I can't open the first link right now.
The second link:
"
If circumstances give jurisdiction to the federal government, then a federal age of consent of 18 usually applies instead. This brief report describes circumstances where that is the case, which have increased with recent changes in the law."
"Major US federal laws governing sexual activity were passed in the
PROTECT Act of 2003 and the
Adam Walsh Act of 2006. An "age analysis" performed on these two laws was used to see what they say about persons below any particular age. This analysis looked for situations where these laws make some kind of sexual activity with a person below a certain age illegal, independent of or overriding any state laws under which it would be legal.
Such situations are identified as establishing a federal age of sexual consent."
"The analysis
identified three such situations. In all three cases, the federal age of consent established is 18.
Cross-border travel for sex. The
PROTECT Act, §105(a)(b), establishes an age of consent of 18 for travel into or out of the country or between states for the purpose of a sexual encounter. If a person lives in a state where the age of sexual consent is, for example, 16 and is dating a 16- or 17-year-old in another state where the age of consent is also 16, that would violate this federal law, even though any particular activity the two people may engage in would be legal in both their states.
This law also makes it illegal for a foreign married couple in which one or both spouses is under 18 to honeymoon in the United States! The law does not apply to a foreign visitor who leaves the United States in order to have a sexual encounter with a juvenile elsewhere.
Sex outside the country. The
PROTECT Act, §105(a)(c), modified the
law against "sex tourism" and establishes an age of consent of 18 for Americans engaging in any sexual encounter outside the USA. Thus, even in places where it is legal and socially acceptable for an adult to date an adolescent, an American doing so is subject to prosecution for it by the US government. There is no exception for marriage, so an American of any age marrying anyone under 18 in another country, even with the blessings of the parents and with a legitimate marriage license from the local jurisdiction, is breaking this law.
Pornography. The
PROTECT Act, § 503, makes it a federal crime to make (or possess or post online, etc.) sexy photos or videos that include a person under 18, even if under the relevant state law any activity depicted is legal and even if the photos or videos are made (or possessed or posted, etc.) by the juvenile(s) depicted in them. This essentially establishes a federal age of consent of 18 with respect to being photographed in a sexual context. Where the state age of consent is lower, this creates the irony that photographing a legal act can now be illegal.
This law creates federal jurisdiction for virtually any occurrence of child pornography in the US by covering anything that was made using materials that crossed a state or national border. The crimes defined require the making of an image; they do not apply to sex acts that are not recorded. "
I don't see that any of these things apply to this case. It seems that based on your source that usually it gets into federal jurisdiction in these three types of cases.
I don't think random 16 going on 17 year old who is pregnant in a state where the age of consent is 16 is going to reach a federal level. Unless her boyfriend has nude photos of her...no one is going after him for knocking up a 16 year old. Not even the military especially if he wasn't in the military when she got pregnant. I still see nothing that shows he committed any kind of rape, statutory or forced, nor did anything illegal happen here.
I wouldn't recommend any teenager gets married especially at 16 or 17 but it's not my life. Not my kid. Her family doesn't want her. She's probably better off marrying him quite honestly.
