NOTE: This is NOT a bash Hillary diary, she just happened to write a book with a very catchy title.
Everyone is aware that the State of Texas took custody of 416 minors from an FLDS compound. The way I see it, the intentions of the state are good, but the implications are frightening and the procedures have been ugly. The reason for the raid was a supposed call from an unidentified 16-year-old girl, who claimed she was raped and beaten by her 50-year-old husband. After the jump, I have provided some issues I hope are dealt with logically and humanely:
1. The Boys. If the main issue is the impregnation of underage females, why is the State of Texas still holding the boys? As far as I have seen, none of the boys are underage and pregnant. Additionally, there is no allegation that the underage boys are having sexual relations with the underage girls -- or the older women. Parenting is a fundamental right in America, and to abridge that right, the state must show a compelling reason. I see no compelling reason for holding the boys captive.
2. Prepubescent Children. There is no allegation that children under the age of 12 or 13 are having sex. Yet, the State of Texas has ordered that mothers cannot stay with their children who are older than 5. Unless there is proof that this is a "child sex ring" and not just some kooky religious thing about teenage girls, then the procedures have not been narrowly tailored to deal with girls between the ages of 6 and 12.
3. Where to Stop? According to Wayne State University, 64,606 babies were born to Detroit teens aged 15-19 in 1990. In major urban areas, there are also the dangers of AIDS/HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Likewise, there is the much greater danger of complications with teenage pregnancies. I would imagine the problem of STD's is less an issue in San Angelo, Texas on the FLDS compound, and I have not heard of one death due to a pregnancy in the FLDS compound. Should the government then have the right to round up all the teenage girls in Detroit? Or, Chicago? Or, your town?
4. A Least Restrictive Measure Is Available. I have seen juvenile courts use a restraining or protective order in situations like that at the FLDS compound (but not involving so many parents at once). The mechanism works like this: (1) The mother is told that she can have custody of her child, provided, that, (2) she signs an agreement not to allow the child to have any contact -- whatsoever -- with the alleged dangerous person or persons, and (3) if the mother allows the child to have such contact, then the child is taken back into protective custody.
5. Issues of Proof. One of my major concerns is that the State of Texas is seeking to separate parents from children in order to have a better chance of proving its case or as a way of leveraging the testimony they want to hear. You see the same phenomenon, to a lesser extent, in your run-of-the-mill child custody case. Say, Mom or Dad doesn't want the other parent to have custody, so he or she keeps the children away from his or her spouse and "works on them" in preparation for the court hearing. This is not a valid reason to keep children in protective custody -- especially in the Texas situation, when you're talking about boys or prepubescent girls.
I believe that girls below the age of 18 should not be having sex.* I certainly believe that they shouldn't be having religiously-sponsored sex. It just seems that the State of Texas has over- and mis-played this situation. How do you see it?
__________________________
* That is not necessarily the same attitude I had when I was 15-18 years old. I do understand that girls and boys will have sexual relations, but it should never be FORCED on them. Church-authorized rape has to stop, but how can it BEST be accomplished?