A good e-mail:

It’s a childish mentality, and one of the reasons that parents are needed. Some of the things I do to protect or help my daughter are “mean” in her eyes (such as not letting her go to a party at her young age with people I don’t know, for hours when a child should be home). Sometimes boundaries aren’t fun; sometimes rules impede how you would like to do things; sometimes being a Dad, with all that such a role entails, can be “mean.” The NYT editorial board must not be populated with any moms or dads, because they would have a different mentality. And this notion that the law is not needed because “lascivious older men” would “already be subject to prosecution for statutory rape,” is asinine. Should we not have laws against armed robbery in Washington, D.C. because possession of a handgun is already a crime? If someone rapes and murders a girl, are the murder statues unnecessary, since we can convict him on the rape charge? What the hell kind of thinking is that? Not to mention the gigantic whole in their argument: Sometimes “lascivious older men” take little girls across state lines for an abortion so that there will be no evidence of the statutory rape charge in the first place! Mark Levin said on the radio last night that liberals put their liberalism before their own country; put their liberalism before their own religion; and put their liberalism before their own security. That’s what’s happened here with the NYT. Common sense would say that we need to have more protections for little girls and for their parents—not less. Common sense would say that parents should be in charge of the well being of their little girls. But they’ve put their liberalism in front of the safety of children, and in front of the basic rights of parents. That’s just sick.