Sign up for email updates!



Share this!

Some recent legislation regarding sexual predators serves perpetrators over victims. As increasing sympathy for the wrongdoer is nurtured and a victim’s best interests are decreasingly prioritized, a disturbing trend emerges. For example, a bizarre law passed in Victoria, Australia, in 2020, essentially placed a gag order on victims of rape and sexual abuse, stating that those who name their abusers could face up to roughly 120 days of jail time or fines exceeding three thousand dollars for violating their attackers’ privacy.[1]

Yes, you read that right. We’ll give you a minute to digest it.

In fact, we’ll repeat it: Fortunately, an update to this legislation reversed this order in October of 2023, but one can quickly see how complicated legislation can become an issue when not carefully guarded in terms of protecting victims. However, for a time, victims of sexual abuse in that region of Australia were legally prohibited from speaking their perpetrators’ names; they were censored in favor of privacy for the guilty, even during litigation. This amendment to the existing Judicial Proceeding Reports Act was noted as a triumph for those who have abused or exploited others, and it would appear that the only way for targets to retrieve their right to tell their story is via court order, “which is a lengthy process and could cost them more than $10,000.”[2] Victims launched a campaign asking legislators to modify the law to give them back their voice—as they had been silenced, thus victimized twice over: once by the abuse, and again by the prohibition against telling their story,[3] with the goal of “[fixing] botched laws enacted…that gagged assault survivors from publicly talking about their experiences without a court order.”[4] Likewise, the measure stopped family members of deceased victims from being able to name perpetrators.

We understand that much of our narrative speaks of modern American culture, and that Australia, where this happened, to some, might be too far away to deem relevant here. But, if it can occur in other progressive countries, then it is certain that people in pluralistic America will eventually advocate for similar measures as well. A little closer to home, another bill currently being considered is one in California that would alter the definition of statutory rape as it pertains to certain types of sexual intercourse to protect perpetrators from being classified as sex offenders. The legislation would allow for a ten-year age difference regarding various types of intercourse, citing LGBTQ equality rights as the motivation for this redefinition. The premise is that, currently, “there is…[an] exemption from mandatory registration [as a sex offender] for [heterosexual] intercourse between partners of a similar age difference.”[5] In other words, the current law is more lenient on statutory lines regarding heterosexual couples than it is on homosexual couples, because their physical method of intercourse is legally categorized differently. As it stands, consensual, heterosexual intercourse between two people on either side of eighteen years of age can result in misdemeanor or felony charges being filed, depending on the situation. Thus, leniency will be added to other types of intercourse within current legislation under the notion of nondiscrimination.

This concession could leave our teenagers and younger children wide open to ambiguity where sexual assault is concerned. California State Senator Shannon Grove tweeted: “If signed into law, a 24-year-old could have sexual relations with a 15-year-old child without being required to register as a sex offender.”[6] Causing even more concern for these authors is that, at this time, we have read the bill itself and can find no specification of minimum age. Someone might be all right with legalizing sex between a twenty-seven-year-old and a seventeen-year-old, but what if that same seventeen-year-old becomes attracted to a seven-year-old child? Because the bill is still being debated, this could mean that—should there be a legal bungle such as the one in Australia regarding victims’ rights—an oversight could render it legal for a thirteen-year-old to be seduced by a twenty-three-year-old, and in turn, coerce an elementary-aged youth into sexual acts. The key, in such circumstances, would be determining whether the interaction is consensual. However, studying previous cases of claimed rape, we can quickly see how hard it often is to prove rape when one of the parties asserts that it was consensual. Then we have a case of one person’s word against another, and often it’s not until repeated complaints from multiple victims are filed that charges are brought against an offender. This loophole regarding the sexual safety of minors could open doors that subject our most innocent to a whole new level of depravity—and legally! Furthermore, these would, like the Victoria bill, protect the perpetrator while forgetting the vulnerable. This graying of the waters could quickly become too murky to clean up. And with victims too young to articulate their stance on consent—or even to understand what’s happening to their bodies—this has the potential to negatively impact all of society in ways that we’ll be unable to measure. Additionally, consider this: The legal drinking age in California (and all states) is twenty-one. The minimum age for purchasing tobacco products is eighteen. In many states, minors are prohibited from purchasing products such as spray paint, glues, and other items as well. How is there any logic to creating legislation that permits a minor to have sex with an adult up to ten years older, when that same minor isn’t allowed to purchase spray paint or superglue? The consequences of intercourse are vast, including emotional and psychological repercussions, the sense of loss over virginity, risk of becoming pregnant, threat of contracting sexually transmitted diseases, painful emotional and physical aftermath of abortion or miscarriage, social and romantic fallout, and confusion regarding orientation or sexual identity. Also, even though these authors applaud those willing to carry an unexpected pregnancy to full term, there is also the particularly difficult struggle single parents often face after their physical actions yield consequences their minds aren’t prepared for.

Meanwhile, in the Classroom…

A group of parents in Madison, Wisconsin, came together in February of 2020 to file a lawsuit stating that their children’s school acted unconstitutionally via its transgender policy, which required the school to conceal from parents any sexual-reassignment actions taken by students.[7] The policy allows children to self-designate their own identity based on “male, female, a blend of both or neither,” and vows to “‘disrupt the gender binary’ with books and lessons stating that everyone has the right to choose their gender.”[8] It also permits students to make off-record changes to their names and pronouns unbeknownst to their guardians, an offense that these parents state undermines their rights to maintain an advisory role in their children’s lives and usurps familial religious values.[9] The subversive element of this particular instance is that it was instituted in a way that intentionally kept parents out of the loop. While they were to fill out paperwork reassigning names, pronouns, or genders for students, the students were given liberty to do so on an unofficial level—without the parents’ signatures. Then, teachers were instructed to comply with children’s requests when unsupervised, but to revert to the formerly used names or pronouns when parents were present—an overtly deceitful role.[10] In some cases, students even dressed in the opposite gender’s clothing or used a different locker room at school, and parents did not learn about it until after the fact.[11]

Think back to the situations mentioned earlier in a previous article regarding school-arranged abortions, vaccinations, birth control, etc. Now, imagine if schools’ overreach ever maneuvered into the realm of chemical gender transition (if they haven’t secretly done so already). The situation in Madison, in conjunction with the other scenarios we’ve mentioned, shows that it’s not out of the question. Additionally, some puberty-blocking drugs (used to stave off puberty, sometimes for medically necessary reasons such as halting premature puberty, but recently used in conjunction with gender assignment), have been found to have very serious side effects. For example, between 2012–2019, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug leuprolide acetate, also known as Lupron, manifested more than forty thousand cases of documented side effects. Amongst these, more than twenty-five thousand “were considered ‘serious,’” with that number “including 6,370 deaths.”[12] The pharmaceutical, formerly used in rare cases of premature puberty to stave off the transition until the appropriate age, has recently been prescribed to children as young as eight in conjunction with “cross-sex hormones” to help young people with gender dysphoria and transition.[13]

California endocrinologist Dr. Michael Laidlaw, however, asserts that there are long-term consequences associated with using this drug in such a way, some of which include inhibited genital development and/or loss of all sensation in the genital areas. Laidlaw adamantly points out the flaws in allowing children to utilize their “core internal sense” in choosing a gender, rather than their biology.[14] He holds that the practice compromises the long-term safety and well-being of these children; furthermore, he states: “This whole thing is an experiment on children. We are ignoring the voices of desisters and people who have come out of this and recognized their sex…the NIH [National Institutes of Health] is allowing unethical research to be conducted on adolescents.”[15]

With the alarming possibility that these drugs could be administered to children without their parents’ knowledge due to a minor being at the age of medical autonomy—and considered in conjunction with the potentially devastating, lifelong side effects—it stands to reason that parents would want to be part of the decision of whether a child should be placed on these drugs. The entire process of transition/gender reassignment is new and still largely untested. Studies and outspoken medical personnel asserting the dangers of these drugs are only now stepping forward. Unfortunately, their statements are often silenced as hate speech, despite any scientific data that supports their position.

Children want to be accepted, and throughout childhood they often “try on” several identities that they later abandon for the identities they choose permanently. Allowing them to take chemical substances that could make one of their “trial” identities permanent could have lifelong consequences. At this moment, such actions are applauded in the public sphere, meaning that a child who doesn’t fit in with peers may choose such an avenue as a means of finding belonging and affirmation. Questioning one’s gender is trending heavily right now, and it’s vital that parents are not left outside the conversation when their children have such questions.

Schools such as those in Madison, Wisconsin, aren’t the only places where sexuality is being conditioned. Pedophilia is being floated as an orientation in classes at a University in California, according to student Alex Mazzara.[16] He notes particularly that those with this orientation call themselves “self-identified pedophiles” and comments on how openly they report their troubles.[17] In his opinion, this idea is headed into the mainstream arena of orientations in the upcoming years, and these authors fear that this is a well-founded concern.[18] Others have come forward with names that euphemize the position, such as “non-offending pedophiles,” while still other groups have broken the label into age groups of attraction: “pedophile” for pre-pubescent attraction, “hebephile” for those who seek eleven- to fourteen-year olds, and “ephebophile” for those whose desires are for youths between ages fifteen and nineteen.[19]

Ultimately, what’s behind this agenda is the enemy’s desire to destroy the lives of the innocent. If he can do that—with the permission of society, cultural counterparts, guardians, and even the children themselves—then he’s even more pleased. In a land that has already allowed the blood of innocents to be shed under the label of convenience via abortion, the trusting, vulnerable children who are our nation’s next generation are now at risk of being further compromised for the fulfillment of twisted pleasures of the depraved. It is time to stand, now, and defend the defenseless.

The world we live in has been set to ensnare our children with a million traps that will destroy their lives and jeopardize their souls. They’ve been placed in schools where—for whatever reason—their education often becomes second to an ulterior agenda that costs them academic success, peace of mind, and compromised innocence, and they’re separated from parental influences and familial religious values. The world is waiting at every turn to make them doubt what God created them to be, to instill qualms about their sexuality, and to isolate them so that the nefarious movements will hold allure for their young minds. The world that surrounds our children—your children—is being groomed to passively allow pedophilia to creep in via the guise we call “orientation.” Well-meaning individuals will fight for this atrocity to occur under the heading of personal, civil rights. If we remain silent, this is the world that will come to be in a shorter span of years than most people realize.

UP NEXT: Mark of the Beast

If you would like more information on the topics covered in this article series, see the book Dark Covenant by Donna Howell and Allie Anderson, available below:

[1] Di, Kris. “Major Victory for Pedophiles as Baffling Law Is Passed That Could See Rape and Sexual Assault Victims Thrown in PRISON Just for Telling Their Stories.” I Heart Intelligence. August 26, 2020. Accessed November 20, 2020.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Henriques-Gomes, Luke. “Families of Deceased Sexual Assault Victims Would Need Court Order to Speak Out under Victoria Law.” The Guardian. October 26, 2020. Accessed November 20, 2020.

[5] Blitzer, Ronn. “California Bill to Lower Penalties for Sexual Relations with Minor Heads to Newsom’s Desk.” Fox News. September 3, 2020. Accessed November 20, 2020.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Richmond, Todd. “Parents Sue Madison Schools over Transgender Policy.” AP News. February 18, 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Erin Brewer. “Teachers Trained to Assist Children with Transitioning…And Hide It from Parents.” August 19, 2020. Accessed November 6, 2020. YouTube Video, 32:06.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Prestigiacomo, Amanda. “Transgender Puberty Blocking Drug Linked to Thousands Of Deaths, FDA Data Reveals.” Daily Wire. September 26, 2019. Accessed November 20, 2020.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Prestigiacomo, Amanda. “Doctors Are Now Giving 8-Year-Old Girls Testosterone, Claiming They’re ‘Transgender’.” Daily Wire. April 4, 2019. Accessed November 20, 2020.

[16] Morse, Brandon. “The Normalization of Pedophilia Is Underway, and a California University Is Already Trying to Push It on Students.” RedState. September 16, 2019. Accessed November 6, 2020.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] “Minor Attracted Person vs.. Pedophile vs,. Sex Offender.” Global Prevention Project. August 13, 2018. Accessed November 6, 2020.

Category: Featured, Featured Articles