Statutory rape

According to the NY Times,

a Kansas law [prohibits] virtually all sexual activity by people under age 16. …

Mr. Kline's [the Kansas attorney general] interpretation of the law focused mainly on the reporting duty of abortion providers, arguing that any pregnant, unmarried minor had by definition been the victim of rape or abuse. But it included a broad mandate for reporting whenever "compelling evidence of sexual interaction is present." …

Steve Alexander, an assistant attorney general … said the Kansas statute meant that those younger than 16 could not consent to sex, and that those violating the law forfeited any privacy rights. …

A federal trial opened … Monday over whether a Kansas law prohibiting virtually all sexual activity by people under age 16 means health care professionals and educators must report such behavior to state authorities, which some say would stop many teenagers from seeking contraception or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. …

[The plaintiffs are arguing] that Mr. Kline's "dragnet approach" to amassing information on under-age sex violated minors' privacy rights and the Constitution's equal protection clause, and that it "seriously endangers the health and well-being of adolescents."

"Sexual abuse is not synonymous with consensual sexual activity. … Consensual sexual activity is not inherently injurious. It is a normal part of adolescent development." …

A federal appeals court on Friday overturned a temporary injunction blocking enactment of Mr. Kline's ruling but provided a two-week window, approximately the expected length of the trial, before the reporting would be required.

Among the issues debated Monday was the very definition of sexual activity. Anal and vaginal intercourse and oral sex are mentioned in the law, as is "lewd fondling or touching" done with "the intent to arouse," which Ms. Jones said could cover even intense French kissing.

Mr. Kline, who is expected to testify Friday, declined to discuss the case. In an e-mail statement, he avoided the central controversy over consensual sex between teenagers of a similar age.

I would agree with the plaintiffs that it's a bad law, but unless they can make a case that the law is unconstituional, I don't see how they can claim that it doesn't say what it says. I'm curious to see how the trial turns out.