The best efforts to protect children sometimes get turned around in the S.C. General Assembly. The Sexual Offender Accountability and Protection of Minors Act is a good example of good intent wrongly executed, and it means that legislators should work swiftly to rectify the act when they return to work in January.

Shauw Chin Capps, executive director of Hope Haven of the Lowcountry: Children's Advocacy and Rape Crisis Center, isn't amused by the irony of the law's name.

The law was initially designed to keep tabs on repeat sex offenders. Another provision to allow testimony of minors without appearing in the courtroom was tacked on the bill, but then it went wrong. The law is ambiguous enough so that the age of consent can be lower to 14 under a "Romeo" provision.

In a state that has far too many teenagers getting pregnant, this is the wrong message to send for a number of reasons. Lawmakers have been listening to too many defense lawyers when they think that it is OK for 14- and 15-year-olds to have sex. A wealth of medical, psychological, physical and financial information indicate that this should not happen. Why else would society move to protect these vulnerable people? As Capps said, "A 14-year-old is not that developmentally able to determine that sex is bad for them."

Legislators were so fixated on a plan to execute repeat child molesters that they lost sight of the big picture, allowing 19 and under Romeos to have sex with 14- and 15-year-olds under the mistake of age defense. Capps, who deals with a lot of the aftermath of rape and teen pregnancy, said, "I haven't heard of anyone who thinks this is OK."

Attorney General Henry McMaster has stronger legal language for the law that also could be use by some adults as a defense that they didn't know a youngster was underage. McMaster said the law is unconstitutional. The provision in the state Constitution was to protect kids and say that as a society we don't condone sex among youth. Instead of abstinence, the message legislators have sent is that anything goes.

Those who disagree with McMaster say that changes in the law were necessary to keep hormonal-charged teens from a life-sentence to the sex offender registry because they got carried away. A better way to do that would be a provision in the law that removes them from the registry.

Common sense should prevail, as should a law that prevents tacking last-minute provisions onto long-standing legislation. Let's hope lawmakers come to their senses in January.