When the topic request is met, but editorially rejected

[choop26]

I took on my first article assignment on a controversial and troubling topic. However, since my 20 plus years as a Masters level social worker has involved this topic first-hand, I felt I would give it a try. I also have a degree in Sociology, and discussing flaws within human systems is one of the most important tasks of the sociologist. The article was rejected, and the editorial/literary reasons I understand and can correct. What's going to make revision difficult is the topic itself. The call for the article reads:
"...is looking for a strong article about how underage boys are being charged with sex crimes by overzealous prosecutors."
One of the reasons for rejection is:
"Authors should avoid editorializing a topic or focusing blame. When a customer asks for an article on a topic that may be controversial or sensitive, the author should concentrate on offering information with plenty of supporting ideas, leaving out their own opinions and avoiding "loaded" language and hostility. Please keep your tone neutral and stay away from blaming attorneys or other groups or individuals."
I write as an expert, and offering an opinion is my only choice (the problem is real, and the causes are generally, yet debatedly, known). I refer to attorneys at the very end of the piece:
"Prosecutors, faced with this national crisis, had to at least appear they were doing something about it. A district attorney's job is to prove guilt, not help kids. And many are very good at their jobs. Astonishing effort on their part has proven quite effective in rounding up these “criminals.” So those boys we can't medicate, we imprison and burnish for life. I can't think of a better way to destroy a boy."
The conundrum here is the article request itself is about "blaming attorneys" (a prosecutor's profession). It's impossible to rationally discuss the topic without violating the editorial admonition. Isn't the real issue here the article's request itself?