Subscribe Now Mobile Site Place an Ad E-Edition Email Updates Obituaries Classifieds Find a Job Find a Car Real Estate Contact Us

Currently

37°

Fog

FREE ARCHIVE SEARCH

Opinion

CLASSIFIEDS

All Classifieds
Find a Home
Find a Car
Find a Job
Work Here
Find Merchandise
Today’s Print Ads

2 Weeks Free

Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription

Map the Valley

Restaurant Listing
School Listing
Open Houses
Garage Sales

Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service

Stop the hypocrisy

Editor: The time has come to correct a great injustice in California, a state that has exemplified forward thinking and progressive thought for many years. It seems we have laws on our books that are designed to protect our most intimate and self-evident rights, while at the same time maintaining unjust and ill-conceived statutes that erode at the fabric of those same rights. The inconsistency is obvious; it is nothing but blatant hypocrisy born from fear.

The time has come to repeal so-called "statutory rape" laws.

The people of California have long held that women and girls of reproductive age should have full control over their reproductive systems -- it is her body, therefore it is her choice. No one is able to force their beliefs about her reproductive system upon her. To do so would be a violation of her reproductive freedom, as well as her body. Even to the point of setting aside lesser-held notions of minors' inability to consent to medical procedures. These are the arguments used to defend abortion rights.

Since minors have a choice of whether they can have an abortion based on "my body, my choice," shouldn't "my body, my choice" extend to the prerequisites of abortion? Right now, minors of a certain age are considered incapable of providing consent for sex.

How can we say a girl's control of her uterus is absolute for a surgical procedure but not for a brief, natural act keeping with the very function of the same organs?

How can she give consent for a medical procedure while a prerequisite act for the procedure is supposedly beyond her capacity? She can weigh the far-reaching implications of whether or not she will give birth, but can't weigh whether she should have intercourse? This seems like some type of pro-life conspiracy to undermine the abortion rights of minors.

This is blatant hypocrisy. It's either "her body, her choice," or it is not. We need to repeal statutory rape laws in support of the reproductive decision-making ability of minors.

JP Prichard

Hanford

(Jan. 3, 2008)

Email this story

Print this story

POST A COMMENT

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

Please log in to post comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
	Forgot Your Password?

If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

What a creep! wrote on Jan 3, 2008 7:01 PM:

" So this man wants pubecent girls to have the freedom to presumably have sex with adults. This is a real creepy position for an adult man to assert in the newspaper. Espeically when he talks about girls "organs." I'm glad I don't live near him. "

jeff wrote on Jan 4, 2008 11:14 AM:

" TO: What a creep! – You sound very immature and I’m not sure if you’re qualified to speak on this subject. However I do believe in the 1st amendment so of course you have a right to. I agree somewhat with what this man says but I have a slightly different look on it then he does. My view is in this country we try many children as adults for crimes that they commit. You can be 15 and kill someone and be tried as an adult but if you’re 15 and have sex with a 19 year old that 19 year old is suddenly a rapist because a 15 year old is not intelligent enough to make a decision of whether or not to have sex. How is that not hypocritical? "

Sarcasam wrote on Jan 4, 2008 3:12 PM:

" Could this be a sarcastic comentary on the fact a MINOR can have an abortion without parental consent? The governement is slowly taking away the power of parents to decide what is best for their children. "

DL wrote on Jan 4, 2008 6:21 PM:

" I hope this is sarcasitic. Mr. Prichard and "Jeff" miss the point. The point of these laws is not to place restrictions on minors. The goal is to keep older men (or women) from taking advantage of the emotional immaturity of kids for their own sexual gratification. Teenagers are free to date or have relationships with people their own age. Should it be legal for a 12 year old girl to "date" a 55 year old? Is it really dating? Funny how you wouln't see a young girl protesting this law. It is usually the old guys who are against this law. "

Not so mad in Nevada at the moment wrote on Jan 4, 2008 9:24 PM:

" I have been struggling with this for many reasons. I agree that there may need to be some changes to the law but I also feel there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. I have learned from being a parent and from teaching my girls at church that the younger ones (12-13) aren't anywhere near ready for things that someone even a year or two older would be. My husband and I were at the movies last month and there were 10 year olds making out in the back row. That is too young. And the question that came to my mind was were the heck are their parents. If parents are more proactive in their kids life I have learned that these things don't interest them as soon. I have also learned that kids that have been abused tend to engage in sex sooner than they may be ready. So where do you draw the line? I really believe that it comes back to being a parent and being in tune with your kids( I have said this before). Know where they are, who they are with and what they are doing. "

Not so mad in Nevada at the moment wrote on Jan 4, 2008 9:34 PM:

" As far as minors being allowed to have an abortion without their parents consent... that's a tough one because of all the new heppa laws. I feel very much that a parent should be involved in this decision. Is a minor really in the right frame of mind to make this important life changing choice on their own. I don't think so. And it is a option that I could never choose and hope that my own daughter feels the same way. But I have also known girls that felt this was their only option and their parents wouldn't understand. Once again.. be parent talk to your kids when they start dating. Make them aware of what can happen and how you feel about these things. If they know they can come to you hopefully they won't feel that this is the only option they have. Teach them to make good choices before they are in a bad situation. Teach kids to know what they believe and where they stand. You can't make decisions in the heat of the moment. By then it's too late. "

To JP Prichard wrote on Jan 5, 2008 12:24 AM:

" Wonder how you would feel if you found some adult male having sex with your daughter? Hopefully for your sake I hope it is something you never have to deal with. Some of us may not be quite so lucky. "

Proud Dad wrote on Jan 5, 2008 9:25 AM:

" Teenager hormones will override common sense. Teenagers do not realize the implications an infant or a std is going to burden them with. A lot of young girls will have a tendency to gravitate towards older men. We need to protect them as long as possible. A couple of years will make a big difference. Imagine if we also lowered the drinking age since they can "control" what goes into their mouths?! Makes just as much sense. If you don't have safeguards, then you will have 21 year olds taking 16 year olds to the prom and will be expecting a lot more then a kiss at the end of the night. The parents need to be more involved as well, since the parent is responsible for the kid until he/she turns 18 which some parents fail to realize. If everything else has failed, then the parents also need to be more involved in the abortion process which has serious implications of it's own, mentally and physically. To let a teenager make that decision is nuts, but that is the law. "

I Nominate wrote on Jan 5, 2008 11:00 PM:

" To what a creep. I don't think he is going the way you may be thinking. Yes, I am shocked with the content. But, I think he is pointing out what is next if we don't get a handle on this problem. He points out what is next with the way laws are going. We need to PROTECT OUR CHILDREN. We need laws that help us raise and protect our kids. We need to go back to being a nation of strong family values. We need have laws that support family values. Very scary times we live in. "

great idea wrote on Jan 6, 2008 6:42 AM:

" that is a great idea. lets get rid of laws designed to punish perverts who would take advantage of minors who are not always capable of making informed decision. less law equals less crime. "

jeff wrote on Jan 7, 2008 10:44 AM:

" TO: DL – What point am I missing exactly? Where in my comment did I ever say that I was for making it legal for an old man to have relations with a child? I love how the uneducated come out in droves on this web site and read all the false points they wish into someone’s comments. The people of King’s County need to grow up! Where I live people can have discussions of differing view points without arguing but the people of Hanford seem to be incapable of this. Please join this millennium we are not living in puritan times anymore. "

jeff wrote on Jan 7, 2008 10:44 AM:

" TO: DL – I take it then that this is what you believe. A 15 year old is intelligent enough and mature enough to make a decision as an adult to take another life. A 15 year old is not intelligent enough or mature enough to make the decision to have sex. An 18 year old is intelligent enough and mature enough to decide to join the Armed Forces knowing that he/she could in all likelihood be killed. An 18 year old is not intelligent enough or mature enough to decide if he/she would like to purchase alcohol. An 18 year old is intelligent enough and mature enough to decide who he/she thinks should be leader of this country. My point is we should keep our laws in line with each other I am not advocating sex with children. Please do not try and speak for me in the future. "

Underage wrote on Jan 7, 2008 12:55 PM:

" No one seemed to touch on the subject of two 16 years olds who engage in intercourse. They are both subject to receiving tickets for having sexual relations while being under the age of consent (18). This is a misdemeanor. It will show on their criminal record. The law basically states that while under age 18 the minor can not give consent. Yet the female can have a medical procedure without parents knowledge. I've voted agains this (and lost) every time it's been on a ballot. Maybe one day society will let parents raise their children. "

Mags wrote on Jan 7, 2008 1:19 PM:

" Nevada, I finally agree with you on something! I also deeply believe that kids who have been abused or girls who do not have a good relationship with their father are the first to get into trouble with sex. Actually, many studies have shown this; it's not my original idea. It is true that the parents must be more involved with their kids. I lived a nice, sheltered life as a kid and never got into trouble. I knew what was right and wrong. Let's get back to family dinners every night and make kids feel like they belong. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Jan 7, 2008 2:13 PM:

" ‘SEX' + ‘CHILDREN' = BAD IDEA

Doesn't it just boil down to this for whatever reason?

"

Absurd wrote on Jan 7, 2008 2:56 PM:

" These laws are meant to protect minors. Yes, someone of the age of 15 is wise enough to make their own decisions, but statutory rape laws are here for a reason. Without them, imagine how many rapists could get away with rape. "She said that it was okay officer..." "Well, ok then. You're free to go because the 11 year old girl you had sex with said it was okay for you, a 40 year old man to have sex with her." That is ridiculous. Sure, if 2 people engage in intercourse and one is 18 and the other is 17, then this may not be considered statutory rape unless the minor's parents press charges of sexual intercourse without consent. Imagine you are a parent of a teenager, and your son or daughter brought home their current love interest. You think to yourself, "Hmm...well, I wonder if they go to the same school. They might have a class together!" Your child brings home their sweetie and introduces them to you. Sure enough, you are correct. They indeed go to the same school, and infact they have a class together. But, not as a "

Alan G. wrote on Jan 7, 2008 3:04 PM:

" I've read through this letter several times just to make sure I'm understanding the point he/she is trying to make and if there is sarcasm here, I'm not quite feeling it. The author says we need to "repeal statutory rape laws in support of the reproductive decision-making ability of minors"? Given the inconsistencies in laws as they relate to minors, wouldn't the more logical approach be to require minors to seek consent from a parent or guardian to have medical procedures performed rather than repeal laws that protect children from predators? I'm sorry but anyone under 18 is a puppy brain when it comes to making these kinds of decisions and as long as we as parents are responsible for them, we should be required to make medical decisions for them as well until they reach adulthood. so YES, the laws are inconsistent and need to be fixed. "

Absurd wrote on Jan 7, 2008 3:05 PM:

" But, not as a Student-to-student relationship. Your child's boyfriend/girlfriend is their History teacher! Now, think about how infuriated you would be. But, the worst is still to come. Your daughter announces, "Mom, Dad, I'm pregnant and my boyfriend and adult teacher is the father!!" or your son announces, "Mom, Dad, my girlfriend and adult teacher is pregnant and I'm the father!" Your heart sinks. This could be anyone's reality if the statutory rape laws were did not exist. With the laws, you could press charges against the offender and they wwould face punishment.
Furthermore, on the topic of Abortion I believe that it is the right of the mother's parents to know and have a say in the future of the currently unborn child. How would you feel if your daughter went to get an Abortion (without your knowledge) and died on the table? (Sadly, that happens quite often) You recieve a phone call from the doctor stating that your beloved daughter died during an Abortion that she did not ask your permission for. Put yourself in "

Absurd wrote on Jan 7, 2008 3:15 PM:

" Put yourself in the shoes of these unfortunate people; regarding both the laws of statutory rape and the Abortion rights. One more point regarding the statutory rape laws:
As many of you have previously stated, a male or female at the age of 15 is old enough to make their own decisions. According to National laws, it is illegal for one at the age of 15 to be drafted into war. According to National laws, it is illegal for one at the age of 15 to operate a vehicle without someone over the age of 25 in the vehicle at the same time. According to National laws, it is illegal for one at the age of 15 to drink, possess, purchase, or obtain Alchoholic beverages. According to National laws, it is illegal for one at the age of 15 to purchase, or use tobacco products. If it is unlawful for a minor to do any of the previously mentioned acts, then why in the hell should it be legal for a minor to have a serious medical procedure (abortion) done or consent to sex with an adult? I think that question answers itself. That's all I have to say. "

DL wrote on Jan 7, 2008 3:34 PM:

" Ouch Jeff. Your opinion on the people of Hanford and people who post here is a little self-congratulatory and psudo-intellectual. I'm sure you are a very smart guy, yet your m.o. of constantly criticizing the intelligence of others makes me think you have some self-esteem issues. Maybe the answer to your problem with statutory rape laws is that the law doesn’t always have to be consistent to be appropriate. Maybe the law as it applies to minors balances different interests to recognize the rights of kids to be free from harm, the rights of parents to raise their children, and the rights of the public to be free severe criminal conduct. Just my uneducated opinion. P.S. doesn't the place you live have a newspaper? (Hint, hint) "

Lo-ver wrote on Jan 7, 2008 7:45 PM:

" what about the young boys?? are we forgetting that not older women prey on young boys too??? should it be legal for a 13 year old boy to have sex with a 25 year old? NO! Just as it should not be with the girls! Dont leave out the boys...though girls are most common in this topic it is crucial to mention that our boys are too being active in the same matters. "

lc hanford wrote on Jan 8, 2008 4:12 AM:

" How do you know this guy does not live near you, may he live across the street from you. "

KC residents wrote on Jan 8, 2008 8:32 AM:

" To Jeff

As a resident of Hanford and Kings County,,,"Please do not try and speak for me in the future. " Talk about hipocracy!

Stay where you are before categorizing a community by a few online posts!

"

jeff wrote on Jan 9, 2008 9:31 AM:

" TO: DL – The fact that you personally attacked me is the whole reason I said what I said. If your remarks don’t give a perfect example of an uneducated person trying to sound smart then I don’t know what does. My point was to show inconsistencies in the law and I did just that. The fact that you can’t understand this and tried to attack my character is the behavior of a person with an immature mind set (Hint, hint). TO: KC residents – For one I never spoke for anybody I made a generalization about the people in Hanford who post on this site. Secondly your name is plural so is there more then one of you? If so then why did you say “Speak for me” shouldn’t it be “Speak for us”? Really all you’re doing is proving my point, figure out what it means to have someone try and speak for you and try and remember that the voices in your head are not actually other people. To everyone else who posts on this site that can think I do apologize for lumping you in with the ones who can't. "

To Lo-ver wrote on Jan 9, 2008 11:22 AM:

" You are absolutely right boys can be just as much victims as girls can. Didn't we just read of another woman teacher being arrested for sending nude photos and messages to an underage student??? "

DL wrote on Jan 9, 2008 12:36 PM:

" Jeff: I am actually sorry. I mistakenly assumed from your defense of JP Prichard that like him you considered statutory rape laws to be a huge injustice. Looking at other articles it appears that you have a lot of opinions so I was probably off base. I also mistakenly assumed that you were "some older guy" but it is more likely that you are just away at school or something. If that is the case your frustration with the "uneducated" and "immature" is common enough and forgivable (think of how full of themselves your relatives are at Thanksgiving after their first semester back from college). Please, consider coming back after you graduate. (really) "

jeff wrote on Jan 9, 2008 1:58 PM:

" TO: KC Residents – It’s hypocrisy not hypocracy thanks again for helping me to prove my point that there are uneducated people posting on here. Come on it’s right in the name of the article, and you still failed to get it right. "

JP Prichard wrote on Jan 9, 2008 4:23 PM:

" Thank you for reading my Letter and making positive contributions – Its purpose was to stimulate dialogue. Rather than sarcastic, I wrote this to shock, so that folks would shoot it down. You see, I was devastated by abortion during my teens. We were out of control, we needed our parents to step in as we weren’t mature enough to even know what questions to ask, let alone make informed decisions. It was SO easy not only to get an abortion, but also to keep it secret from anyone that could help us – we were embarrassed and ashamed, we felt our parents (whom we could tell anything) would be forever disappointed. Desperately needing help, but our own “minors’ right to privacy” kept us from getting it. Never received counseling of any kind. You may feel abortion is ok – I’m not here to argue that with you. "Slippery slope” is brought up so often for abortion rights, afraid rights will be whittled away. But, please, look again at the reasoning I’ve used in my Letter, the weight of what we throw away to defend abortion rights - what's slipped? "

JP Prichard wrote on Jan 9, 2008 4:43 PM:

" For the record: I’m NOT in favor of minors having the legal ability to consent. Like Alan G., I feel they are too young, and can usually be easily manipulated by someone just a couple years older than they are. And while Jeff scared me early on by “agreeing somewhat” with me, I feel that he and Absurd did a great job pointing out the inconsistency aspect. And Proud Dad spoke truly that we give our kids far too much credit for being in control of hormones that haven’t had long to master. I hope that DL doesn’t get grossed out anymore now that I’ve made my position clear. And “unnamed folks” – my girls are under 10 yrs old, if I found an adult having sex one of them you’d be reading a front page murder story, not a Letter to the Editor. Also for the record – if making myself look bad will get people to seriously consider parental consent laws, or even just notification, than you can tattoo CREEP across my forehead if you want to. "

jeff wrote on Jan 10, 2008 11:00 AM:

" TO: DL – WOW Thank you for your words I’m somewhat at a loss here. I except your apology and I too felt somewhat irritated with myself with the way I behaved but I honestly felt you were trying to paint me in a certain light. I also apologize and what you said really does make me feel that you are not immature and uneducated as an immature individual in my eyes would not be able to say what you said. I don’t honestly believe that the entire population of Hanford is incapable of critical educated thinking I just let my emotion get the best of me when I said that. There are many people who post on this site that I’ve come to respect even those who I adamantly disagree with. I will admit I am not a college student but I am also not ‘some older guy’. I do visit Hanford once or twice a year but it’s doubtful I would ever move back but that’s because of the job market not because of the people. "

Sad wrote on Jan 11, 2008 8:52 PM:

" You know the really scary part is that Mr. Prichard was hand picked to be the Lemoore City Manager's new yes man. I mean the city's new personal analyst. "

gaucho mom wrote on Jan 12, 2008 9:09 AM:

" To the highly educated Jeff: That's accept, not except. "

To Sad wrote on Jan 12, 2008 11:57 AM:

" You need to stick to the subject here. No where in this article does anything have to do with Mr. Prichard's job. This is about this beliefs not his work. Get the two straight. "

Not so mad in Nevada at the moment wrote on Jan 12, 2008 1:19 PM:

" To Sad: I don't think that Mr. Prichard's past should have anything to do with his new position. We are the smartest as teenagers and that should not be held against him. "

jeff wrote on Jan 12, 2008 4:49 PM:

" TO: gaucho mom - Wow you found a typo, way to go detective. Thanks for saying I'm highly educated as I've never made this claim myself. You must really think a lot of me. "

gaucho mom wrote on Jan 14, 2008 8:23 AM:

" Jeff: That's a typo in the same sense as hypocracy is, which you pointed out. You occasionally make a good point, but I don't think anything of you. I don't have as much time to blog as many of you do. "

jeff wrote on Jan 14, 2008 11:24 AM:

" TO: gaucho mom – I’m pleasantly surprised by you. You actually read, follow the conversation and think about what’s being said (Not that I’m surprised by you personally as if I know you and would have some reason to believe you’re incapable of this but just because so many people here cannot). You’re completely right and I was being 100% hypocritical myself. I still find it a childish statement since the only comment you had to make was about a typo and you acted so personally. The only time we have ever talked is on the Atheism article and I see no reason why you should feel so threatened by me. "

HOT TOPICS

MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

Selma:

Kingsburg:

PHOTO GALLERIES

More Photos

Sentinel Photos (134) Albums

: Hanford Luminaria; Friday, November, 20 2009; (6) Photos

: Hanford High vs Dinuba Waterpolo Final; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (13) Photos

: Fire on Hawk Street; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (11) Photos

Reader Submitted (7) Albums

: Vintage Hanford; Monday, December, 15 2008; (1) Photos

: Vacation Photos; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (37) Photos

: Events; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (38) Photos

EMAIL UPDATES

Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.

E-Mail:
Daily News Updates
Breaking News Alerts