However, the person under 16 isn't the person committing the crime. The law makes it a crime to have sex with an underage person, but the law doesn't punish the minor. The law punishes the adult. That's the big blunder in the 10th Circuit's opinion. The court concluded that minors have a right to informational privacy, but--since criminal activity is not protected by the right to privacy--minors don't have a right to privacy in their illegal sexual activity. This reasoning makes no sense unless you assume that the pregnant minor is the perpetrator rather than the victim of the supposed crime, which isn't at all how the law is either written or intended to be understood.
Anyway, according to the court, the district court didn't properly address other important preliminary injunction factors such as irreparable harm and balance of injuries. So it sounds to me like the injunction was rightly thrown out, but that's no indication of how the case will ultimately turn out. I expect the state will lose.
I don't think so Sandy, the purpose of the law is twofold. One to punish the adult for sure. But secondly to identify and " to extend services to the victim and implement necessary legal steps to protect the victim from further harm, including the possibility of legal prosecution against the perpetrator."