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."
True, that's the purpose of the reporting law. However, the sex-offense laws make it a crime for a person (the perp) to have sex with someone under 16 (the victim). What's weird about the circuit court's opinion is that it treats the underage pregnant girl as if she's the perp (and thus subject to loss of privacy rights) rather than the victim.
I don't know if you've read the opinion, but here it is. The screwy part starts on page 33. After concluding that minors do have a right of informational privacy (meaning a right to avoid disclosure of personal matters), the court follows up with this:
[T]here is Tenth Circuit precedent that indicates that minors may not have any privacy rights in their concededly criminal sexual conduct. Our cases have held that a validly enacted law places citizens on notice that violations thereof do not fall within the realm of privacy. Criminal activity is not protected by the right to privacy.... Kansas laws criminalize all sexual conduct with minors.... [Therefore], minor patients and clients have no right to privacy in their illegal sexual activity.So, are the girls victims in need of state protection and services, or are they criminals subject to loss of privacy rights? The state can't have it both ways, which is why I think the state's going to lose this.
All that aside, do you agree with the state that any time a person under 16 has sex, that person is the victim of sexual abuse (meaning a 15-year-old having sex with another 15-year-old is both a victim of sexual abuse *and* a sexual abuser subject to prosecution)?