The Government's Double-Standard about the FLDS

Far be it from me to defend the cultism, false doctrine of the FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints--a Mormon sect) and alleged child abuse; however, it appears now that the allegations that the government used for its heavy-handed takeover of the YFZ (Yearning for Zion) compound in Texas were completely false.

The reason for the takeover was that young girls (teenagers) are allegedly being used as sex slaves by forced marriages. Now the government is going to force DNA studies to try to establish familial relationships--presumably to prosecute MEN for raping, molesting and/or procreating with teenagers. If the allegations are true then--rightfully so! Yet, (1) can't a fifteen year old legally marry in many states? (2) Government does not regularly and consistently prosecute the statutory rape of young women who seek abortions. (3) The government did not takeover Catholic churches and dioceses when children were being raped/molested. (Why not just let the FLDS make monetary restitution to the victim--like it did the RC Church?) (4) Will the government also intervene in Muslim pre-arranged marriages/under-aged marriages?

In a time when government is moving toward a complete redefinition of the traditional family (one man/one woman) to include who knows what, will it now criminalize the actions of a few and their definition of marriage? Again, I am not defending the FDLS. I condemn ALL child abuse! However, isn't the government using a double-standard in dealing with the FLDS?

"A 33-year-old Colorado Springs woman has been questioned about a telephone call that sparked a raid at the polygamist Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints compound in western Texas two weeks ago.

Rozita Swinton was arrested at her home Wednesday night by Colorado Springs police for an incident that occurred in February. Members of the Texas Rangers were also in Colorado Springs as part of their investigation.

"The Texas Rangers were in Colorado Springs (Wednesday) as part of their investigation involving the compound in Texas. They left and have not filed any charges on Rozita Swinton as of this time," said Colorado Springs police spokesman Lt. Skip Arms.

Colorado Springs police said the arrest warrant has been sealed and refused to release any other details, reported Deseret News."

(1) can't a fifteen year old legally marry in many states?

Not to someone that already has a wife. Also, some of these girls were married off far before the age of 15.

(2) Government does not regularly and consistently prosecute the statutory rape of young women who seek abortions.

Because you assume the man is an adult. Teens have sex together all the time. No "statutory" or "rape" need be involved.

(3) The government did not takeover Catholic churches and dioceses when children were being raped/molested. (Why not just let the FLDS make monetary restitution to the victim--like it did the RC Church?)

The fed prosecuted those priests caught breaking the law, just as they are doing with the FLDS.

(4) Will the government also intervene in Muslim pre-arranged marriages/under-aged marriages?

You bet they will.

Your accusations of a double-standard are specious, at best.

Holy crap.

The religion-hating ACLU defending the FLDS?

The ACLU defending the rights of the people? Unheard of.

TerryRC wrote:(1) can't a fifteen year old legally marry in many states?

Not to someone that already has a wife. Also, some of these girls were married off far before the age of 15.

Marriage Laws of the Fifty States, District of Columbia and Puerto Rico

Texas - Age w/parental consent 16 k, v ….. wo/parental consent 18

Nevada - Age w/parental consent 16 c ….. wo/parental consent 18

(c) Younger parties may marry with parental consent.

(k) Parental consent and/or permission of judge required.

(v) Below age of consent parties need parental consent and permission of judge, no younger than 14 for males and 13 for females.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/table_marriage

(2) Government does not regularly and consistently prosecute the statutory rape of young women who seek abortions.

Because you assume the man is an adult. Teens have sex together all the time. No "statutory" or "rape" need be involved.

The government doesn't care what TH assumes.

(3) The government did not takeover Catholic churches and dioceses when children were being raped/molested. (Why not just let the FLDS make monetary restitution to the victim--like it did the RC Church?)

The fed prosecuted those priests caught breaking the law, just as they are doing with the FLDS.

But the Feds or the States DID NOT execute "search warrant raids" on said Churches.

(4) Will the government also intervene in Muslim pre-arranged marriages/under-aged marriages?

You bet they will.

And who will report that dastardly deed if done, ...... the Imam who married them?

Your accusations of a double-standard are specious, at best.

And your critiques of said accusations are spuriously defaming.

.

Ah, Sam.

(v) Below age of consent parties need parental consent and permission of judge, no younger than 14 for males and 13 for females.

Polygamy is still illegal.

The government doesn't care what TH assumes.

I was addressing TH's argument, not the government's argument.

But the Feds or the States DID NOT execute "search warrant raids" on said Churches.

But they did in the suspect's private residences, just as was done with the FLDS.

And who will report that dastardly deed if done, ...... the Imam who married them?

The argument is about the government prosecuting the offenders, not who reports them.

Sorry, Sam. Your critique of my argument is ill conceived and ineffective.

Also, Sam, no states, for ANY reason will allow people to marry under the age of 14, even with a court order and parental permission:

http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

And as usual Terry, your rebuttal to justify your scorned "girly-man" rhetoric is little more than CYA piffle and BS.

TerryRC wrote:Also, Sam, no states, for ANY reason will allow people to marry under the age of 14, even with a court order and parental permission:

http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

And TRC, just which one of your anal orifices did you “pull” that brilliant comment from?

.

RC,

Have you read the news accounts of the court testimony? I have read several articles where the so-called "experts" are quoted, from testimony they have given under oath, saying the boys and young children are in no danger from their parents. By their own admission, only adolescent girls are at any risk of abuse. They want custody of the rest of the children because the state disagrees with their religion.

That's dangerous. Today they're going after the children of the FLDS. Who will it be tomorrow? They are discriminating against these people based upon their religion. PERIOD! It isn't illegal to teach your children that a man should have multiple wives.

They're claiming these girls are being victimized. If they're correct, and some of those girls are being married off and having children as young as 13 (I'd like to see the proof myself) and that now 20 y/o woman has a few children, the state of Texas has just taken her children from her. They don't care that she's a good mother, that those children are well cared for.

Also, if these men only obtain marriage licenses for their first wife, are they polygamists at all? Bill Clinton can have oral sex in the White House with an intern, that's not illegal. How many of our married elected officials are paying child support for children they fathered with a mistress or as the result of a one night stand? That's not illegal.

I don't condone their lifestyle. Well, they don't condone mine. At least these children are being fed and clothed and their parents are providing for them. I wonder how many teenage girls have children the taxpayers are supporting in Texas. How many are living in public housing, receiving free breakfast & lunch, food stamps, healthcare, Headstart, you name it.

At least when a 16 y/o from the YFZ compound the father actually provides for the mother and child. Yeah, Texas sucks.

Also, if these men only obtain marriage licenses for their first wife, are they polygamists at all? Bill Clinton can have oral sex in the White House with an intern, that's not illegal. How many of our married elected officials are paying child support for children they fathered with a mistress or as the result of a one night stand? That's not illegal.

Stephanie, in Texas, wavers for AOC under sixteen are only with a court order and/or parental consent and ONLY for marriage. That makes the second and third wives STATUTORY RAPE.

Also, they send the adolescent boys out of the compound (the elders want no competition from the young bucks). That becomes child abandonment.

Texas requires household earnings to be stated for welfare assistance. These women were lying and saying they were single moms and not part of another household. Welfare fraud.

DNA tests started yesterday. There will be charges of rape and incest filed, as sure as flies breed in dung, and rightfully so.

If you think it is OK for 50 year old men to knock up barely pubescent girls and keep them isolated from the world, fine. Texas law sees it differently.

The state had a search warrant and found enough evidence in the compound to deem those kids at risk. The mothers were offered a chance to go with their kids and ALL of them refused (either out of fear of the church elders or a sense of martyrdom).

PERIOD! It isn't illegal to teach your children that a man should have multiple wives.

No, Steph, it is not. It is illegal, however, to help them act upon it.

And TRC, just which one of your anal orifices did you “pull” that brilliant comment from?

Right off the internet, Sammy. I also did a state by state check. Your statement that 13 year old girls can marry in any or even one state in the US is outdated or just plain incorrect.

I notice, among the name-calling, that you couldn't refute my my critique of TH's arguments.

Not that it would matter - even if you agreed, you would be contrary because you just don't like me. That is OK, though. I know it comes from the fact that I know you to be full of B.S.

Terry,

I want to see the proof of all these allegations. It is not in the best interest of all of those children to take them from the only home they know and stick them in foster care. The foster care system is full of troubles all its own.

BTW........I don't have the time right now, but I did post a link for Ziggy a couple of days ago. Those mothers DID go with their children. They wanted to STAY with their children. The state of Texas will not let them. They say the kids won't talk with their mothers around.

ALSO.....it would seem that the 16 y/o who placed the call from the compound is in her 40's and doesn't even live in Texas, much less on that ranch. So, once again, I want to see proof.

I have a 17 y/o daughter myself. You all know that. I talk about her enough. I'm very proud of my daughter and I believe she has a bright future ahead of her. I would rather cut off my right arm than have her marry ANYONE now. I don't condone their lifestyle. I do defend their right to live as they see fit. Part of that includes raising their children however they wish.

ALSO.....it would seem that the 16 y/o who placed the call from the compound is in her 40's and doesn't even live in Texas, much less on that ranch. So, once again, I want to see proof.

So do I, Steph. The state was compelled to act if they deem children at risk. We will see after the DNA testing.

Just because the call was a hoax doesn't make the state at fault. They had to act on the allegations and the children were removed by evidence found after the search, not the "tip".

I think they are a cult, which is their business. I think they abandon their boy children and imprison their girl children, not nice but, again, their business.

When it gets turned into sexual slavery for barely pubescent girls, someone has to draw the line.

The DNA tests will show what has happened.

Part of that includes raising their children however they wish.

Including commanding their daughters to someone's bed as soon as they reach menarche? Really?

TerryRC wrote:I notice, among the name-calling, that you couldn't refute my my critique of TH's arguments.

HA, that is SOLELY your opinion ....... and it is worth no more than your arguments

TerryRC wrote:Not that it would matter - even if you agreed, you would be contrary because you just don't like me. That is OK, though. I know it comes from the fact that I know you to be full of B.S.

You are right ..... and that is because you are intellectually dishonest.

TerryRC wrote:
And TRC, just which one of your anal orifices did you “pull” that brilliant comment from?

Right off the internet, Sammy. I also did a state by state check. Your statement that 13 year old girls can marry in any or even one state in the US is outdated or just plain incorrect.

Which Internet, TRC?

Post the context of "your proof" and cite the URL reference for said.

Lets see a little display of your "intellectual honesty" for a change.

.

TerryRC wrote:ALSO.....it would seem that the 16 y/o who placed the call from the compound is in her 40's and doesn't even live in Texas, much less on that ranch. So, once again, I want to see proof.

So do I, Steph. The state was compelled to act if they deem children at risk. We will see after the DNA testing.

Just because the call was a hoax doesn't make the state at fault. They had to act on the allegations and the children were removed by evidence found after the search, not the "tip".

I think they are a cult, which is their business. I think they abandon their boy children and imprison their girl children, not nice but, again, their business.

When it gets turned into sexual slavery for barely pubescent girls, someone has to draw the line.

The DNA tests will show what has happened.

Part of that includes raising their children however they wish.

Including commanding their daughters to someone's bed as soon as they reach menarche? Really?

I want to see the evidence of that, Terry. You're stating it like it is a known fact, but we don't know that at all. I don't think girls marrying at 16 or 17 fit that statement either.

Even if they do force girls as young as 14 & 15 to marry, that is no justification for taking any of the male children, not a single one. Nor is it a valid reason to take any girl under the age of 12. It simply isn't.

There are a few things that I think a lot of people are overlooking in discussing what has transpired here. Lots of folks like to talk and behave as though life in mainstream society is peaches & cream for teenage girls. Even under the best circumstances, life is full of dangers and risks. How many girls in that age group in mainstream America become pregnant each year? How many 13-17 y/o girls in this country are sexually active, or use drugs? How many of them suffer eating disorders, or are physically abused by their fathers, stepfathers, boyfriends or even brothers?

What really burns me up is they have no plan for these children. They have no idea what to do with them or how they will cope with the sudden influx of 416 special needs children. Make no mistake about it, these children have some very special needs. How are they going to cope being thrust into an environment where they are forced to view girls emulating the likes of Spears and Hilton? How are the boys going to cope with that?

The foster care system is a huge failure. It's one of those things that sounds good on paper but doesn't work in practice. I have friends raised in foster care. I went to high school with a family of children who lived with a foster family. The older boy was my friend. He and his siblings were abused and neglected by their foster parents who used them as slaves and spent the money they received from the state on their biological children. The day those kids turned 18 they were kicked out. Eddy was taken in by his girlfriend's parents when he turned 18 in February of our senior year. He joined the Navy so he'd have a place to live after graduation.

I also have some friends I made as an adult years later who grew up in orphanages and had good childhoods and received proper care and affection. My old friend Bob lived in that orphanage until he went away to college and returned there for summer, spring & Christmas breaks!

I would like to think the state has to meet some burden of proof before they just come knocking on the door to take our children away because of some mysterious, anonymous complaint. I also firmly believe that the religious affiliation of the parents is not a legitimate cause for removal.

Which Internet, TRC? affraid affraid

Post the context of "your proof" and cite the URL reference for said.

Lets see a little display of your "intellectual honesty" for a change.

The url is right in Monday's post where I told you you were wrong about 13 year-olds marrying. If you weren't so rabid, you might have seen it.

Do you accuse everyone that points out your errors of "intellectual dishonesty".

You sound like a kid that sucks at sports "They only won because they cheated!"

Grow the hell up, Sam.

I would like to think the state has to meet some burden of proof before they just come knocking on the door to take our children away because of some mysterious, anonymous complaint. I also firmly believe that the religious affiliation of the parents is not a legitimate cause for removal.

The state met their burden of proof and their hands ARE TIED until the courts act.

If there is evidence of child abuse in a household, the state is under obligation to remove ALL children from it, not just the girls, or the boys or the toddlers, or the teens - all of them.

The state had a complaint, the state had to act, the state found evidence. The state is powerless now until the courts act.

It really is that simple.

Saudi women 'kept in childhood'

Seems strikingly familiar...

I only bring this up because many criticize this behavior in muslim groups but defend it for christian groups.

Well, the head of the FLDS is in jail and will remain there. He has been found guilty of aiding and abetting the rape of children on a previous occasion.

I wonder how many of his followers have done the same, or worse...

We will find out before too long, I imagine.

What evidence are you referring to, Terry? Go back and reread those articles. The court is now compelling DNA testing because they can't even determine who the children belong to. They have no evidence that I can discern. What they have is a complaint from another state and the statements of some former members.

If you have read of actual evidence uncovered, I'd like to read about it too. I'd feel a whole lot better about the situation if there was evidence uncovered during that raid instead of what I personally perceive as a witch hunt.

What evidence are you referring to, Terry? Go back and reread those articles. The court is now compelling DNA testing because they can't even determine who the children belong to. They have no evidence that I can discern. What they have is a complaint from another state and the statements of some former members.

Child endangerment. People were knowingly putting their children in the company and care of a sex offender and fugitive from justice.

That is all the evidence the state needs.

Time will tell and if the state acted wrongly, I hope they get their pants sued off.

TerryRC wrote:What evidence are you referring to, Terry? Go back and reread those articles. The court is now compelling DNA testing because they can't even determine who the children belong to. They have no evidence that I can discern. What they have is a complaint from another state and the statements of some former members.

Child endangerment. People were knowingly putting their children in the company and care of a sex offender and fugitive from justice.

That is all the evidence the state needs.

Time will tell and if the state acted wrongly, I hope they get their pants sued off.

Once again, I haven't seen any evidence they put their children in the care of a sex offender. I simply haven't seen any evidence of that. Being in the presence of someone and being in their care are two entirely different things.

Meanwhile, the children are suffering. It isn't right.

SamCogar wrote:

TerryRC wrote:And TRC, just which one of your anal orifices did you “pull” that brilliant comment from?

Right off the internet, Sammy. I also did a state by state check. Your statement that 13 year old girls can marry in any or even one state in the US is outdated or just plain incorrect.

Which Internet, TRC?

Post the context of "your proof" and cite the URL reference for said.
Lets see a little display of your "intellectual honesty" for a change.

TerryRC wrote:Which Internet, TRC? affraid affraid

Post the context of "your proof" and cite the URL reference for said.

Lets see a little display of your "intellectual honesty" for a change.

The url is right in Monday's post where I told you you were wrong about 13 year-olds marrying. If you weren't so rabid, you might have seen it.

Do you accuse everyone that points out your errors of "intellectual dishonesty".

You sound like a kid that sucks at sports "They only won because they cheated!"

Grow the hell up, Sam.

YES, TRC, and this is your posted url, to wit:

TerryRC wrote:Also, Sam, no states, for ANY reason will allow people to marry under the age of 14, even with a court order and parental permission:

http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm

And TRC, this is exerted from your referenced url, ..... and which not only proves you are “intellectually dishonest” …….. but that you are also a “blooming idiot” probably because your brain has been burned severely due to bad habits, ….. to wit:

Marriage Laws in the USA - by Age

Idaho: If you are 16 or 17 years of age, you will need to have a certified copy or your original birth certificate, or a passport, or a driver's license or state ID card. You must be accompanied by one of your parents or your legal guardian and have written parental consent on the Affidavit of Consent to Marriage of Minor. If you are under 16 years of age, you will also need a court order.

Maine: Applicants must be over 18 years old. A license shall not be issued to anyone under the age of 16 without written parental consent and the written consent of a judge.

Maryland: Parental consent is needed if under 18 years of age. If you are between 16-18 years of age, one of your parents or guardian must be with you and provide written consent. If you are under 16 years of age, you will need both the written consent of your custodial parent or guardian and the written approval of a judge of the Orphans' Court Division of the Court of Common Pleas.

Michigan: Applicants 16 years of age may marry with parental or legal guardian written consent. Applicants under the age of 15 with parental consent and probate court permission. 'Marriage of a Minor': The legal marriage of a minor “shall release such minor from parental control.”

Minnesota: Applicants between the ages of 15 and 18 must have the consent of a parent, guardian or the judge of juvenile court. Applicants younger than 15 needs the written consent of a parent of guardian and the consent of a juvenile court judge.

Missouri: A person under age 18 cannot marry without the consent of the custodial parent or guardian. A person under age 15 cannot marry without approval of a judge in the county where the marriage license is sought. The statute states that the judge should grant approval only upon a showing of "good cause" and that unusual conditions make the marriage "advisable." Persons lacking mental capacity to consent to marriage cannot marry without court approval.

Nevada: If you are 16 or 17 years old, you must have one parent or legal guardian present. A notarized written permission is also acceptable. It must be written in English and needs to state the name, birth date, age of the minor child, along with the relationship of the person giving consent. The notary must note that the parent or guardian personally appeared before or was subscribed and sworn to. If you are under 16, marriage can be authorized only by court order when the request has been filed by either parent or legal guardian.

New Hampshire: A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver. A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions. If both parties are nonresidents of NH and are below the age of 18 they cannot be married in NH under any conditions.

New Jersey: Applicants under 18 can marry if both parents consent to the marriage. The consent must be given under oath in front of two witnesses. Males: 16 or younger parties may marry with parental consent and/or permission of judge. Younger parties may obtain license in case of pregnancy or birth of child. Females: 16 or younger parties may marry with parental consent and/or permission of judge. Younger parties may obtain license in case of pregnancy or birth of child.

Oklahoma: If you are under 18, your parents must appear at the courthouse with you to sign a consent form. Minors must wait three days before the marriage license is valid.
.
Texas: The age is 18 without from a parent or your legal guardian. If under the age of 16, the law requires that the couple receives a court order before being allowed to marry.

Tennessee: If either party is under the age of 18, they must be accompanied by parents. If under the age of 16, Tennessee law requires that the couple receives a court order before being allowed to marry.

Virginia: If either of you are under 18 years of age, you must have written, notarized consent from a parent or your legal guardian.

Washington: If under the age of 18, proof of age is required (birth certificate or driver's license). Additionally, the parent or guardian must be present to sign the application form. If under 17, written permission from the family court must be obtained.

West Virginia: If either of you are under 18 years of age, you must have the consent (in person or written) of a parent or guardian. If written, the consent must be notarized. There may be special provisions for an underage bride who is pregnant.

Wyoming: Applicants must be at least 18 years old or with written parental consent. Applicants under 16 years of age only with court order.

Other situations - Pregnant Teens: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland and Oklahoma allow pregnant teens or teens who have already had a child to get married without parental consent. In Florida, Kentucky, and Oklahoma, the young couple must have authorization from a court.

Stephanie wrote:Once again, I haven't seen any evidence they put their children in the care of a sex offender. I simply haven't seen any evidence of that. Being in the presence of someone and being in their care are two entirely different things.

Stephanie, how often do we "see the evidence", other than anecdotal evidence, of children being in the custody of sex offenders- ever? Unless we either peep in other people's windows or follow the publicized cases through the evidentary proceedings, we almost never "see any evidence" of such goings on. Anecdotal reports, nor even arrests, do not constitute evidence.

Meanwhile, the children are suffering. It isn't right.

Unfortunatley, that is likely quite true. And it could be suggested that Taxas has taken a shotgun appoaoch to what may or may not be widespread illegal sexual activities at the FLDS village. But the state cannot reasonably just ignore reports of sexual illegalities involving children because it allegedly takes place within the confines of a "religious" community.

I don't care how many adult spouses people have. But as long as there are laws against polygamy and against "underage" marriages, they should be enforced against the "religious" communities just as much as against heathen communities.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Once again, I haven't seen any evidence they put their children in the care of a sex offender. I simply haven't seen any evidence of that. Being in the presence of someone and being in their care are two entirely different things.

Stephanie, how often do we "see the evidence", other than anecdotal evidence, of children being in the custody of sex offenders- ever? Unless we either peep in other people's windows or follow the publicized cases through the evidentary proceedings, we almost never "see any evidence" of such goings on. Anecdotal reports, nor even arrests, do not constitute evidence.

Meanwhile, the children are suffering. It isn't right.

Unfortunatley, that is likely quite true. And it could be suggested that Taxas has taken a shotgun appoaoch to what may or may not be widespread illegal sexual activities at the FLDS village. But the state cannot reasonably just ignore reports of sexual illegalities involving children because it allegedly takes place within the confines of a "religious" community.

I don't care how many adult spouses people have. But as long as there are laws against polygamy and against "underage" marriages, they should be enforced against the "religious" communities just as much as against heathen communities.

What reports? It seems to me that Texas officials have presumed these people guilty, based solely on their religion. Much to my dismay, some of the staunchest defenders I know of individual liberty and privacy seem to have well. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

Texas was worried before about another "Branch Davidian" type standoff? Well they should sure as hell be petrified of it now. I still say Texas sucks and this is a violation of the rights of both the parents and the children.

Stephanie wrote:What reports? It seems to me that Texas officials have presumed these people guilty, based solely on their religion. Much to my dismay, some of the staunchest defenders I know of individual liberty and privacy seem to have well. What happened to the presumption of innocence?

No one has been arrested, to my knowledge- other than Jeff what's-his-name, and who was found guilty.

The presumptuion of innocense is alive and well. But that does not mean that allegations of crimes should not be investigated, and which is going on now.

Texas was worried before about another "Branch Davidian" type standoff? Well they should sure as hell be petrified of it now. I still say Texas sucks and this is a violation of the rights of both the parents and the children.

And if 50 year old men are found to have fathered the children of 13, 14, 15 year old mothers, will you still feel that the rights of those fathers have been violated? Will they still be presumed innocent?

You seem to be saying that people should not be persecuted because of their religion. The flip side is that people should not get a free pass from the laws because of their religion, either.

What is happening is Texas is not unique- other than the scale of it. Hundreds of children all over this nation are taken from ther homes every day- for the same kinds of suspected abuse we see suspected here.

You can be sure that if WV child welfare agencies had what they considered credible reports that you were allowing your below marriage aged daughters to "marry" and have babies by old men, they would first come and take your children away, and THEN do an investigation.

ziggy wrote:You can be sure that if WV child welfare agencies had what they considered credible reports that you were allowing your below marriage aged daughters to "marry" and have babies by old men, they would first come and take your children away, and THEN do an investigation.

YUP, one (1) phone call from an unknown person in Ohio ...... to a WV DHHS office ..... will get a couple Social Workers, 2 or 3 State Police Officers and 3 or 4 Deputy Sheriffs ...... a knocking on your door to take your children away.

But if the DHHS hears about a pregnant Middle School student ....... the very most they might do is contact the parent(s) of the pregnant student to get them "signed up" on the Wic Program, etc., ......... and to give the pregnant student a "medical card" if they don't already have one to insure prenatal care.

.

Why, Sam, you were right, Thirteen year-olds CAN marry in NH.

Of course this did happen in Texas where they can't...

Regardless, you showed me wrong.

Being wrong, however, is not the same as being dishonest.

Rave on...