SAN ANGELO, Texas (AP) -- More than half the teenage girls taken from a polygamist compound in west Texas have children or are pregnant, state officials said Monday.
Of those 463 children, 250 are girls and 213 are boys. Children 13 and younger are about evenly split -- 197 girls and 196 boys -- but there are only 17 boys aged 14 to 17 compared with the 53 girls in that age range.

Now this was on the news today, but the above snippet was sent to me by friend gbro on Tuesday.

And I know I heard sometime today how many of those 53 are pregnant or have babies, meaning they became pregnant while they were still below the age of consent. But I can't remember. So I looked it up in Go San Angelo. Relying on my faulty memory I was gonna say more than half, and then I looked it up and I'll be darned...31 out of 53...let's see, that's 4.5 girls more than half. Anyway you slice it, that considerably more than half. I only took an undergrad course in statistics, but I could have all kinds of fun with those numbers, if I was of a mind to. But I'd rather just let those numbers speak for themselves. They are gravid with meaning, for the perceptive.

Let's look at another set of numbers: the number of boys in the age group 14 to 17 is 17. Compared to 53 girls in that same age group. If you bother to read the article I linked above...you'll see the genders are equally represented in the age groupings up until they reach puberty. HMM? What happens to all those boys? Where are they? Have they been sent away to some super secret FLDS boys ranch? If so, where is it? And why? I know MY son still needed my guidance from from 14 to 17, and as a Mother I certainly would have GRAVE misgivings about being separated from him for an extended period of time.

Yet the Mothers out at Eldorado either didn't or couldn't protest the exile of their sons. If the Leader said "GO" they had to send their son or risk eternal damnation. Not much of a choice.

For commenters from the previous Eldorado FLDS blog who think the search warrants are negated because they are based on what may have been a phony call from Colorado rather than a girl named Sarah living at the YFZ Ranch: Perhaps I did not make myself clear OR maybe we interpreted the wording of the affidavits differently; OR maybe you gave more weight to that article from the one ADA doubting the validity of the warrant OR whatever BUT let me explain a few points of TEXAS LAW as it pertains to Child Abuse:
The call was made to a Women's Shelter, who then called Child Protective Services as they are required to do by Law...when any public or private agency or an employee thereof receives a report of child abuse or suspects child abuse is occurring to a child with whom they have contact; they are REQUIRED to report this possible abuse to CPS under criminal and civil penalty.
Since the presence of armed guards [and there were NO weapons seized, Anon from 4/27 @ 7:01 pm, b/c they weren't ILLEGAL weapons and TX Law enforcement doesn't grab guns willy nilly. Also, is "heresay" a hybrid of heresy and hearsay? Just wondering if that's a new word I should add to my lexicon] was known it was prudent for the CPS investigator to ask for a Law Enforcement escort when she made her initial visit to the ranch to follow up on the report.

Now this next is purely supposition on my part, but being familiar with CPS and Law Enforcement and having known some West Texas LEOs...here is my best estimate of what occurred:
The call comes into CPS and the Supervisor assigns it to the Supervisory Investigator, the person with the most experience. She goes over to the Schleicher Co. Sheriff's Office and talks either to the Sheriff or his Chief Deputy or whoever is in charge of the Criminal Investigative Division [if the SCSO is that big, I don't know, honestly]
These folks have been out at this Ranch for a while and there have been rumors flyin' all around the County, so the Sheriff or his Chief Dep or whoever ultimately though it IS the Sheriff's decision to call on the local Texas Ranger assigned to that area. The Ranger Service is an enormous resource for small, mostly rural counties in Texas. They have access to the most advanced, most modern investigative techniques and modalities. They will not come in and take over an investigation and take all the credit, like some Federal agencies. The Rangers are there to assist local Law Enforcement. When a case presents itself that will require a lot of time and investigative resources or is beyond the capabilities and/or training of the local authorities, the Rangers are the "go to" guys and in this case gal.

So off they go, out to the ranch for some initial interviews. What they both saw while there was enough to convince them, in combination with the information from the phone call, that there were children AT RISK for ABUSE living at the Ranch and they needed to be removed.

What I KNOW from personal experience, and most of these idjits who are screaming about chirrens bein' separated from their "Lovin' Mamas" don't seem to get is that Kids Who Are Bein' Abused Talk More Freely and Honestly Once They KNOW They Are Safe From Further Abuse! These Mothers did NOT protect their Daughters from abuse, they handed them over to their abusers. They are complicit in the abuse. Plus with all the takin of wives from one man and giving them to another...some of these kids don't KNOW who their real Daddies are and some are even confused about their ages and Mamas.

And One more thing...I have seen comments here and other places about the "Military" presence and about officers from other counties and other agencies assisting in the raid...
The APC was there for protection. It turned out to also be a GREAT entertainment for some of the boys living at the Ranch, and who knows?, maybe that was the REAL plan all along. But, as I said before, in a way, better to have it and NOT need it than to need it and NOT have it. Cause if it's MY husband or son on that raid, I'm dahm sure gonna be asking that question about a week after his funeral! The person who wanted to know "Why is a Midland Co. APC being used in a Schleicher Co, raid?" obviously hasn't spent much time in West TX or doesn't know dic# about the realities of funding a rural county sheriff's office. They used a Midland Co. piece f equipment b/c Midland Co can afford an APC, a used APC but an APC all the same. Midland Co has OIL Revenues, dummy! It's MIDLAND!
Plus, those Counties out there have a tendency to share resources and personnel whenever there's a big task at hand. That way, when YOUR county has a need, the County you pitched in and helped will come help you. Because nobody truly has enough of a tax base to hire deputies to adequately cover their land mass. The population density just isn't there. And that is a good thing if you don't mind bein' self reliant and joinin' a VFD.

I think I've touched on all the niggly little points that have been irkin' me. That is all, for now.