The Incredible Shrinking Pool of Underage FLDS Pregnant Girls.

Of course, those of you who have been following today's hearings know the count is shrinking, there is the recap from The Express-News.

The San Antonio Express-News - SAN ANGELO - "Ten 'girls' taken into custody by Texas Child Protective Services have convinced the agency they are really adults and more are expected to be similarly reclassified this week, weakening the agency's claim that dozens of underage girls were forced by a polygamist sect to have sex with older men.

On Tuesday, six more 'girls' were deemed adults, including 27-year-old Leona Allred, whose lawyer insisted CPS knew from the beginning that her client was an adult.

'My client showed them the same documents they showed them from the beginning: a valid Arizona driver's license and a birth certificate,' Andrea Sloan said."

Oh you have to be kidding me. 27? If she identified herself isn't this wrongful imprisonment?

"But also Tuesday, two cases came up that revealed girls as young as 15 and 16 had been unified in spiritual marriages with older men.

One of those girls, now 19, was ruled an adult by the courts but not before she said in a conference call to the court that she could have been no older than 16 when her daughter was born on Aug. 19, 2005."

Ooookay. But what have we learned on the Blog so far Class? Texas law was changed in 2005, and the first of the changes went into effect when? That's right class, September 2005. This means that while it's the kind of thing Texas claimed is going on now, this event occurred in 2004-2005, when it was legal. All smoke and mirrors.

"And in another courtroom, information gleaned from the records of a 17-year-old indicated she had to have been 15 when her first child was born."

Ok, two years ago she was 15, that was 2006 when the child was born. Unless we are told when the child was born and if the term was normal, again, there's nothing here. If our 17 year old is 14 and gets pregnant in late August 2005 in Texas, again class, what does this mean? It means no violation of law is demonstrated. The remaining four months of 2005 expire and the child is born in May of 2006, when the young lady in question is 15. Again. No violation of law.

If however they can demonstrate that she became pregnant in September of 2005 there might be something here. Typically CPS leaves out salient details like this when they want you to THINK something wrong happened, but when they know nothing wrong happened. Mark this in your program. CPS might score here.

"CPS spokesman Patrick Crimmins denied any suggestion that the agency's massive case may be on the verge of collapse, adding: 'The numbers aren't important to us.'"

Really? Thank you Captain Obvious, we did not know that.

"What is important, he said, is that the children that were purportedly abused are now safe and protected. He said CPS was stymied by the conflicting and false information given by families, which made establishing ages nearly impossible."

These must be new definitions of the words "safe" and "protected" that I was previously not familiar with.

"He added that his agency never intentionally misled anyone when it said it believed it had more than two dozen females who were being sexually abused as minors."

Nah, holding a 27 year old as underage when she has both drivers license and birth certificate, that's not "intentionally misleading anyone." Offering us the fact that a minor gave birth in August of 2005 who as "of age" at the time, before the law changed, that isn't misleading either.

Sphere: Related Content