigating FLDS teenage pregnancies.
The important thing would be figuring out who exactly got the teenager pregnant (through mass DNA testing if necessary).
And then of course arrest and prosecution if warranted.
Thousands of cases.
Who cares about those pregnant teenagers? State of TX cares about the ones who belong to FLDS, so of course they should care about the ones who don't belong to FLDS as well.
And of course why stop at those teenagers who got pregnant?
What about those who seek birth control or are on birth control?
They are planning to have sex, or already are having sex.
Needs to be investigated as to with whom.

[High Plains]

134. 80,000 pregnant teens a year in Texas.

I looked it up for an earlier thread, but I won't bother to this time. If someone is curious, google is your friend.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. It's quite simple. The FLDS pregnant girls were removed from their homes because of suspicion of

statutory rape. DNA tests are currently being done to determine paternity.

Ergo, pregnant, underage girls having abortions could possibly be taken away from their families, and/or have an investigation started as to whether their pregnancies were a result of statutory rape.

[Breeze54]

9. But it is anyway in TX if they're under 17 yrs of age and that doesn't explain

the abortion tie in by the OP's article.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. Once again, quite simply

"Similarly, a growing number of abortion foes are questioning whether abortion clinics are covering up crimes of sexual abuse of underaged girls who end up pregnant.

[Breeze54]

18. But that was pretty well explained away by another poster. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. In that posters opinion, which I disagreed with.

[riderinthestorm]

23. There has to be some evidence then that would support an investigation

and you, nor anyone else, can provide any single allegation that abortion clinics are abetting statutory rape (except in the delusional minds of the religious right anti-choice crowd).

Doctors are under mandatory reporting laws if they suspect child abuse or child sexual abuse - what possible benefit is it to them to cover it up?

Abortion clinics are heavily scrutinized and if there were any single shred of evidence that they were abetting statutory rape, that news would spread like wildfire. This attempt to link the TX CPS investigation and the services of abortion providers is disgusting and despicable.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

37. How many times is social services called anonymously by someone who has a grudge.

I know it happened to me. There was a call of allegations of sexual abuse with the FLDS and they went in. The same case can be made about someone anonymously calling social services in regard to an underage girl seeking an abortion.

The fact is, that right now, states are writing laws to make obtaining an abortion harder. Who knows how many anti-choicers in these state legislatures will take the FLDS case and run with it? Doctors might not suspect sexual abuse but if laws are created that they have to report each and every case of underage pregnancy, you never know where that will go. Investigations, DNA testing etc.

It makes no sense to you as it makes no sense to me, but that doesn't count for anything if ideological zealots get their way.

[riderinthestorm]

74. Sorry but if they discover a pregnant 13 year old girl at my house

who refuses to identify herself, the father of the child, or even her parents, then CPS can and should take her away.

This is comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. The two things are simply not the same.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

77. No, we are not talking about finding that child within one's home and you are using

13, which can be an extreme. It can be a 16 year old in some states.

Not comparing apples and oranges at all.

[riderinthestorm]

103. They found the FLDS children at their compound.

That is their "home". I own a farm and there are endless places on my property that aren't technically "my house" but that wouldn't mean the theoretical 13 year old isn't at "home" if CPS came to the farm to investigate.

And fine, if you aren't comfortable with 13 year old, then sub in 16 year old, it still doesn't make it right. If she won't identify herself, her parents, or even who the potential father is, CPS would take her while the allegations and investigations were worked out.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

106. Please, the discussion is Not about the FLDS directly but ramifications. The OP is about

this, from the article that was cited.

The article was written in an Augusta, Georgia newspaper. After discussing the FLDS case, From the article

Similarly, a growing number of abortion foes are questioning whether abortion clinics are covering up crimes of sexual abuse of underaged girls who end up pregnant.

There again, it's a thorny legal issue - since patient confidentiality is concerned. But it would seem evidence of a crime would trump that consideration, and that abortion clinics should be able to - even be forced to - reveal evidence that an underaged girl has been sexually abused.

By one national estimate, as many as 90 percent of abortion clinics are not in compliance with state laws requiring the reporting of child sexual abuse.

Augusta Care Pregnancy Center does report - some 27 cases in the past year and a half alone.

Please note. The author of the article does not say where those abortion foes are from, and in fact, goes into statistics from Georgia.

[riderinthestorm]

117. I think the article IS all about tying the two things together

It is both about the FLDS case and the greater ramifications, and the anti-choicer's determination to skew anything they can, however far-fetched.

My opinion is that it's bogus both on the logic and the merits of the argument. If there were multiple, credible, legal cases against PP - or any abortion provider for that matter - for aiding, abetting, even facilitating, and then covering-up statutory rape then perhaps it would be a valid comparison but that's simply not the case.

In fact, as I've already stated, I believe it's so far-fetched it just stretches credulity to contemplate it. PP and other abortion providers aren't monsters no matter how the RR wants to paint them as such, and most rational people outside of the RR (and a few really tiresome DU posters) just won't buy this.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

125. These wrongwing idealogues have placed themselves in position of power in states

and as we converse here, are continuing to think of and write legislation that will further erode safe, legal abortions. If you don't believe that's the case, and continue to marginalize these people, I believe that you will be in for a very rude awakening. Let's take Georgia for example. Please read Breeze54's post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3213898&mesg_id=3214386

[riderinthestorm]

132. Oh, I hear you loud and clear.

I'm not disputing any of your comments. I just think that this particular corrolation is so unbelievable as to be insane and only further demonstrates the RR's twisted mindset rather than furthers their cause. They have been making serious inroads on women's rights, I know that, but this particular line of thinking just seems to me to be too far-fetched.

I know, I know. This kind of thinking is to be expected but I honestly can't see this meme taking off. Even those posters who are arguing on this thread (in theory they are "progressives" - cough), can't logically make the connections for it to have any credibility.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

139. I told Breeze 54, for all we know this newspaper in Georgia might

even be inciting those "pro-birthers" into taking this insane action. The author wrote without specifics when making this statement -

"Similarly, a growing number of abortion foes are questioning whether abortion clinics are covering up crimes of sexual abuse of underaged girls who end up pregnant.

Is the author creating those "abortion foes" up in order to incite anti-choicers to go down that path, or has the author actually heard directly from those people? This part can be full of crap, but I will not put anything passed them.

Logic has nothing to do with these people.

[madmusic]

164. The author is not making it up or stirring the pot

He's only pointing out a fact. See http://www.childpredators.com/

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

167. I have to leave now to take a shower.

[uppityperson]

174. This is not a reputable source. I want to see proof of that claim.

No, this is not a reputable source. I want to see proof of that claim. From a reputable source.

This first bit from childpredators link tells me they have an agenda and you need to post a reputable source for your claims of "facts".

"The dirty little secret is that Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Federation know they will sell more abortions, more birth control products and more treatments for sexually transmitted diseases when they turn a blind eye to child rape."

[madmusic]

221. What rhetoric gives a fuck about accurate?

Everyone is missing the point. The fact that that site exists at all confirms the OP article's claim that some anti-abortionists are using child abuse as rhetoric. That's all this thread is about.

[uppityperson]

224. Some anti-abortionists are using child abuse as rhetoric.

I agree.

[uppityperson]

151. I would like to see evidence of this claim.

"By one national estimate, as many as 90 percent of abortion clinics are not in compliance with state laws requiring the reporting of child sexual abuse."

I am very much against parental notification laws. If a minor and a parent have a good enough relationship for them to be notified without endangering the minor, then the minor will tell the parent. If their relationship is such that the minor would be endangered by being forced to tell the parent, it should not be mandatory.

That said, reporting possible cases of statutory rape and other child abuse to CPS is mandatory for all doctors I know of. Also for teachers, nurses, other people who work with kids like that. So, I would like to see evidence of that claim since I do not believe it is more than rumor mongering without evidence.

Yes, like everything, I am sure that it happens. But I want to see evidence of this claim.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

158. and that is why I said the author of the article might be full of crap in a couple of other

posts. It is very possible that the author is an instigator.

[uppityperson]

162. Yup. Reading through this whole topic, yup.

[LisaL]

110. One FLDS couple say they are not polygamists.

There is one wife and one husband.
They lived not in the dormitory but apparently had their own house on the ranch.
Yet the child was still taken away.

[Marrah_G]

192. Only because the man hasn't been given a new wife yet. They have no say in who they marry

If he says " I don't want a new wife" he would be thrown out and his wife and children given to another.

DO SOME GOD DAMN RESEARCH.

[LanternWaste]

285. ALL buildings were held by one deed owned by one Limited Liability Corporation

All houses and dorms on the ranch-- indeed ALL buildings were held by one deed owned by one Limited Liability Corporation-- NOT by any of the individuals living in them. Those individuals were assigned living quarters by the church hierarchy.

[madmusic]

108. What if the child was at your neighbor's house and they took your children.

Would that still be just dandy?

[riderinthestorm]

126. IF the child were 13 yrs old, pregnant, and wouldn't tell them her name

or who her parents were, or who the potential father was of the fetus?

Yes. I expect they would take her even if she were visiting at a friend's house.

[High Plains]

140. Probably 90% of the children taken don't fit your model.

Not 13, not pregnant.

[Marrah_G]

194. Not yet. The girls will be married off after puberty, most of the boys tossed out.

Please read "Under the Banner of Heaven" and "Escape"

[High Plains]

242. I read Krakauer's book a few years ago. Not his best work.

A pretty one-sided polemic. You would think these people were monsters on earth. Ditto with the rest of the survivor literature.

To me, they seem like a fairly repressive, backward-looking sect with some strange sexual practices. As much as I disagree with their beliefs, I think the planet is big enough to tolerate them.

People with unorthodox religious beliefs should be sensitive to this.

[Marrah_G]

243. What about the women and children who are forced to follow it also

One of the huge issues is that local law enforcement are usually members of the cult. This leaves the women no recourse. The younger women, raised under Warren Jeffs have no understanding of their right. They are indoctrinated to believe that mental, physical and sexual abuse is normal and if they complain then they are told they are the ones with demons.

[Breeze54]

249. You are an American Taliban!

I doubt the raped women and girls would agree with you...

... and we all know the law doesn't agree with you.

You need counseling.... please get some.

[High Plains]

255. Why don't you ask the girls and women what they think?

Clearly, a handful thought it was a bad place and left. Thousands remain in various FLDS settlements. I saw some of them on TV crying for their children back. But maybe that doesn't count because it doesn't fit into your world view?

And please tell me all about your mental health credentials. Or knock or the stupid insults.

[Marrah_G]

257. You could try listening to the stories of the ones who escaped and can now speak freely.

[woo me with science]

264. The problem is that the ones reporting the most horrible stories

seem to be associated with survivor groups like Tapestry Against Polygamy that have broader associations that raise concern. In particular, there may be links to "survivor" groups that facilitate the recovery of abuse memories through therapy. Some of the most horrible stories you hear about FLDS come from these women and are suspiciously similar to other survivor/recovered memory narratives. I am not talking about the spiritual marriages between younger girls and older men, which do appear to reflect the beliefs of this group and are of great concern in any event. I am talking about the more extreme narratives of abuse, such as passing girls around in groups of men or waterboarding babies. We just don't know if these things actually occurred.

This does not mean that a religious sect that condones or pushes marriages between young teens and older men should not be investigated and the underage marriages stopped. I am just saying that we need to be very cautious about the reliability of the most heinous eyewitness accounts and careful about where they come from. It will be extremely important to use actual EVIDENCE (i.e., underage pregnancy, physical evidence, DNA testing, and testimony of people actually in the compound) before taking as fact the memories of someone who may be in questionable therapy to deal with her FLDS experiences.

[LisaL]

266. Dateline did a story on it.

It's very sad. Those are little children, taken from their parents, moved from place to place.
The women were saying these children are getting sick.

[uppityperson]

268. It is really sad that this is happening to those children.

[uppityperson]

252. Taliban

[madmusic]

82. disgusting and despicable

PREACHER: The liberals brainwash -- brainwash, I tell you! -- minors into believing they have the right to abort their children. Murder of a child is the worst form of child abuse!

CHOIR: AMEN!

PREACHER: And someone committed a crime. A minor cannot become pregnant unless there was a crime. We, as good citizens, have a right to Planned Parenthood records just like CPS had a right to the FLDS records, and our right is greater than their right to privacy, which, I remind you, is not even in the Constitution.

CHOIR: AMEN!

[Breeze54]

86. That 'preacher' is one focked up person!

:crazy:

[madmusic]

96. Coming to a theater near you.

Texas is merely the trailer.

[Breeze54]

101. Not near me!

I live in a sane blue state. ;)

[notesdev]

87. It's so obvious

and simply amazing that some people can't see it coming.

5th Amendment is dead. No more oath or affirmation needed for a warrant. Any judge, anytime, can take your rights away with a simple stroke of the pen.

You would think it would occur to people that there's something odd about how Puritan they needed to be to buy into the hate propaganda. Now when that same Puritan standard is applied to them, who will take up their cause?

Maybe I'm just too old, but I remember when Democrats were first in line to stand up for the rights of the accused, and when it was worth it to let 100 guilty men go free to ensure that not one innocent man went to prison.

In this Brave New World, they'll put 100 innocent men in prison if that's what it takes to make sure the one guilty man doesn't go free.

[riderinthestorm]

10. Not really.

Cause most states have Romeo and Juliet laws whereby pregnant teens have a certain degree of immunity. And the physician would have to call the cops and report that s/he suspected abuse or statutory rape which they wouldn't do unless they had reasons to do so (like the girl told him/her, or they saw physical signs of trauma etc.)....

The FLDS case is completely different. The authorities went in there to investigate child and sexual abuse allegations. And those girls' conditions clearly implied that statutory rape was the cause of their pregnancies. Also there was a report from (ostensibly) one of the girls herself. Yes, I know there's speculation that report was false but the evidence for the FLDS girls is quite different than what teens typically present at an abortion clinic.

This is really stretching it by the anti-abortion crowd imho.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. The anti-abortion crowd stretches all the time. Look at the new regulation that they're going to

pass into law in Georgia in regard to abortion. They want the pregnant women to look at their sonograms before agreeing to an abortion.

As to abortion clinics. Any anonymous person could blow the whistle and say that an underage girl is getting an abortion and it is suspected that the pregnancy was a result of sexual abuse/statutory rape. Who impregnated her? Romeo and Juliet laws do apply to some extent, but that cannot be determined without an investigation and DNA testing.

[madmusic]

21. Romeo and Juliet laws do not apply

In the states that have those laws, that just make is a lesser crime, but still a crime. No immunity. Pregnancy itself is proof of abuse. A minor cannot consent. Period.

[Breeze54]

34. Which states please.

Because that isn't the way the 'age of consent" laws read at all.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. There are only Romeo and Juliet Laws in CT, FL, IN and TX.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/datingandsex/a/Romeo_and_Julie.htm

Interesting article

Here is a snip

Recent changes in the laws governing consensual sex between minors or an adult 18 years of age and a minor 14-16 years of age have acknowledged that this intimacy is not the same as molestation. The new laws, named “Romeo and Juliet laws” after Shakespeare’s tragic teenage lovers, attempt to correct overly harsh penalties and prison terms meted out over the years. In 2007, these laws went into effect in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana and Texas.

[Breeze54]

46. IF the offender is more than 3 years older!

Texas Age of Consent Laws

http://blog.laborlawtalk.com/2006/11/09/texas-age-of-consent-laws/

Posted by Tamara

The age of consent in Texas is 17 years old; this is the age at which a man or woman may legally consent to heterosexual sex with an adult. Texas has no minimum age of consent for homosexual acts, because the law was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Texas age of consent laws, like those of other states, are designed to prevent young people from being sexually exploited by adults. Texas, like many states, permits teens to engage in sexual relations with their peers. While this activity is far from universal, it is common enough that the courts would be unable to handle all the cases, if it were illegal.

In Texas, young people who are at least 14 years old may legally consent to sex with a partner who is not more than 3 years older. So, a 15-year-old boy can have sex with his brother’s 18-year-old girlfriend, but not with the 42-year-old lady down the street. Although in that example, the brother might object strongly, the conduct would not be illegal.

Under the Texas age of consent laws, it is sexual assault for anyone to penetrate a person who is at least 14 years old but under the age of 17, if the offender is more than 3 years older than the victim is. The law includes an exception for married couples. This crime, commonly called statutory rape, carries a sentence of 2 to 20 years in jail.

The age of consent is different in every country and can vary greatly from state to state within the U.S. Several states including Wisconsin, Florida, Oregon and Virginia set the age of consent at 18. A number of other states set the age of consent at 16, including West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Nevada. Two states set the age of consent at just 14 for females, although it is higher for males. Those states are Iowa and South Carolina.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

49. This discussion is not just about Texas. Please see the larger picture.

It has nothing to do with the age difference, as much as a state investigating into the age differences and what that will entail in regard to underage girls seeking abortions.

[Breeze54]

50. please don't be condescending... the FLDS subject IS about TX right now.

This is all a load of crap anyway... more RW RTL BS!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

54. I am not being condescending. You aren't comprehending. This article

was written in an Augusta, Georgia newspaper. After discussing the FLDS case, From the article

Similarly, a growing number of abortion foes are questioning whether abortion clinics are covering up crimes of sexual abuse of underaged girls who end up pregnant.

There again, it's a thorny legal issue - since patient confidentiality is concerned. But it would seem evidence of a crime would trump that consideration, and that abortion clinics should be able to - even be forced to - reveal evidence that an underaged girl has been sexually abused.

By one national estimate, as many as 90 percent of abortion clinics are not in compliance with state laws requiring the reporting of child sexual abuse.

Augusta Care Pregnancy Center does report - some 27 cases in the past year and a half alone.

Please note. The author of the article does not say where those abortion foes are from, and in fact, goes into statistics from Georgia.

[Breeze54]

57. Yes and it's BS and a stretch and typical of GA!

I'll bet most teens are impregnated BY teens anyway, so I'm guessing this will not fly.

FLDS teens and younger are alleged to have been impregnated by 50 year old men!

Big difference! And despite your continued condescensions, I totally comprehend.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

70. I believe you have to step away from the alleged horrible

abuses that happened with the FLDS and look at this critically and non-passionately and how this might apply to other situations in the future. Personally, I believe if the alleged sexual abuse happened, throw the frigging book at those who are found guilty.

I don't know if this paper is full of crap, or maybe even inciting action by the anti-choicers, or what ever else, but it does leave open the possibilities> You just said typical of Georgia. If it's typical of Georgia in your opinion, what makes you think that they won't run with this in regard to abortion clinics?

[Breeze54]

78. 92 percent of Georgia counties have no abortion provider!

GA has a reputation. I never said they wouldn't try but they've been trying and in some respects,
succeeding to whittle away at abortion and clinics that provide them. I'm sure they'll keep on trying.
One reason why the election this year is so important!

92 percent of Georgia counties have no abortion provider
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/state-profiles/georgia.html?templateName=lawdetails&issueID=3&ssumID=2531

Did you know that Georgia anti-abortion opponents want to pass a total ban on abortion?

http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/who-decides/did-you-know/georgia.html

In the 2007 legislative session anti-choice legislators introduced House Bill 1, an abortion ban that if enacted would be among the most extreme bans passed into law since prior to Roe v. Wade. This measure bans nearly all abortion, and could ban many forms of contraception, and provides a penalty of death or life in prison. Women themselves could be prosecuted, because there is no exception for the acts of a pregnant woman and the definition of "abortion" does not specify that only a physician may be prosecuted. This clearly unconstitutional bill exposes the anti-choice movement's true disregard for the health and well-being of Georgian women.

H.B. 1, 149th Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2007).

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

85. I cited Georgia in one of my previous posts about the law on requiring

women having to view their sonograms prior to agreeing to have an abortion.

As to the fact that there is such a lack of abortion facilities doesn't surprise me at all. You have assholes who say leave abortion for the states to decide, and there are states, like Georgia, who are eroding a woman's right to choose, by just not offering clinics in the first place. This is prejudiced against women who don't have the means and money to travel to the clinics for the procedure. I remember very well when abortion was illegal in our country, a time when when wealthy women could just fly overseas to obtain one.

[Breeze54]

88. ah, yeah... I know.

BTW? The sonograms requirement is spreading. :eyes:

Just another road block they're trying to throw in the way!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

92. As I said, those ideological zeolots will stop at nothing as long as they keep

getting their way. They also worked the system and got themselves elected to positions of power within state legislatures. No one can underestimate them and what they intend to do in the future.

[madmusic]

55. That does not make it legal

Yes, it is against the law for children under 17 to have sex. There is a defense to prosecution - the actor must not be more than three years older than the victim. This is not a "three year rule." It's purpose is to offer a form of defense for the defendant. It is very possible and within lawful boundaries for a district attorney to prosecute a person who has violated these laws and is not three years older.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.005.00.000021.00.htm#21.11.00

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.005.00.000022.00.htm#22.011.00

Source: http://www.laborlawtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-46938.html

[Breeze54]

63. They won't be prosecuting them...

"Texas, like many states, permits teens to engage in sexual relations with their peers.

While this activity is far from universal, it is common enough that the courts would be

unable to handle all the cases, if it were illegal."

[madmusic]

73. It does not permit...

But merely has the option to decline to prosecute. It could still prosecute or require DNA from the mother to find the father if it passed that law.

[Breeze54]

83. 'IF it were illegal' ..... It's NOT illegal!

:crazy:

In the case of a single Mom who is on state assistance

they already DO require a DNA test to establish paternity;

so they can get a child support order from the father.

The FLDS girls are alleged to all be on state assistance.

[madmusic]

89. Then if you agree

That the state has the right to collect DNA from a pregnant minor and prosecute the boyfriend, then there is nothing to debate.

"Alleged" doesn't cut it.

[Breeze54]

90. But I didn't say that at all.... I said pregnant Moms!

Where did you see that I said teen or underage?

That's what happens in all states to establish child support
orders in the case of a single Mom WHOM is collecting state aid.

[madmusic]

121. You're right. I misunderstood the law.

And didn't know any state permitted sex between teens. Thanks for the slap. :)

The question still stands if over 3 years older and if under 14 at conception. Should the state be able to collect the DNA to prosecute her boyfriend, and perhaps remove the child from her home only because she got pregnant?

Also, since this is the law in Texas, the 1 (yes ONE) minor who is pregnant might have had a less-than-3-years-older boyfriend or husband or whatever, and it was therefore legal.

[Breeze54]

129. Yes, under 14 IS a crime and then it's rape and rape is a crime.

DNA testing would be in order to establish evidence and removing the

child/baby depends on if her abuser is living with her and the child.

The FLDS perps ARE living with theses kids and the parents aren't protecting them.

Removing the children is for their safety. You don't seem to get that.

The rest of your post is all 'mights and if's' and that's the point of testing

and doing interviews with all involved. That's called an 'investigation'.

[madmusic]

135. I do get that

There was no emergency requiring the removal of ALL of the children though. For example, removal of the one pregnant minor, if there is one, would make more sense. So you do think any minor who gets an abortion should have to surrender DNA to help hunt down the father no matter if the minor wants to or not? I don't agree but it is a valid view and is more consistent with the FLDS cases. Also, you are assuming the parents aren't protecting them, and could be right, but so far there is no evidence of "pervasive abuse" as claimed as the justification to removing all of the children. All the actual evidence so far points to gross overreaction by Texas.

[Breeze54]

142. That's your opinion.

Are you a child welfare lawyer? A court official in TX? A CPS social worker? Are you that familiar with case law and child abuse cases that you have enough information to form an opinion right now? Do you know if there might already be evidence concerning this situation stemming from the Jeffs conviction that we may not be aware of and that the law wasn't able to act on until this happened? If not, you are just speculating.

[madmusic]

173. So are you.

So is CPS. That's the point.

BTW, you didn't answer. Should the minor have to submit to DNA tests to prosecute the father even if she doesn't want to?

[Breeze54]

184. I'm not a prosecuter. n/t

[Marrah_G]

196. Please read "Under the Banner of Heaven" and Escape"

There are also MANY stories on the web from women who have escaped from the cult. If you think all the children did not have to be removed then you truly are ignorant about how this cult works.

[madmusic]

228. Were those books admitted into evidence?

I think the disagreement is in what is lawful under the Constitution, rights for all of us, what what is rumored. What is important is if the government acted properly under the law and under the Constitution. We won't know for sure until the appeals court hears it next month.

Sweep of children raises legal issues

SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) - The state of Texas made a damning accusation when it rounded up 462 children at a polygamous sect’s ranch: The adults are forcing teenage girls into marriage and sex, creating a culture so poisonous that none should be allowed to keep their children.

But the broad sweep – from nursing infants to teenagers – is raising constitutional questions, even in a state where authorities have wide latitude for taking a family’s children.

The move has the appearance of “a class-action child removal,” said Jessica Dixon, director of the child advocacy center at Southern Methodist University’s law school in Dallas.

“I’ve never heard of anything like that,” she said.

Rod Parker, a spokesman for the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, contends that the state essentially had said, “If you’re a member of this religious group, then you’re not allowed to have children.”

Attorneys for the families and civil-liberties groups also are crying foul. They say the state should not have taken children away from all church members living at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado.

Church members said that not all of them practiced polygamy, and some form traditional nuclear families.

But “what the state has done has offended a pretty wide swath of the American people with what appears to be an overreaching action to sweep up all these children,” Lisa Graybill, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas.

http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2008/04/26/news/nation_and_world/doc4812fd0a34fd2451763564.txt

[Marrah_G]

236. I wouldn't know, but it might give you a better understanding of this cult.

[riderinthestorm]

79. Jayzus you have more patience than I.

They're stretching so hard I'm surprised the computer itself isn't exploding from the bullshit.

[Breeze54]

80. lmfao!

:rofl:

It's taking my mind off my stomach growling!

I'm still trying to 'read' the above response! :silly:

:rofl:

Huh? :P

[riderinthestorm]

141. I had to take a lunch break this is going on so long!

I'm about to get off as my rural dial-up can't handle threads that get too long.

Carry on but the conversation is, as usual, devolving into the usual disaster :banghead: - prolly time to call it quits for me anyway even if I had the good fortune to have high speed.

[Breeze54]

143. You're a champion!

:P

I'm about to go find something to eat, myself. ;)

:hi:

[High Plains]

136. What about all the kids that weren't pregnant teens?

I could see a justification for removing teenage girls from the community while this is investigated.

The justification for removing all the other kids is much, much weaker.

[Breeze54]

146. Raping and water boarding babies is against the law and that makes ALL

the adults suspects for child endangerment. It would be cruel
to leave these kids with possible abusers and AGAINST THE LAW!!

But you already know that....

[madmusic]

176. No evidence of that at all in Texas

You're starting to sound desperate.

[uppityperson]

183. No evidence of statutory rape? Are you series?

[madmusic]

240. Please don't do that

The post did not specify "statutory rape" and there is no certain evidence of that yet anyway. Even if there was, how could that justify taking 1-5-year-olds and nursing babies of other parents without a proper and complete due process hearing?

Would you really trust the government with your children after a zoo like that?

[uppityperson]

245. As has been pointed out repeatedly, when there is allegations of abuse,

CPS is obligated to investigate. When they find possible proof, they can, and often do, and are allowed to, remove all the children from the home while they investigate.

Yes, the FLDS compound is considered "the home" of all these kids, so they were removed while the investigation proceeds. And of course I have concerns about what's going on with them all. And of course my heart breaks for everyone involved. What a mess.


About the terms "rape" and "statutory rape".
There has been statutory rape, including perhaps plain old rape (unwilling sex). Posters are using the shortcut "rape" rather than specifying "statutory rape" in each instance. I'd advise you to put "statutory" before rape when you read it, as this is most often what is meant here. I've seen little getting into it over "regular" rape between people of age, just the stat rape part most often.

I've also gotten on posters for calling it pedophilia, when it is statutory rape.

[Breeze54]

246. No evidence? wtf?

Polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs convicted of rape as accomplice for role in teen's marriage

http://www.courttv.com/trials/jeffs/092507_verdict_ctv.html

ST. GEORGE, Utah —

A jury found polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs guilty Tuesday of forcing a 14-year-old to marry and have sex with her 19-year-old cousin against her will.

Jeffs, 51, was convicted of two counts of rape
as an accomplice for his role in the arranged marriage of Elissa Wall and Allen Steed in 2001. He faces five years to life in prison on each count when he is sentenced Nov. 20.

snip-->

Jeffs, the leader and "prophet" of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS),...

snip-->

Members of the FLDS believe that God speaks through the prophet, and reveals to him who should marry whom.

The verdict is a milestone for authorities in Utah and Arizona, who have already prosecuted several
of his followers on lesser charges stemming from the marriages of underage girls.

snip-->

"I have very tender feelings for the FLDS people," said Wall, whose mother and siblings are still members of the sect.

"This trial has not been about religion or a vendetta. It simply has been about child abuse."

Former member Richard Holm, whom Jeffs excommunicated in 2003, said outside the courthouse that the leader's
conviction could give him the air of a martyr.

"I think it will drive them underground further, but otherwise it will be business as usual," Holm said of the FLDS community, which is based in the border towns of Hildale, Utah, and Colorado City, Ariz.

"He will always be in the background, but I think there is already a regime in place to continue his legacy."

Holm is one of many men Jeffs excommunicated after assuming leadership of the FLDS in 2002 after the death of his father, the prophet Rulon Jeffs. Jeffs' critics claim the mass exile is part of an effort to keep polygamy alive by purging the community of males.

"If Warren Jeffs even spent one day in jail for all the people he's hurt, it would be several dozen years," said Holm, who left behind a wife and children.

"He was portrayed as a kind man and a religious leader. That's nonsense. He's left a trail of blood and bones."

[High Plains]

235. Are there any allegations that the people at El Dorado did that?

"Raping and water boarding babies."

I'm against raping and/or waterboarding babies. If there was any evidence, I would like to see the perpetrators prosecuted. But (and I could be mistaken) I don't recall hearing that anyone at El Dorado is accused of that.

Otherwise you're just talking guilt by allegation and association.

[Breeze54]

248. Live interviews from women that escaped from El Dorado n/t

[High Plains]

256. Well, if that's true, I would say investigate it.

You are talking about raping and/or waterboarding babies, right?

[uppityperson]

258. One who escaped talked about waterboarding a baby.

I thought it was hype until I found the article and read it. Do a search and you can find it too.

[riderinthestorm]

265. That's what they are trying to do!!!

Are you even listening?? People have been trying to get you to look at the links and understand the nature of the allegations for DAYS! This is NOT just about statutory rape, although that is deadly serious, there are several different felonious allegations that these parents are being investigated for as well. And you'd have known that if you had bothered to read anything anyone else has posted over and over and over on dozens of these threads.

Child abuse such as waterboarding is exactly what CPS is trying to investigate - allegations this serious.

And it is standard protocol when investigating child abuse allegations, if there is enough credible evidence on the first visit, to remove the children from the home (and the presumed jeopardy) while those investigations proceed.

CPS authorities and other LEOs determined that there was plenty of evidence to sustain the removal. Several other independent watchdog groups also agreed - including agencies that have been the most critical of TX CPS.

It's just wild that after hundreds of posts, you just NOW are admitting that if the allegations are this serious that they warrant investigation??!! :banghead:

[uppityperson]

267. I know! I know! I bet I can predict the next reply!

But those are only allegations and what happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

(how'd I do?)I think there are a few posters who are playing with us.

[Richard Steele]

271. Typical of your defense of these child-rapists. "Until it's PROVEN, we shouldn't investigate."

[LanternWaste]

286. Fourteen years old and pregnant is evidence of rape...

Fourteen years old and pregnant is evidence of rape...

[riderinthestorm]

7. I guess I'm not seeing the connection either.

What "evidence" do they think the clinic is going to see, if the girl doesn't verbalize the abuse? I know that some sexual abuse is rough enough to leave traces but most scars aren't apparent as far as I know. Also, if someone is going to seek an abortion, there's been some time since the impregnation occurred - allowing even more time for any healing to occur.

Unless the abuse is really evident, and in which case I would assume that just like any physician there are mandatory reporting laws about child abuse, it would be hard to find "evidence".

Lastly an abortion provider would have no compelling reason to turn in an underage girl for being pregnant unless she specified that the pregnancy was the result of abuse or sexual assault.

I'm not understanding the logic here. Can someone help me out?

[ellie]

11. There is no logic

The forced-birthers are grasping at whatever straw they can.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

52. Exactly!

[madmusic]

25. Laws

Abortion Provider Caught Encouraging Minor to Lie About Age
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
May 11, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Planned Parenthood is under fire after one of its employees was recorded encouraging a student - who was posing as a pregnant minor -- to lie about her age in order to obtain an abortion without the abortion provider having to report the "statutory rape" to the police.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200705/CUL20070511d.html

Unlike the Senate bill, the House measure sets out a national parental notification law. It would require a physician who knowingly performs or induces an abortion on a minor who is a resident of another state to provide notice of at least 24 hours to a parent of the minor before the procedure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14021863/

Last week, the Senate held hearings on whether to confirm Priscilla Owen, a Texas Supreme Court Justice, for a position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Owen holds an extremely narrow view of a minor's right to abortion--one that a majority of her colleagues on the Texas high court have rejected as inconsistent with state law. In part for this reason, her nomination has provoked considerable controversy.
....
Abortion might seem similar to other important decisions that minors are not empowered to make for themselves. A fourteen year old boy or girl, for example, can be criminally punished for having sex--through statutory rape laws--because we believe that only adults are entitled to sexual autonomy. The decision to have an abortion, once pregnant, may strike many as a logical extension of the decision to have sex. Though adults have a right to do it, children do not.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020731.html

Study Finds Pro-life Incremental Legislation Cuts Minor Abortion Rates by Almost 25%
U.S. pro-life laws credited with half the 50 % reduction in minor abortions over the past 20 years

By Gudrun Schultz

TUSCALOOSA, Alabama, February 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Abortion-restricting legislation reduces the rate of abortions among minor girls by nearly 25 percent, a new study shows, with Medicaid funding restrictions and parental notification laws having the greatest impact.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07020901.html

Minors and the death penalty, minors and abortion.
Here's a free link to reach Dana Mulhauser's article in TNR about the new death penalty case (Roper v. Simmons) and the effect it might have on abortion rights. In forbidding the death penalty for persons who commit crimes before they turn 18, he Simmons Court said some things about minors that could be used to support laws that require parental notification before minors can have abortions or a law (now under consideration in Congress) that would make it a crime to accompany a minor across a state line with the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/03/minors-and-death-penalty-minors-and.html

[riderinthestorm]

61. Look, you've provided one potential possibility for PP

alleging that they are covering up for statutory rape.

And it's being investigated as it should be.

There's no parity between PP and the FLDS cult. I can't even believe you think there's any degree of similarity.

The FLDS cult is alleged to have an almost 100% record of statutory rape with their minor female children, and they are actively working to cover that up may I add by throwing any monkey wrench into the system that they can.

PP has 1 alleged case of covering up? Even if there are 50 cases out of the millions of abortions provided, there is just no parity at all, and to allude that there is smacks of RR propaganda.

[madmusic]

104. Alleged doesn't cut it

Alleged by who against who, exactly who? All of the parents at the compound, even the magnanimous parents?

Some book alleges it? Do you really want raids against your neighborhood because someone writes a book about your neighborhood?

They only found one potential minor who is pregnant, and that is not confirmed yet, and apparently under Texas law if the father was not more than 3 years older than that minor and the minor was not less than 14 at conception, then there was no crime. So even if one of the minors really is pregnant, there is no evidence so far that the father was an "old man." Do you call that justification for taking all the children?

The similarity is the requirement that any minor who gets an abortion be required to submit to a DNA test to prosecute the father. Seems to me some would hesitate to get an abortion under those conditions because she doesn't want her boyfriend prosecuted.

On the other hand, the police could just dig the aborted fetus out of the trash and get then DNA that way. Perfectly legal and likely to happen.

[Breeze54]

109. "Do you call that justification for taking all the children?"

Yes! It hasn't been proven and wasn't proven at the time that it's "just one girl" nor has it been
proven that those that are pregnant aren't pregnant by a 56 year old man/men! You're twisting the
timeline to make your case. It doesn't work that way and I'm glad to see that you now agree with me
that it isn't illegal for a teen to have sex and/or impregnate another teen. Baby steps, baby steps. ;)

[madmusic]

130. If she is of age, 56 or 100 doesn't matter

If she is of age to consent and does so, then she is of age to consent with an older man. What does age have to do with it then?

I'm not twisting the timeline. CPS said there was evidence of "pervasive" abuse. Not true if only one minor was pregnant, and that is all they are basing this on, pregnancy. The lawyer who pointed this out only did so recently after studying the CPS's own charts. The justification for the removal of ALL of the children was the "pervasive" sexual abuse, but there is no evidence of that at all. Remove the one minor, fine. Investigate the rest. Fine. But there was no emergency that required the removal of ALL of the children.

But the real point is the possibility of applying the same rationale to other more specific cases when a minor is pregnant. If in the process of getting an abortion the focus becomes on the perpetrator then teens will be less likely to exercise their right to an abortion. And that's just fine with the Right.

[Breeze54]

138. But the girls were all under age and

it has been said by CPS that there were at least 18 pregnant underage girls.

Until all the tests comeback, we won't know. Defense lawyers say all kinds of things.

You are twisting the timeline. You're acting and posting as if at the time CPS went into

the compound, they already knew all of this! They didn't, hence the ongoing investigation.

They couldn't find the girl who called and even the FLDS members said there was a girl

but she wasn't 'there' anymore. Go back and read the newspaper accounts from the beginning.

But the real point is that article is BS and a stretch.

[woo me with science]

56. I think the issue is age when pregnant.

The age of the FLDS girls all by itself is considered evidence of statutory rape. The argument is that the age of a girl going to Planned Parenthood could also trigger an investigation for statutory rape.

[madmusic]

105. Exactly.

If under the age of consent, a crime that needs investigated and the minor's DNA could be taken as proof. It isn't too far fetched to imagine charges against the girl if she impeds the investigation or lies to the police.

[madmusic]

66. CPS found no signs of abuse in Texas

Except some minors may be pregnant. That is all. So far the evidence points to 1, and only 1, minor being pregnant and yet 460 children were removed. It's still not certain.

FLDS attorney challenges Texas count of pregnant minors from polygamous sect
By Brooke Adams
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 04/26/2008 05:14:10 PM MDT

SAN ANGELO, Texas - An attorney for FLDS families in Texas challenged the state's allegations of a "pervasive pattern" of underage girls having children, saying the state's own documents show just three teenagers in custody are pregnant.
Of those girls, one will turn 18 in a few months and another merely refused to take a pregnancy test, said Rod Parker, a Salt Lake City attorney representing families at the YFZ Ranch. "That leaves us with one," he said.
Parker also said Friday that one state document includes a woman whose first child was born more than a decade ago. He said he based his statements on a copy of a list created by an investigator for Texas Child Protective Services. "I

http://origin.sltrib.com/news/ci_9056589

[Richard Steele]

272. Complete and utter BULLSHIT. Simply not true. As you've admitted you already know.

nm

[ColbertWatcher]

33. Hahahahaha!

So, the fundamentalist Christians want to frame this fundamentalist Christian scandal as being the fault of non-fundamentalist Christians in order to promote a fundamentalist Christian agenda!?

Hahahaha!

[Breeze54]

38. That's as clear as mud and it works for me!

:rofl:

[ColbertWatcher]

155. Good to know, thank you! n/t

[malaise]

48. Beautifully stated

:rofl:

[ColbertWatcher]

157. Glad you enjoyed it! n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

51. lol! ColbertWatcher

:applause:

[ColbertWatcher]

160. Thank you, thank you!

Here's my girl:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

201. She is gorgeous! Question? It's hard to tell

but her color is very similar to my girl Amy's. Is she a tabby and if she is, can you only see her stripes in certain lighting?

[ColbertWatcher]

209. Never seen stripes. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

62. Gawd, I totally needed that laugh!!! nt

[ColbertWatcher]

163. Oddly enough...

...when I'm not here discussing important issues, I'm over at Wikiality.com making fun of everything.

I have to come here to get away from the upside-down-ness of the wiki and talk serious stuff!

[madmusic]

94. Uh, no, it was the Baptists who passed the laws against the FLDS

in 2006. They want them to conform just like they want pro choicers to reform.

[ColbertWatcher]

97. They can fight it out in the wrasslin' ring! n/t

[suffragette]

107. You nailed it, ColbertWatcher

:applause:

[ColbertWatcher]

165. Thank you. n/t

[uppityperson]

148. This is wild. Trying to tie FLDS stuff with abortions on minors.

"By one national estimate, as many as 90 percent of abortion clinics are not in compliance with state laws requiring the reporting of child sexual abuse."

I would like to see evidence of this claim.

[LisaL]

156. The OP is not the one who tied anything.

He/she simply posted an article to discuss.
If you ask me, the FLDS children tie to many things, including under-aged teenage girls getting access to birth control.
How can you be sure their boyfriends aren't older than them, and thus by giving the girls birth control the crime is being enabled?
Especially to really young ones, the ones in middle schools?
Add to that the governor of TX wanted mandatory HPV vaccinations for the girls entering sixth grade.
I wonder why 12 year olds would need HPV vaccinations in governor's mind.

[uppityperson]

161. Do you believe that providing contraception encourages youngsters to be sexually active?

[LisaL]

166. It might.

You don't think so?
Why would someone provide contraception to minors if it's illegal for minors to have sex?

It's not legal to give alcohol or tobacco to minors as it's illegal for them to smoke or drink alcohol.

[uppityperson]

168. It's not illegal for minors to have sex.

It is illegal for minors to consume alcohol or buy cigarettes.

[LisaL]

171. It's not illegal? If someone is below the age of consent,

the law decides that someone is not able to consent to sex.
How would it be legal for a 13 year old to have sex if she is unable to consent by law?

[uppityperson]

179. It depends on the state. It sounds like you area against access to contraception as it will promote

sexual activity. Would you rather have those who are sexually active get pregnant?


Sometimes an exception is made when the actor is not at least four years older than the victim.


Federal Laws
For the purposes of age of consent, the only provision applicable is {Chapter 109A, 18 U.S.C. 2243(a)}. 2243(a) refers to situations where such younger person is under the age of 16 years, has attained 12 years of age, and the older person is more than 4 years older than the 12-15 year old (persons under 12 are handled under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c) under aggravated sexual abuse). So, the age is 12 years if one is within 4 years of the 12-15 year old's age, 16 under all other circumstances. This most likely reflects Congressional intent to not unduly interfere with a state's age of consent law, which would have been the case if the age was set to 18 under all circumstances. This law is also extraterritorial in nature to U.S. Citizens and Residents who travel outside of the United States.

[uppityperson]

190. Tell me if I understand this right. Access to contraception promotes teen sex.

Teens are sexually active using contraception. So why are those teens getting pregnant?

[LisaL]

193. Contraception is not a 100 % effective, as you well know.

[uppityperson]

195. Ah, so all those pregnant girls getting aborted by PP are pregnant due to contraceptive failure?

Most of the ones I've counseled weren't using contraception.

[LisaL]

197. I dunno, but if I had a penny for all the people who claim to

have gotten pregnant while using birth control which failed, I would be rich.
By the way, if the goal is to prevent teen pregnancy, then contraception is a good idea.
But if it is to prevent teen sex, then I would say not so much.

[uppityperson]

199. I doubt I will change your mind and no way will you change mine.

I am trying to figure out how you think, why, so forth.

I would rather have all teens have accessible contraception and use it than not. I do not know of any who felt rushed into sex because contraception was available, though I am sure it has happened. I recall hearing, as a young adult, "why don't you want to have sex with me? Aren't you liberated and on the pill?" Yes, I was. But I had no desire to have sex with an asshole like that.

I remember back when contraception was difficult to get hold of (so to speak), when abortions were available only for the rich, well connected, or powerful. Teens had sex then. They got pregnant, had illegal abortions and died. Or were forced into marriage in a bad situation. Or were disowned.

Young people have sex. They always have. Young people have sex, and I've advised many of them on the issues surrounding it. One of the bad things about sex is not just getting pregnant, but becoming emotionally involved with someone unsuitable.

I would rather have contraception accessible, affordable, easy to manage, acceptable for anyone having sex to use, than have unsuitable pregnancies.

[LisaL]

200. Well,

you think young people have sex and always will? I think it might be a bit hypocritical to be so horrified over a pregnant teenager found living on FLDS ranch, while accepting that young people have sex and always will.

[uppityperson]

203. There is a difference between consensual and non-consensual.

If you can't understand that, you have a problem larger than I am comfortable dealing with and I hope you get some help before you get into trouble yourself.

[LisaL]

206. Enlighten me.

How can someone under the age of consent have consensual sex?
The ideas behind statutory rape laws are- the person is under the age of consent and is not able to consent to sex.
If the person is assumed uncapable of giving consent, how can such a person have consensual sex?

[uppityperson]

210. Which is worse? A minor having voluntary sex or having involuntary sex?

I am not asking if either is legal as to age, but which is worse?

You wrote "I think it might be a bit hypocritical to be so horrified over a pregnant teenager found living on FLDS ranch, while accepting that young people have sex and always will."

Which is more horrible? A couple teens having sex with each other because they BOTH want to, or a teen being given away to an older man for sex which she doesn't want to have?

I'm not asking about legalities as to age, but which is worse?

[LisaL]

211. The phone call from a supposed 16 year old was most likely a

hoax. The "person of interest" is not 16, is not pregnant, does not live on the ranch, does not belong to FLDS. So, which teenager says she didn't want to have sex?
There is not even an allegation coming from anyone from this ranch as of now.
The psychiatrist for the state testified that the girls told him they had a choice. He didn't believe it was a valid choice, but that is a far cry from allegations of forced sex.

[uppityperson]

212. You didn't answer my question. Try again. Keeping it simple.

Which is worse? A minor having voluntary sex or having involuntary sex?

I am not asking if either is legal as to age, but which is worse?

You wrote "I think it might be a bit hypocritical to be so horrified over a pregnant teenager found living on FLDS ranch, while accepting that young people have sex and always will."

Which is more horrible? A couple teens having sex with each other because they BOTH want to, or a teen being given away to an older man for sex which she doesn't want to have?

I'm not asking about legalities as to age, but which is worse?

[LisaL]

216. You must have misunderstood me.

By "pregnant teenager" living on the ranch I didn't mean the most likely non-existent "Sarah."
So, what involuntary sex?

[uppityperson]

219. We are discussing teens in this subthread, not FLDS. Try again.

Which is worse? A minor having voluntary sex or having involuntary sex?

I am not asking if either is legal as to age, but which is worse?

You wrote "I think it might be a bit hypocritical to be so horrified over a pregnant teenager found living on FLDS ranch, while accepting that young people have sex and always will."

Which is more horrible? A couple teens having sex with each other because they BOTH want to, or a teen being given away to an older man for sex which she doesn't want to have?

I'm not asking about legalities as to age, but which is worse?

[LisaL]

220. Isn't it rather obvious?

But I am trying to figure out what that has to do with the discussion.
By the way do you always assume young people are having sex with each other because they want to?
What about peer pressure?

[uppityperson]

223. No,it's not obvious. Only obvious thing is you won't answer, give your opinion.

Which is worse? A minor having voluntary sex or having involuntary sex?

I am not asking if either is legal as to age, but which is worse?

You wrote "I think it might be a bit hypocritical to be so horrified over a pregnant teenager found living on FLDS ranch, while accepting that young people have sex and always will."

Which is more horrible? A couple teens having sex with each other because they BOTH want to, or a teen being given away to an older man for sex which she doesn't want to have?

I'm not asking about legalities as to age, but which is worse?

[LisaL]

227. Anyone forced to have sex is worse than

anyone having voluntary sex. Although at some age it's not possible to have voluntary sex, which is what I thought statutory rape laws were trying to address.

[uppityperson]

229. It's possible to have sex, just not legal.

It's possible to have sex, voluntary or not, just not legal. Stat rape laws are trying to address power differences between the (supposedly) more and less mature and protect the (supposedly) less mature from predation.

It's possible to have sex, just not legal.

Thank you for answering. Now, to get to the FLDS part.

"I think it might be a bit hypocritical to be so horrified over a pregnant teenager found living on FLDS ranch, while accepting that young people have sex and always will."

Most are horrified at FLDS BECAUSE it is worse for someone to have forced, involuntary sex and that is part of their religion. Giving underage girls to men. Involuntary sex. That is what is wrong.

[LisaL]

230. Have you then decided that no one living on FLDS ranch

could possibly have "voluntary" sex?
Without anyone living there alleging that it was involuntary (as of now)?

[uppityperson]

232. Of course not. That's a pretty big leap.

Having sex with underage girls is also illegal, as you so often point out.

Edited to add link to another post with some articles you might find enlightening.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3213898&mesg_id=3215091
It is post 233 below by Breeze54
http://www.courttv.com/trials/jeffs/092507_verdict_ctv.html
"A jury found polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs guilty Tuesday of forcing a 14-year-old to marry and have sex with her 19-year-old cousin against her will."

[uppityperson]

226. Come on, you can do it. Give your opinion on the question.

Keep it simple, just answer.

[Breeze54]

225. Last count there were over 20 "Sarah's" in ONE family!

Who the fuck names all their female children Sarah?

It wouldn't be because females and individuality are not valued, is it? :sarcasm:

[Yupster]

269. George Foreman named all his sons

George -- and they weren't even female.

[Breeze54]

214. As you already know, that is immaterial at this point.

Hoax or not, that call triggered a lawful investigation.

It's not like this behavior, by that group, is unknown.

After all, their own leader is in prison.

[uppityperson]

217. Shhh, don't be distracted

this one's mo is to not answer but attack with a different point. :eyes: I wonder if is related to whomever it was that used to then say "show exactly where I said THAT!!!"

[Breeze54]

222. Oh, that poster and I go way back to

last week :P and we had this exact same conversation!!

Isn't it amazing? :sarcasm:

I tell ya, brick walls these days, they never read anything anymore

and believe everything they are told. It's pretty sad, really...

:hi:

[Lars39]

215. No choice = rape

[Marrah_G]

207. You are banging your head against a brick wall, I fear.

[uppityperson]

208. Yup. No matter how many articles, links, reputable sources,

they seem unable to read. They also seem unable to research on their own. I doubt I will change a mind, mine won't either. It becomes sort of intellectual (or perhaps typollectual?) masturbation.

I find small words helps sometimes.

[Marrah_G]

204. This is far differnt then a teenager getting knocked up. There is no choice for the FLDS girls

But you know that. You have been given the information and refuse to read any of it.

[Breeze54]

202. Or more AIDS victims....

but Abstinence works! :sarcasm:

[uppityperson]

205. Pregnancy, AIDS, both are the outcome of sinning and sinful people.

:sarcasm: You made your bed, now lie in it. :sarcasm: It has been interesting talking with people about their ancestors, finding out who had 10 lb "premature" babies after being married 6 months, and what other sexual skeletons lurked in most everyone's ancestral closets.


Being able to have sex, and NOT get pregnant, sure as hell freed up a whole lot of women to be able to plan out larger lives. Being able to have sex, NOT get AIDS has freed up a whole lot of people to enjoy their sexual beings and lives and not die.

Contraception doesn't always work. "Safe sex" is a misnomer, "safer sex" is more accurate.

Nothing wrong with consensual sex.

[ColbertWatcher]

169. There is a big difference...

...the cult requires teenage pregnancy.

As a matter of their faith.

[Marrah_G]

188. This post very clearly shows who is who on this board

Unbelievable that supposed progressives would be defending old men impregnating young girls with the consent and help of their community.

One has to ask why someone would defend this organized crime family and refuse to read any of the many things written for decades on this so called religion that forces women to escape, not just leave, in the middle of the night.

[High Plains]

244. Indeed it does.

Unbelievable that supposed progressives would be defending the kidnapping of the children of an entire community without particularized evidence of abuse.

See, you're not the only one that can use highly emotional, obfuscatory language to try to score propaganda points.

On edit: And you keep calling people out. I'll keep jumping the shit of people who do that.

[Marrah_G]

247. Go right ahead- This is a subject I will never back down about

Here and around the world women are horribly oppressed and abused using religion as an excuse. This is never right. There is a reason these young women have to escape. They aren't allowed to leave.

There is no one for them to report abuse to.

Things have gotten far worse since Warren Jeffs took over and withdrew all cult children from school. They now have no knowledge of the outside world or even their most basic rights as human beings.

[riderinthestorm]

254. As you know, since it's been pointed out over and over

The state simply has to see credible evidence of the allegations to remove a child from the home. If there is sufficient credible evidence that the other children in the home are in jeopardy, they are also removed.

In this case the allegation was statutory rape, the state went to investigate and found pregnant underage girls. The authorities also stipulated that they found other evidence of such compelling nature that they were justified in removing all of the children.

No kidnapping. Just due process. And they don't have to have "particularized evidence" (whatever that means). They just have to see credible evidence of the allegations. Pregnant girls are certainly sufficient.

Oh, and I'll keep correcting you on your bullshit.

[davidthegnome]

218. For one thing...

There's a lot of assuming going on here - along with a fair number of absurd accusations. No one is defending "old men forcing themselves on young girls". The defense of civil rights is another matter entirely.

Laws are in place to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. What seems to be taking place here is something of a widespread assumption that all of the men of this compound are using manipulative and disgustingly "religious" means to force themselves upon young girls.

That may very well be the case - but until such is proven in a court of law and the suspected criminals convicted, it remains uncertain. The evidence is in question as the one who called in alleged abuse turned out to be a false victim/witness in the first place.

I tend not to be very fond of organized religion - and much less fond of those of a more conservative nature. That does not mean I advocate their rights being violated or their children taken away without proper cause. An individual, case by case basis may have very well turned up evidence - proof that would be sufficient to punish those who have broken the law.

Instead, we have what is quickly becoming a Witch-Hunt. The State of Texas has mucked up the entire investigation - and as a result, over 400 children have been placed into a failing foster care system (and again, it must be pointed out that there have been no convictions, nor any evidence of illegal activity in the vast majority of these cases). A foster care system in which, to the best of my knowledge, sexual predators are common. A foster care system which is failing in four out of five crucial areas. A foster care system in which the potential for abuse is more than significant.

These are children who have never eaten processed food, who may have seen a few home movies but have never so much as been to a movie theater or a normal teenage slumber party. They are so far removed from what most of us would consider average children that it's frightening. They're scared, and as any children in similar situations would - they want their parents.

So, while I may despise the religious views and principles of the people in question, I can temper that contempt with reason. I also have no choice but to despise the blatant disregard of both constitutional rights and the general assumption of guilt without legit proof.

On an individual basis - if these men are indeed guilty of forcing themselves upon underage girls, then I have no issue with them facing proper punishment - on an individual basis. In fact I'd recommend a much harsher form of punishment than what is the norm - they're lucky I don't make the rules.

This is not what is happening here. This is not the case. The State of Texas has stepped outside the law and disregarded the civil rights of these people who, religiously despicable or not - are American citizens.

[Breeze54]

233. Warren Jeffs and the FLDS and Rape of Minor Girls....

It speaks volumes as to the mind set of these cult followers.

----------

Warren Jeffs and the FLDS

http://www.zimbio.com/Warren+Jeffs+and+the+FLDS/about

Warren Jeffs is president of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which has polygamous communities in Arizona, Utah, Texas and Canada. The FLDS is not affiliated with the mainstream Mormon faith. Jeffs was hiding from police for over 2 years before he was arrested in late August 2006 at a traffic stop north of Las Vegas. He was on the FBI's Most Wanted List.

Polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs convicted of rape as accomplice for role in teen's marriage

http://www.courttv.com/trials/jeffs/092507_verdict_ctv.html

By Emanuella Grinberg
Court TV

ST. GEORGE, Utah — A jury found polygamous sect leader Warren Jeffs guilty Tuesday of forcing a 14-year-old to marry and have sex with her 19-year-old cousin against her will.

Jeffs, 51, was convicted of two counts of rape as an accomplice for his role in the arranged marriage of Elissa Wall and Allen Steed in 2001. He faces five years to life in prison on each count when he is sentenced Nov. 20. (VIDEO)

Jeffs, the leader and "prophet" of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), appeared calm and showed no reaction as the judge's clerk read the verdict. One of his followers in the back of the crowded St. George courtroom bowed his head and closed his eyes as the verdict was announced.

Jurors deliberated for just three hours before reaching a verdict after a panelist was dismissed and then replaced for undisclosed reasons. The original jury began deliberations Friday.

Washington County prosecutors alleged that Jeffs used his position of authority as spiritual head of the FLDS to "entice" Wall into going through with the marriage, despite her objections that she was too young.

Members of the FLDS believe that God speaks through the prophet, and reveals to him who should marry whom.

Members of the jury who spoke to the press after the verdict said they placed great credence in Wall's claim that she felt Jeffs "held the keys" to her salvation.

The verdict is a milestone for authorities in Utah and Arizona, who have already prosecuted several of his followers on lesser charges stemming from the marriages of underage girls. The lengthiest sentence netted in any of those cases was nine months.

In most of those cases, the alleged victims refused to testify against their husbands, making Wall's participation one of the most significant differences from previous prosecutions.

more....

[riderinthestorm]

251. TX has not stepped outside of the law with their actions

When an allegation of sexual or physical abuse is reported to the authorities, CPS and other law enforcement agencies must invetigate. That is the law.

If they find credible evidence that supports the initial allegation, the children are removed from the household. All of the children. Again, that is the way it works. TX authorities found sufficient and credible evidence supporting the allegations, thereby all of the children were removed. Remember, the parents are being investigated for serious felonies.

A more thorough investigation is then launched and the children remain in safe custody while the situation is evaluated. Standard protocol. If there are non-participatory family members to the abuse (such as a grandparent for example), the child is removed there for the duration of the investigation. When there isn't any other apparent family avenue the child is removed to state custody. That is what has happened here.

Every child has an attorney. Counseling is and has been offered, and religious requirements are being respected.

As the process unfolds, and the suspects are either charged or cleared, children will start moving - home or more permanently into foster care. For the immediate future however, while the suspects are investigated, the children are kept away from the alleged perpetrators, housed in neutral locations that aren't associated with the abuse or trauma to ensure their mental and physical health. This could very well look like a witch hunt - nobody knows anything at this point. Nobody on the outside at least, which is as it should be. These are personal, private, family matters and we are all speculating on a lot of things other than some of the FACTS which we do know, details about things like standard protocol, the reasons for the initial visit, evidence gathering at the compound etc. - tidbits which the authorities have released.

The family members aren't helping speed the process along however, in order to facilitate reunion with their children. For starters, they aren't being very forthcoming about their identities or even their family lineage which is necessitating actions like the DNA testing to ensure appropriate, legal representation and charges. For what it's worth, DNA testing, which is being blasted by some as being too intrusive on civil rights, is often mandated by courts in family disputes to resolve paternity and family relationships - this isn't some new abrogation of anyone's rights. It's a common technique.

Please tell me, from the above scenario, how the state of TX has broken any laws here? What constitutional rights? And how do you know for sure that these rights have been trampled? Are you involved in this case? And if you are, why are you posting here as it violates a lot of statutes? The initial allegation that instigated the investigation was statutory rape which is defined as "old men forcing themselves on young girls". Nobody is assuming anything there - the authorities have told us flat out what prompted their move against the FLDS compound.

Another thing: the men admit it. They have admitted it on teevee. They claim ignorance of the law.

[uppityperson]

253. Thank you for that long, reasoned post with good info in it.

I need to bookmark your post. Thank you.

[riderinthestorm]

273. Thanks. Feel free to copy it over and over

since apparently that's what it takes to finally get through to some of these people, alas. 300 repetitions of the same info.... Unfortunately some of them are remaining willfully ignorant. It's so exasperating. I'm in the middle of packing and moving and yesterday I was doing the office which meant I could monitor the conversation AND pack 3000 books. I'm almost done in here however after which I'll be pretty scarce for a few weeks since I can't lug this desktop around the house! Carry on!

You may want to fix the typo in the first para however. I just noticed that - I'd already had a glass of wine by the time I got back on last night and was typing pretty fast.

[davidthegnome]

274. You speak as if

all of these men have admitted to forcing themselves on young girls - claiming themselves ignorant of the law. This isn't the case where it regards the wider population. Statutory rape is not defined as "old men forcing themselves on young girls" it is a law in place to protect the children (of a certain age group) of our Nation from being coerced into sex with adults.

For example - I was sixteen when I lost my own virginity. My girlfriend was twenty-two. Going by what the statutory rape laws indicate, that would have been one such case. Yet I don't remember any outrage or outcry.. at all. Nor, in my opinion, should there have been. But I'm getting away from the issue at hand here...

Anyhow, getting to the point. This isn't a single household, it isn't a farm. It's an entire community of people, with numbers similar to the population of a town only a few miles away from where I live. There was credible evidence of criminal activity in a few of these individual cases. A few of them, not half, not a majority - as far as I'm aware not even a fourth.

The people living within this small town are, for the most part, Baptists. Now that's a religion I find despicable. By many of their religious views - having sex with 13, 14, 15, or 16 year girls might very well be just fine and dandy (actually, it's very common). It is not fine and dandy under the law.

So let's say Tom, Ben, and Jerry - all living in their own individual homes in separate parts of the town have been accused of the crime of statutory rape. Let's say investigators find credible evidence that children within their homes have been mistreated, coerced into sex with these men in their 40s or 50s.

Now, given that, by the standards of the popular (it comes close to being the ONLY) religion in the area this would not be considered such a terrible thing, given that many of the town's Citizens even knew what was taking place... should their children too, be taken away, due to the "potential for abuse?" If that was the case, not a single one of us would be able to keep our children, every adult has the potential to abuse.

Anyhow, would it be proper for these children to be taken from their homes - or even legal for them to be, under the mere assumption that the parents may possibly be guilty of statutory rape? Because, hey, Tom, Ben, and Jerry did it... and they're Baptists too. Or would such an event rightfully spark outrage and protests as this Nation was founded on certain principles, one of the most important of them being freedom of religion. The assumptions that have taken these children from their homes, again, without credible evidence of criminal activity in the majority of these cases - THAT is precisely how the constitution and their civil rights have been disregarded. The assumption of guilt when no significant evidence lends credibility to this assumption that they are all in fact, guilty.

I am NOT arguing in favor of their religious views, or in favor of those who have broken the law. I am arguing in favor of reason and caution - which must be exercised when the lives and well being of more than 400 children are at stake. Let the guilty be punished - but we must protect the innocent. This is regardless of what their religion preaches, which I personally find as rotten as most of you do.

If I lost my own children because Ben, Tom, and Jerry happened to be guilty of statutory rape, I believe that would constitute illegal activity on part of the so called "protective services", even if I was their neighbor in a small community and we all shared the same religious views.

Individual cases are just that - individual cases. This IS a metaphorical witch-hunt.

[Marrah_G]

282. Were you given to the woman by your parents with no say in the matter?

Did they stand and applaud as you were shuffled off into a bedroom with someone 3 or 4 times your age that you found out 2 hours ago you would forever be a servant to. Did you grow up with no knowledge of your rights, or of the outside world. Did you grow up knowing your only choice in life would be to have children and serve, without question, whatever man your church leader gave you too? Did you grow up without education or dreams of your own? Did you grow up knowing it was a man's right to beat you if he chose to?

Or did you perhaps choose this person of your own free will, without your parents knowledge or consent?

Or do these girls deserve to not have a chance to be anything but breeders simply because they were female and born to this family?

This is America. These are American girls.

In America, women are not chattel. Women are people who deserve a chance to be whatever kind of woman THEY want to be.

[riderinthestorm]

287. Noted that you haven't pointed out one law that's been broken

Also noted that you obviously haven't examined any of the details of the case and are instead parroting the same old bullshit. Get educated and come back when you know better. Here's some facts to start.

The children are not identifying themselves. The parents are not identifying themselves, nor will the parents identify who is their child/ren. They won't even identify basic family relationships. CPS had absolutely no way to determine who the "Sarah" was who made the initial complaint because virtually every girl and woman is named Sarah in that compound. How precisely would you have expected CPS to act in that scenario? Let me repeat: if CPS has credible evidence that abuse (statutory rape in this case) is happening - they can, they must remove all of the children from potential jeopardy. That is the law.

CPS did find credible evidence. That has been verified by several sources. You can make statements to your heart's content that that isn't so, but you're wrong. So who would you have left behind? Do you leave some Sarahs there? All of them? When you have allegations of waterboarding the babies, do you just leave some of the babies or take all of them? When you have allegations of welfare fraud, tax evasion and other felonies perpetrating by the adults, which one of the suspects do you leave the children with since none of them will accurately identify themselves as the potential criminal suspects?

There's no way to make an individual case at this point since the FLDS compound members are actively blocking all attempts to make this about individual cases. When DNA sorts out family relationships, I believe that will be a pretty good starting point in bringing charges or clearing people. Once the tax records and business accounts of the compound can be evaluated by proper authorities, charges will ensue etc. All of this takes time and while that process works it's way through the system, the children will remain in a neutral location. Remember the FLDS people are NOT helping speed the reunion with their children. In fact they are actively working to delay and derail.

And yes, if adults are abusing children - even entire communities (especially if entire communities are complicit) - then they all deserve punishment.

[LanternWaste]

284. The Three Magi are at it again...

The Three Magi are at it again-- defending rape and child abuse on yet another FLDS thread.

Sometimes, I wish they'd stop be so cowardly and simply present their positions based on their own belief systems rather than on being disingenuous, willfully forgetful and mere conjecture as to what the state may or may not be doing.

Hint, hint-- guys. Step up to the plate or whatever metaphor floats your boats. Why not simply state your position, how you arrived at those positions and stop using logical fallacies.

C'mon guys-- it's not that difficult. Just tell us why you're defending FLDS, what you're defending them from (and try to avoid the over the top CPS-Nazi analogies, that's one of the places where you begin to lose credibility...)

[Marrah_G]

288. Yup they are over on LBN spreading the cults lies

[davidthegnome]

289. Apparently

people are making assumptions about my beliefs, my principles, and even my state of mind. Assumptions that my statements don't even lend credibility to. Defending child abuse or rape? Please, indicate where I did such a thing, or what statements were defensive of such things. If you cannot do this, I would appreciate it if you would attempt to learn the value of common courtesy and rational thought.

There is no law that indicates that any child must name their parents when within an environment they consider hostile. Or would you perhaps, waive the right to remain silent for free citizens considering the circumstances? I was unaware of the name situation, it must be difficult to tell them apart. Potential jeopardy is not jeopardy, it is *potential jeopardy*. The same potential will exist regardless of where you are.

I assure you that the law does not dictate that every child must be removed from any situation that might possibly indicate potential jeopardy. Where would such a witch-hunt end?

If there exists credible evidence with credible sources backing it up that these children were all indeed in imminent danger, then I would appreciate it if you could present such. Which you haven't - no more than I was able to confirm a broken law. In these cases, I admit I am not entirely certain of what the individual laws dictate, I do, however, know what it's like to be a frightened child in an environment I consider hostile. I am also a parent - and therefor I sympathize with these people. And if it is not illegal to remove over four hundred from their parents without credible evidence (let alone proof) of wrong-doing, it damn well ought to be.

Allegations, allegations, allegations. So many allegations, so little proof. Not even a single conviction...

None of them will identify themselves as the potential criminal suspects? Gee, imagine that.

I have seen credible evidence of some cases of criminal activity. When I see credible evidence (that is more than just opinion or indignant outrage) that the entire community is complicit - actively involved or actively ignoring well known criminal activity... then perhaps I will be more inclined to agree with you.

As I have said before - while the guilty must be punished, the innocent must be protected. People who water-board babies ought to be locked up for life. Old men who force young, underaged girls into sleeping with them by "marrying" them in a spiritual manner as justification, ought to be castrated. In my opinion.

That does not mean I'm inclined to imprison and castrate first and ask questions later (and of course, the laws of the Nation and not my opinion decide upon proper punishment). Show me proof - or lacking that, substantial evidence. So far, you have offered neither.

When you state that such a large number of people are complicit in statutory rape, physical and sexual abuse, it's pretty shocking. If I believed such a thing was truly taking place, I would be furious, and do everything in my power to stop it. First, however, I would demand proof.

So, again, while I see credible evidence that some of these individuals have broken laws, I see no credible evidence or proof of these allegations that the entire community is involved in and encouraging illegal activity. Show me that evidence, or that proof, and I will be behind you 100%.

[Marrah_G]

290. They are investigating- That is how they gather the proof you ask for

The children HAD to be removed to investigate due to the very nature and history of this very dangerous cult.

Please take a look at the links and perhaps you will understand the actions of the state better.



Carolyn Jessop - Escaping from the FLDS and more videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJAvqc5u9KM

Polygamous Prophet WARREN JEFFS on the Negro Race #3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXo8qNxUlCU&feature=rela...

BANKING ON HEAVEN Polygamy Trailer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI6pBftroEc&feature=rela...

Inside Warren Jeffs' world

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0RV4fKtKp0&feature=rela...

The Underground Railroad Escaping Polygamy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnhvcGH6fFE&feature=rela...

Underground Polygamy Railroad Fawn & Fawn Run!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HonSp_Lmjrk&feature=rela...

DAMNED TO HEAVEN - Warren Jeffs -FLDS- POLYGAMY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1cTk2cJQac

Warren Jeffs Instructing Child Brides on Marriage!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGqJIqe6LEE&feature=rela...

Former FLDS Member - "Life In A Cult"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHAbjuLT-Ic&feature=rela...

Damned to Heaven

http://www.freshfilm.com/damnedtoheaven /

[davidthegnome]

291. Humbled

It is almost beyond my belief that so many people could participate in something like this. And perhaps.. perhaps I have been listening to the wrong people. My girlfriend signed their petition and we argued for some time over what was happening. I tried to tell her how wrong she was - then she told me that there were only three girls who were actually underage. She directed me to a FLDS website where I saw video footage of scared children being taken from their families, private property destroyed.

Of course... considering the girlfriend in question has told me she would love to live among them.... well. Some times I'm not sure what to think.

Now that I think on it more clearly, maybe I'm the one that needs to learn the value of rational thought. A scandal on the part of the government, manufactured evidence of crimes, a big cover up and a witch-hunt seemed more likely to me than what I've seen in these videos.

Jeffs... that man is sick. Even his voice gives me the shivers, there is nothing I hold in greater contempt than a self proclaimed prophet. The whole thing is sick. It's so much easier to believe the government is trying to round people up for their religious beliefs instead. Because they do not fit the norm - or because they are otherwise happy people who disagree with society - as I often do.

The reality of the situation is extremely disturbing.

I was wrong, and I let what I hoped was true rather than the reality of the situation sway me. I apologize for not having a better understanding of the issue before I ran my mouth about it. I won't thank you for posting those links, I'd rather I'd not watched all the videos - well, ignorance can be bliss. But it's enough. I asked for credible evidence - and as far as I'm concerned I have seen it.

I was wrong. Further, I suggest to everyone in doubt regarding the issue at hand - watch the videos. It may be youtube, but the heartfelt pain and devestation I witnessed there cannot be manufactured, no Actress is nearly that talented.

So I've acted like an ass. And I apologize. I was wrong.