I am confused by the little science that was quoted in the article. For example, it reports that college students are studied that are survivors of child abuse,

I am confused by the little science that was quoted in the article. For example, it reports that college students are studied that are survivors of child abuse, and it is found that the effects they suffer as a result are small. There are two problems with that: First, these are college students so there's a giant selection effect in action: they are by definition the child abuse survivors that were functional enough to have gotten to college. Secondly, a lot of the problems with problematic childhoods don't express themselves until the children become parents; in other words, I don't care how well enough these kids did at college if they went on to abuse their own children. (Not that they all would; but the issue is more complicated than how it is presented). Overall, the whole point of the article is that experience is not destiny; some people can survive the most horrific abuse and come out of it; others are completely destroyed by the experiences. This is not news. The fact that as a society we may want to worry more about the latter than the former is not, IMHO, a problem.