So, why do supporters of abortion rights hate parental consent laws?

For the very same reason they hate laws requiring the mother be shown an ultrasound. Such laws reduce the number of abortions, and that cuts into the profit margin a bit. The “pro-choice” folks want women to have abortions, because abortions are big money to Planned Parenthood. And anything that reduces abortions is bad in their view.

First, the statistics are clear: parental consent laws reduce the minor abortion rate by 18.7 percent, while parental notification laws reduce the abortion rate by about 5 percent.

In fact, when these percentages are fleshed out in terms of the age of the minor, the effect of parental consent statutes is even more apparent. In states with parental consent laws, the abortion rate declines by 23.1 percent for 17-year-olds, by 19.9 percent for 16-year-olds, and by 16.6 percent for 15-year-olds.

H/T to Stacy McCain, who also touches on several other sex-related stories.

Why being Muslim apparently makes it OK to have sex with a minor

The Daily Mail (UK) reports:

A muslim who raped [in the sense of statutory rape -EV] a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless.

Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl because his education left him ignorant of British law.

Yesterday Judge Michael Stokes handed Rashid a suspended sentence, saying: ‘Although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.’

Stacy also skewers Feminists A.K.A Ugly Sluts and their culture of promiscuity

Just ask yourself: Why are feminists so angry at men? It’s not merely because they are ugly — not all ugly women are feminists — but rather because they are bitter after discovering that their promiscuity doesn’t actually make them more attractive (which popular culture had convinced them would be the case).

That’s what all the rhetoric about “sexual empowerment” is really aimed at, and it’s also why feminists get so riled up about “slut shaming.”

Having convinced themselves that promiscuity is “sexual empowerment,” feminists must expunge from our language such fine Anglo-Saxon words as slut and whore, as part of an ideological campaign to exterminate whatever vestigal remnants of Judeo-Christian morality may have survived the Sexual Revolution. And because this is justified by the Official Group Ideology and approved by the Official Group Leaders, no man may criticize it without being denounced as a misogynistic patriarchal oppressor. Any woman who questions the “sexual empowerment” rhetoric — “Hey, why is it so ’empowering’ to risk getting your ladyparts all gunked up with herpes, genital warts and chlamydia?” — is ostracized as a Traitor to the Revolutionary Cause.

Go read the whole post, it is some very insightful thinking that sums up the radical nature of modern-day Feminism, which really has nothing to do with empowering women, but everything to do with empowering the Feminist leaders.

 

Muslim Child Molester Claims He Didn’t Know Sex With A 13-Year-Old Girl Was Illegal, Receives No Jail Time

Muslim Abuser Who ‘Didn’t Know’ That Sex With A Girl Of 13 Was Illegal Is Spared Jail – Daily Mail

A muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless.

…………………

Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl because his education left him ignorant of British law.

Yesterday Judge Michael Stokes handed Rashid a suspended sentence, saying: ‘Although chronologically 18, it is quite clear from the reports that you are very naive and immature when it comes to sexual matters.’

Earlier Nottingham Crown Court heard that such crimes usually result in a four to seven-year prison sentence.

But the judge said that because Rashid was ‘passive’ and ‘lacking assertiveness’, sending him to jail might cause him ‘more damage than good’.

Rashid, from Birmingham, admitted he had sex with the girl, saying he had been ‘tempted by her’ after they met online.

They initially exchanged messages on Facebook before sending texts and chatting on the phone over a two-month period.

They then met up in Nottingham, where Rashid had booked a room at a Premier Inn.

The girl told police they stayed at the hotel for two hours and had sex after Rashid went to the bathroom and emerged wearing a condom.

Rashid then returned home and went straight to a mosque to pray. He was arrested the following week after the girl confessed what had happened to a school friend, who informed one of her teachers.

He told police he knew the girl was 13 but said he was initially reluctant to have sex before relenting after being seduced.

Earlier the court heard how Rashid had ‘little experience of women’ due to his education at an Islamic school in the UK, which cannot be named for legal reasons.

After his arrest, he told a psychologist that he did not know having sex with a 13-year-old was against the law. The court heard he found it was illegal only when he was informed by a family member.

In other interviews with psychologists, Rashid claimed he had been taught in his school that ‘women are no more worthy than a lollipop that has been dropped on the ground’.

When Judge Stokes said Rashid ‘must have known it was illegal, unless he was going round with his eyes shut’, defence lawyer Laban Leake said reports suggested Rashid had a ‘degree of sexual naivety’.

‘The school he attended, it is not going too far to say, can be described as a closed community and on this occasion this was perpetuated by his home life.

‘It is not too far to say that he may not have known that having sex with a 13-year-old girl was illegal.’ Judge Stokes sentenced Rashid to nine months youth custody, suspended for two years, along with a two-year probation supervision order.

Describing Rashid, the judge said: ‘He’s had an unusual education, certainly in terms of the sexual education provided. Comparing women to lollipops is a very curious way of teaching young men about sex.’

But he said that Rashid knew what he was doing was wrong.

‘It was made clear to you at the school you attended that having sexual relations with a woman before marriage was contrary to the precepts of Islam,’ he said.

Addressing Rashid, the judge said: ‘I accept this was a case where the girl was quite willing to have sexual activity with you. But the law is there to protect young girls, even though they are perfectly happy to engage in sexual activity.’

Click HERE For Rest Of Story