For decades, Planned Parenthood has been proselytizing that sex education is the answer to unwanted pregnancies and population control. The crusaders first breached the high schools, then poured into the elementary schools. Today, toddlers are taught the mechanics of sex before they develop a sexual consciousness.
School counselors dispense condoms. School children learn condom use by practicing on bananas, cucumbers, and sex toys.
Parents are advised to make condoms available to their teen-agers. A mother in Baraboo, Wisc., took Planned Parenthood’s advice to heart and purchased condoms for her 13-year-old son when she discovered he was having sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl. The police found out, and the mother faces indictment on charges of sexually abusing a child by permitting her son to have sexual relations before he is of age.
Hapless parents are caught in a classic “Catch-22” situation. Tax dollars in public schools prepare children for sex at early ages, but parents who acquiesce to the liberal orthodoxy face indictment for child sex abuse.
The county prosecutor in Wisconsin, Patricia Barrett, is clearly stretching the child abuse statute beyond its intent. The statute criminalizes sex between a person 17 or older and one younger than 17.
The prosecutor, however, borrowing from asset forfeiture laws that allow the property of innocents to be confiscated if the property “facilitates” the commission of a crime, argues that by providing condoms, the mother facilitated her son’s sexual intercourse with the girl and, thereby, is a partner to child sex abuse.
But why stop with the mother? The sex-ed teachers also facilitated the underage sex. So did the legislators who funded the sex-ed courses. So did Planned Parenthood, who successfully lobbied the courses into the school curriculum. Just as tobacco companies are held responsible for the health effects of smoking and gun manufacturers are sued because people misuse their products, condom manufacturers are guilty of facilitating the boy’s pleasures.
Why should a 33-year old mom face indictment and a 15-year prison sentence for complying with public educational policy? Suppose the mother had objected to her son’s activities. What could she have done?
The intrusion into the parent-child relationship by public authority is so extensive that by the time a child reaches rebellious teen years, parents have very little control to counter the influence of TV sex, Internet sex, movie sex and music sex. Moreover, children have learned that they can remove parents who thwart their desires by making allegations against them to a new public Gestapo known as Child Protective Services.
Several years ago, I investigated and reported the tragic case of a father in Arlington, Va/, who attempted to stop a lesbian relationship between his 13-year-old daughter and a woman in her 30s. To protect their sexual relationship, the two females falsely accused the father of sexually abusing the daughter.
You might think that police investigation would bring out the truth. But there was no investigation. The police and the feminist prosecutor jumped on the case with alacrity. Child abuse is an easy conviction — witness the many horror stories of railroaded innocent parents and child-care providers — and cases are needed to justify the budgets that “child advocates” have lobbied governments to provide.
The innocent father was railroaded, and his underage daughter was recruited to lesbianism. The girl’s grandmother later sent me a TV news video showing her underage granddaughter participating in a lesbian demonstration.
The mother who provided condoms is a victim of many forces beyond her control. The culture of sexual promiscuity has now permeated elementary school, where kids are taught sexual intercourse but expelled for engaging in activities normal to their age, such as playing cops and robbers at recess.
The mother is also a victim of the breakdown in the ethics of prosecutors, who stretch every law beyond its meaning to boost their conviction rates.
She is a victim of the “it takes a village” intrusion into the family that has undermined parental authority.
She is a victim of the liberal intellectual assault on the family. Intellectuals see the family as a reactionary cultural institution that perpetuates false gender roles, and they seek its destruction.
If the mom has steely nerves, she will stand up to the abusive prosecutor and hope for a sympathetic jury. If she is scared, she will enter into a plea bargain and give the prosecutor an easy conviction in exchange for a lighter punishment. Meanwhile, the real causes of the problem will continue unabated.
