For decades Planned Parenthood has been proselytizing that sex education is the answer to unwanted pregnancies and population control. The crusaders first breached the high schools, then poured into the elementary schools. Today, toddlers are taught the mechanics of sex before they develop a sexual consciousness.
School counselors dispense condoms; schoolchildren learn condom use by practicing on bananas, cucumbers and sex toys.
Parents are advised to make condoms available to their teen-agers. A mother in Baraboo, Wis., took Planned Parenthood's advice to heart and purchased condoms for her 13-year-old son when she discovered he was having sexual intercourse with a 15-year-old girl. The police found out, and now the mother faces indictment on charges of sexually abusing a child by permitting her son to have sexual relations before he is of age.
Hapless parents are caught in a catch-22 situation. Tax dollars in public schools prepare children for sex at early ages, but parents who acquiesce to the liberal orthodoxy face indictment for child sex abuse.
Patricia Barrett, the county prosecutor in Wisconsin, clearly is stretching the child-abuse statute beyond its intent. The statute criminalizes sex between a person age 17 or older and one younger than 17.
The prosecutor, however, borrowing from asset-forfeiture laws that allow the property of innocents to be confiscated if the property "facilitates" the commission of a crime, argues that, by providing condoms, the mother facilitated her son's sexual intercourse with the girl and, thereby, is a partner to child sex abuse.
But why stop with the mother? The sex-education teachers also facilitated the underage sex. So did the legislators who funded the sex-education courses. So did Planned Parenthood, which successfully lobbied the courses into the school curriculum. Just as tobacco companies are held responsible for the health effects of smoking and gun manufacturers are sued because people misuse their products, condom manufacturers are guilty of facilitating the boy's pleasures.
Why should a 33-year-old mom face indictment and a 15-year prison sentence for complying with public-education policy? Suppose the mother had objected to her son's activities. What could she have done?
The intrusion into the parent-child relationship by public authority is so extensive that by the time a child reaches the rebellious teen-age years, parents have very little control to counter the …