First both interviewer and interviewee do their part of deflecting premises they don't want to answer. Since it's the interviewee who has to answer questions and the interviewer isn't I have more sympathy for Reed.
Having said that, Reed misses a point about halfway. She says that maybe this speaks to some kids. To which the mom remarks, that that would mean the reader has been abused. (Paraphrasing ) Although that's an iffy assumption, I would ask isn't that a good thing? Maybe it would make the kid feel less alone in his trauma, maybe God forbid will give the courage to speak up.
The point is this. These aren't children's books they're written for teens. Teens who you can't nor should protect from subjects that are uncomfortable.
As a side note. If the point is not to expose a kid to rape and incest, maybe get rid of the bible.
I happen to agree with Joy. And a question the interviewee avoids like the plague. Why is "a mom for liberty" qualified to tell other moms what they're kids can and cannot read?
By the way might not be the best teachers of morality.
Moms for Liberty faces growing challenges amid Florida sex scandal