Posted on 04/28/2008 7:08:07 PM PDT by ricks_place
SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) -- More than half the teenage girls taken from a polygamist compound in west Texas have children or are pregnant, state officials said Monday.
A total of 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are in state custody after a raid 3 1/2 weeks ago at the Yearning For Zion Ranch in Eldorado. Of those girls, 31 either have children or are pregnant, said Child Protective Services spokesman Darrell Azar. He didn't specify how many are pregnant.
"It shows you a pretty distinct pattern, that it was pretty pervasive," he said.
State officials took custody of all 463 children at the ranch controlled by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, saying a pattern of teen girls forced into underage "spiritual" marriages and sex with much older men created an unsafe environment for the sect's children.
Under Texas law, children under the age of 17 generally cannot consent to sex with an adult. A girl can get married with parental permission at 16, but none of these girls is believed to have a legal marriage under state law.
State officials said earlier that they had found girls who were pregnant or had children of their own at the ranch, but they had not provided more than rough estimates until Monday.
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
Starting off in this thread with your usual penchant for accuracy.
From a legal stance, that’s actually true. If a teen girl is impregnated by an older adult, that’s statutory rape. If a teen girl is impregnated by a teen boy, or a very young ‘adult’, in most cases that falls under various ‘Romeo and Juliet’ clauses and there’s nothing illegal about it.
And your point is?
Three cheers!
While I agree with your general premise, that just calling
something a religion doesn’t give a pass on illegal activity, one of your examples is incorrect.
We do tolerate peyote use by registered members of American Indian religions. However, the case that caused the laws making this use of peyote legal was one in which the Supreme Court ruled that anti-peyote laws that did not have this exclusion were still good laws.
That is we have a right to say “too bad, your religion wants to do X but we have a law against X and you can’t do it.”
A majority of the Congress felt Indians deserved to be able to take Peyote. I don’t think this special law has been challenged on Constitutional grounds, as it sure seems like both a violation of the equal protection clause and the establishment clause.
Probably nobody is mean-spirited enough to go after this law that way.
If Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy were in the compound, believe it!
These posts have interested me in researching some actual teenage pregnancy rates, both recent and historical.
I could probably write a thesis on this topic, but I prefer to just look at some data and let others make their opinions. I’m not expressing any opinions yet.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053654.htm
Table 1 shows US pregnancy rates per 1000 by State by age groups. For 1992 for example, for groups <15 and 15-17 combined, the rates ranged from about 40 - 100 per 1000. Since we don’t know who got the girls pregnant, all you can conclude is that pregnancy for girls <15 to 17 ranges from about 4% to 10%.
From a couple of US States, one North and one South:
Actual data on birth rates by age in Michigan for 1920 -2000:
http://www.mdch.state.mi.us/pha/osr/natality/Tab4.4.asp
This study shows low pregnancy rates in the age group from 15-19 is common only in recent times for Michigan and was more common just a decade ago.
Alabama pregnancy rates by age:
http://ph.state.al.us/Chs/HealthStatistics/Tables/2002/AVS02_27.htm
Total pregnancies for 2002 for ages 10-14 is 157,627, but for 15-19 combined, it is about 161,000. So, all I can see is that pregnancy rates seem to equal among these age groups. I was just interested in seeing the total number in this study. Seems large.
Is it me or are we the US not doing too well as a whole? Actually, a better question is what is the goal of these studies? What age do Freepers consider valid as an age to get pregnant? Legally, this differs by state just as the marriage age.
How much age difference is considered morally acceptable, between an 18 year old girl and an older man for instance?
I can only bet that these numbers are much higher for other countries, especially Asian and African countries and India.
Freepers seem to have all the correct answers, so I’d like to know. What do I tell my current children before they come of age?
In re: the peyote, I was taught in my American Gov’t class back in college that the Supremes ruled against the Indians, and that the Indians are not allowed to have peyote ceremonies, not even on their reservations.
I don’t really agree with that ruling.
Perhaps my professor was wrong.
My point, of course, was the you can’t do any old thing and then call yourself a church. On that point it seems most of us agree.
The rate of teen pregnancy in the entire country isn’t relevant to the FLDS cult discussion, by my reasoning.
In assessing the cult situation you have to go by what is known about this religion and its groups, and the overwhelming evidence is that they believe men should have several wives and in order to evade the polygamy laws they don’t actually marry all of them but do bring them under their physical control and have sexual relations with them and produce numerous children by them, and that the age at which young girls are looked at in this way is when they start having regular menstrual periods, which is very young.
And they are added to the “wives” of much older men, not given to young men.
Also, that there is no freedom of choice in this life style. It is mandated for cult members and those who are trapped in it are truly without options and without hope to avoid it.
When speaking to your own children, it matters what values and morals and practical rules for living that you yourself hold and are trying to teach them.
Practically speaking, a very young girl who becomes pregnant and opts to have and keep her child has a very hard life and is decidedly limited in what she can expect to achieve in life. In terms of education, career, income, social status, etc. Her children have it hard, as well, not surprisingly.
I myself do not believe in the sexually promiscuous lifestyle. I find it wrong and harmful on many counts. I believe that God ordained marriage and family life. I see pregnancy within that context. I don’t see either pregnancy or marriage as being properly engaged in by young girls, either willingly or unwillingly.
Age differences usually do matter. A 28 yr old man and an 18 yr old young lady are pretty far apart when you consider that when the man was 18, the girl was only 8. There’s quite a gap in their growing up experiences. However, by the time the man is 38 and the woman 28, these descrepancies seem to lessen, for obvious reasons.
A few times in life age differences have been overcome and the outcome has been successful. But that’s not the general rule, I would say.
And after the DNA testing is done, a whole lot of old perverts will be going to prison.
You appear to be more concerned about allegations of welfare fraud than those of statutory rape. The reason the kids were taken was because of the allegations of statutory rape.
Here is the law from the Federal Register: (your Professor was wrong, or perhaps it changed after your class (1996))
§ 1996a. Traditional Indian religious use of peyote
{a) Congressional findings and declarations
The Congress finds and declares that—
(1) for many Indian people, the traditional ceremonial use of the peyote cactus as a religious sacrament has for centuries been integral to a way of life, and significant in perpetuating Indian tribes and cultures;
(2) since 1965, this ceremonial use of peyote by Indians has been protected by Federal regulation;
(3) while at least 28 States have enacted laws which are similar to, or are in conformance with, the Federal regulation which protects the ceremonial use of peyote by Indian religious practitioners, 22 States have not done so, and this lack of uniformity has created hardship for Indian people who participate in such religious ceremonies;
(4) the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), held that the First Amendment does not protect Indian practitioners who use peyote in Indian religious ceremonies, and also raised uncertainty whether this religious practice would be protected under the compelling State interest standard; and
(5) the lack of adequate and clear legal protection for the religious use of peyote by Indians may serve to stigmatize and marginalize Indian tribes and cultures, and increase the risk that they will be exposed to discriminatory treatment.
(b) Use, possession, or transportation of peyote
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the use, possession, or transportation of peyote by an Indian for bona fide traditional ceremonial purposes in connection with the practice of a traditional Indian religion is lawful, and shall not be prohibited by the United States or any State. No Indian shall be penalized or discriminated against on the basis of such use, possession or transportation, including, but not limited to, denial of otherwise applicable benefits under public assistance programs.
(2) This section does not prohibit such reasonable regulation and registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration of those persons who cultivate, harvest, or distribute peyote as may be consistent with the purposes of this section and section 1996 of this title.
(3) This section does not prohibit application of the provisions of section 481.111(a) of Vernon’s Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated, in effect on October 6, 1994, insofar as those provisions pertain to the cultivation, harvest, and distribution of peyote.
(4) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any Federal department or agency, in carrying out its statutory responsibilities and functions, from promulgating regulations establishing reasonable limitations on the use or ingestion of peyote prior to or during the performance of duties by sworn law enforcement officers or personnel directly involved in public transportation or any other safety-sensitive positions where the performance of such duties may be adversely affected by such use or ingestion. Such regulations shall be adopted only after consultation with representatives of traditional Indian religions for which the sacramental use of peyote is integral to their practice. Any regulation promulgated pursuant to this section shall be subject to the balancing test set forth in section 3 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103–141; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1).
(5) This section shall not be construed as requiring prison authorities to permit, nor shall it be construed to prohibit prison authorities from permitting, access to peyote by Indians while incarcerated within Federal or State prison facilities.
(6) Subject to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103–141; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1) [42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.], this section shall not be construed to prohibit States from enacting or enforcing reasonable traffic safety laws or regulations.
(7) Subject to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103–141; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb–1), this section does not prohibit the Secretary of Defense from promulgating regulations establishing reasonable limitations on the use, possession, transportation, or distribution of peyote to promote military readiness, safety, or compliance with international law or laws of other countries. Such regulations shall be adopted only after consultation with representatives of traditional Indian religions for which the sacramental use of peyote is integral to their practice.
(c) Definitions
For purposes of this section—
(1) the term “Indian” means a member of an Indian tribe;
(2) the term “Indian tribe” means any tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)), which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians;
(3) the term “Indian religion” means any religion—
(A) which is practiced by Indians, and
(B) the origin and interpretation of which is from within a traditional Indian culture or community; and
(4) the term “State” means any State of the United States, and any political subdivision thereof.
(d) Protection of rights of Indians and Indian tribes
Nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating, diminishing, or otherwise affecting—
(1) the inherent rights of any Indian tribe;
(2) the rights, express or implicit, of any Indian tribe which exist under treaties, Executive orders, and laws of the United States;
(3) the inherent right of Indians to practice their religions; and
(4) the right of Indians to practice their religions under any Federal or State law.
This one does not seem to pass the sniff test... I know it has relieved some of the pressure on the state but it doesn’t smell right.
First CPS identified 5 girls that they thought were under 18 and pregnant or with a baby already... One of those somehow proved she was 18 another turned 18 in the process — so they were down to 4 suspected. Then the day or two before or the day that they were going to snatch the babies from the Mothers. 25 or so young women (with babies) came forward and said they were 17. I believe all of the “minors” got to stay with their babies while all other “adult” Mothers had their babies and toddlers snatched by the CPS. The CPS certainly would have made that very clear to all the Mothers — if you are a minor you keep the baby — if your an adult you lose the baby.
Now if I was a Mother who was about to have my baby snatched I would very quickly become 17.
I wish the CPS would publish the age of all the Mothers. I wonder if all of a sudden there are no Mothers between the age of 18 and 23. I may be wrong — only time will tell. If I am right the State may end up with a lot of egg on the face.
Is there any depths you will not sink to in defense of this ongoing conspiracy to commit welfare fraud and aggravated sexual assault on minors masquerading as a Church?
Obviously outright lies and moral equivalence is not “off the table”.
I haven’t read anyone defending sexual assault on minors, but I could have missed a post or two. As for allegations of welfare fraud, I haven’t read anything about it regarding the recent raid. In any case, I’m sure you agree it pales in comparison to sexual assault on minors. The perps need to be caught and punished.
Their “profit/prophet” is in prison for being an accomplice to the rape of a minor.
That they do this is sick. That they think to do it on the taxpayers dollar makes me sicker because my taxes are paying for it.
Agreed. Hopefully the perps will spend lots of time in prison for it.
That they think to do it on the taxpayers dollar makes me sicker because my taxes are paying for it.
Ah, the joys of the gov't dole. I always blame the taxpayers for such nonsense.
It is the fault of government policy that subsidizes unwed motherhood. When the government subsidizes something is anyone surprised when the amount increases?
Welfare destroyed the Black family that once had illegitimacy rates below that of whites. After welfare a daddy wasn't needed, they had good ol’ ‘Uncle Sam’.
Doh! I meant the voter, which as you point out, is not neccessarily the same as a taxpayer. We get the gov’t we vote for. Gov’t “welfare” is a curse we place on ourselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.