Thursday, February 3, 2011
A girl who was statutorily raped gets her abortion paid for by the taxpayers; a boy who was statutorily raped is obligated to pay child support if his rapist decides to keep the baby
As we predicted, the Smith Bill introduced in the House (the proposed "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act") is being refined to appease the sexual grievance industry. Why? Because pro-abortion activists inundated Capitol Hill with calls, so the “forcible” modifier will be dropped.
This appeasement makes clear that a girl who is statutorily raped is entitled to have her abortion paid for by the taxpaying public.
If you are OK with that, are you also OK with the following -- or do you think it just might be a double standard?
If your minor son is statutorily raped by an adult woman and he happens to impregnate her, your son is liable for child support if the statutory rapist decides to have the baby (which means, you will have to pay for your son's child if you want to keep your son out of jail). In that case, unlike the situation where a female victim of statutory rape decides to have an abortion, the taxpayers don't have any obligation to pay for the result of the boy's victimization. That responsibility is his, and his alone.
Don't believe me? In the case of County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (Ct. App. 1996), a thirty-four-year-old woman had sex with a fifteen-year-old boy and became pregnant. The woman was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor -- commonly called statutory rape. She decided to have the child, and after she gave birth to her daughter, she received Aid for Families with Dependent Children, and the county sought reimbursement for the AFDC payments from the father, the 15-year-old boy. The court held that the boy, a statutory rape victim, was financially liable for the child that resulted from his victimization.
Why? Because California courts charged with interpreting California's statutory rape laws have recognized that "a minor . . . who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is not necessarily a victim of sexual abuse." In re Kyle F., 112 Cal. App. 4th 538, 543, 5 Cal. Rptr. 3d 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
The Obispo case is not alone: Other state supreme courts and several state appellate courts have ruled that male statutory rape victims can be financially liable for supporting a child resulting from their criminal victimization.
In one case, a 15-year-old boy who was statutorily raped was held to be "not an innocent victim of [a female adult's] criminal act, and the law should not excuse him from his responsibility to support his biological child. Oklahoma's public policy mandating parental support of children outweighs any policy of protecting minors from the consequences of their willing participation in sexual misconduct with adults." Stringer v. Dep't of Human Services ex rel. Baker, 2004 OK CIV APP 97; 104 P.3d 1132 (2004).
(There are, of course, no reported cases where female victims of statutory rape have been held to a similar support obligation.)
Posted by Archivist at Thursday, February 03, 2011