The Deconstructionist’s War on Girls: An AG who Protects the Predators Not the Victim

Sexual abuse of adolescent girls inflicts enduring wounds on the victim’s heart, mind, body, and soul. Young girls seduced into an early sexual debut—generally victimized by their partners—exhibit these consequences over their lifetime. Disconcertingly, about 60 percent of sexual abuse cases are never reported to authorities; the majority of these are young females.

However, in a backdoor attempt to facilitate the abortion industry, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring relaxed reporting rules for healthcare providers.  This decision issues implicit support for sexual licentiousness and statutory rape. Most unnerving, the repercussions for young women have been grossly ignored by political pundits and the mainstream media. 

An early sexual debut is likely to bring about negative physical, mental, social, and economic outcomes. These effects are frequently permanent because the earlier a woman begins sexual activity, the more sexual partners she is likely to have over her lifetime. For example, girls who began sexual activity at age 13 are twice as likely to become infected by an STD as girls who started sexual activity at age 21. Correspondingly, early sexual intercourse is negatively linked to happiness. This parallels the finding that early intercourse leads to an increased likelihood of forcing a partner to have sex, having sex while drunk or high, unstable relationships, and having an unplanned pregnancy. Not surprisingly, this life pattern increases abortions. While 30 percent of girls who started sexual activity at ages 13 or 14 have had an abortion, some 12 percent of girls who began sexual activity in their early 20s have had an abortion. This figure is especially alarming given the biological link between abortion and breast cancer.

Early sexual debut also has economic ramifications. Women who became sexually active at ages 13 or 14 are more than three times as likely to become single parents than are women who initiate sexual activity in their early 20s. This contributes to maternal poverty. One study found that 27 percent of mothers who began sexual activity at ages 13 or 14 were living in poverty, whereas 11.7 percent of mothers who began sexual activity in their early 20s were poor.

Herring’s ruling is an abomination to the parents of young girls. He is in essence saying:  I will not protect your young adolescent girls from older predators.  Where are the feminists on this?  On his side!  Promoting abortion and the radical sexualization and  “dysfunctionalization” of young adolescent girls. Protector he is not.  Who now guards the guardians?  Who guards this rogue guardian?

Promoting women’s well-being mandates widespread support for the intact married family. It is within this environment that girls are most protected from sexual abuse, and it is within this environment that young women are most likely to cultivate a healthy sexual relationship with her husband before God.  Herring seems bent on the agenda to wreck the future family life of these young girls. But that is the price he and his allies are willing to pay. This is war on the family of that girl, her present family and her own future family.