Genital mutilation ban ruled unconstitutional

[MechAg94]

https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/2066855002?__twitter_impression=true

Detroit — A federal judge Tuesday dismissed female genital mutilation charges against several doctors in the first criminal case of its kind nationwide, ruling the law is unconstitutional.

Friedman removed four defendants from the case — including three mothers accused of subjecting their daughters to female genital mutilation — while concluding Congress had no authority to enact a law criminalizing female genital mutilation, known as FGM.

“There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM,” Friedman wrote in a 28-page opinion. (Female genital mutilation) is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.”

I am not quite sure what to say about this. 

[Ron]

Chopping on little boys and girls genitalia is legal in the USA as long as it’s done by a doctor.

That’s what you say.

[Sindawe]

Genital mutilation of children of either gender should be VERBOTEN.  I don't give a flying frell about someone's culture, religion or personal aesthetics.  What ADULTS do with their own bodies however is of no concern to me.

[MillCreek]

The Seattle area for the past several years has had an increasing population from Somalia and surrounding areas. On rare occasions, my healthcare providers have been approached to do the FGM procedure, which has religious and cultural significance for much of this population. We have consistently declined to do this since it conflicts with our own ethical precepts on the procedure.  In some cases, children have been presented to us for post-procedure care, when the procedure was usually done by a non-medical person in the Somali culture.  We are obligated to report these to our state Child Protective Services insofar they consider this abuse.  I don't know what happens to those cases after we report.  I send off the medical records upon request, but we have never been asked for a followup conference, deposition or testimony.  

I think the largest Somali population is in Minneapolis, and I wonder how the medical community there deals with it.

[lupinus]

Genital mutilation of children of either gender should be VERBOTEN.  I don't give a flying frell about someone's culture, religion or personal aesthetics.  What ADULTS do with their own bodies however is of no concern to me.

I agree. However, I can also agree that the feds shouldn't have squat to do on the topic. I'm sure there's something on state law that can be applied.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[Ron]

With the widespread acceptance of the genital mutilation of little boys how can someone make a case against the practice performed upon little girls?

I’m with Sindawe. Both practices need to be outlawed in the USA.

What the Muslims and Jews do in their own countries is their own business.

[French G.]

I have to agree that it is just another misuse of the commerce clause. But it should be illegal.

[zahc]

All mutilation should be illegal, but I don't know if the feds are the right people to ban it, and it seems like the commerce clause is a stretch. It's too bad there needs to be a law at all since in a perfect world medical ethics should be enough.

[Triphammer]

It looks like the court found the Commerce Clause being stretched too thin to cover this but left the obstruction & conspiracy charges. I think they're right as far as the Feds are concerned.

[Ron]

Generally I’m ok with devolving power down to the state level.

I’m no lawyer so I’ll suspend my judgement until I know more.

[Perd Hapley]

If male circumcison (of minors) is to be considered mutilation, and banned, then girls can't have their ears pierced, right? How about abortions? How much orthodontics can be practiced on minor children?

[zahc]

If male circumcison (of minors) is to be considered mutilation, and banned, then girls can't have their ears pierced, right? How about abortions? How much orthodontics can be practiced on minor children?

I guess the courts can determine if ear piercing and braces are equivalent to genital mutilation, if common sense cannot. I wouldn't be surprised to see court cases in my lifetime. Personally, I am more interested in hormone treatment and/or gender reassignment of minors being reviewed for legality. Unfortunately in all of these cased the true victims are not able to sue anyone until decades later after they have probably moved on or coped.

[freakazoid]

With the widespread acceptance of the genital mutilation of little boys how can someone make a case against the practice performed upon little girls?

I’m with Sindawe. Both practices need to be outlawed in the USA.

What the Muslims and Jews do in their own countries is their own business.

There is a vast difference between female genital mutilation and male circumcision.

[DustinD]

http://theminnesotasun.com/2018/09/14/minnesota-lawmakers-concede-to-charges-of-islamophobia-xenophobia-and-racism-and-fail-to-pass-fgm-legislation/

Many political groups in MN are divided on the issue, which really pisses me off. Many DFLers don't want FGM banned at the state level.

Hennepin County Medical Center has training regarding patients having undergone FGM. http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/refugee/vffgc16.pdf

[zahc]

There is a vast difference between female genital mutilation and male circumcision.

Can you explain the vast difference? Obviously there is the gender difference, and different traditions vary on just how much genital tissue needs to be removed, but both phenomena have a lot in common, with practitioners of both using essentially similar justifications and arguments. Both have been around for millennia. Perpetuators of both insist it's harmless and they are helping the victims. The victims of both very often go along with it, insist they are happy it was done to them and say there is no loss of function even if it was done them as children so they couldn't possibly know, and often try to impose it on the next generation themselves.

The correct amount of healthy genital tissue that should be removed from nonconsenting children is of course "zero" and anyone arguing otherwise is just trying to justify why their version is ok.

Back to the court case, I hope this or a similar FGM case eventually achieves the correct ruling, affirming that all forms of FGM are assault or child abuse, which if/when it does happen will have positive impact on stopping male genital mutilation.

relevant blog post:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2017/08/does-female-genital-mutilation-have-health-benefits-the-problem-with-medicalizing-morality/

[RoadKingLarry]

Bear in mind that I tend to agree with the no genital tissue removal of non-consenting children (or adults). However, and I may be misinformed on the female side of the issue, but there is a huge difference between removing some/all of the foreskin from a penis and removing the entire clitoris.

[MillCreek]

Two thumbs up, Dustin, for the Powerpoint on FGM.  I learned a lot.

[zahc]

Bear in mind that I tend to agree with the no genital tissue removal of non-consenting children (or adults). However, and I may be misinformed on the female side of the issue, but there is a huge difference between removing some/all of the foreskin from a penis and removing the entire clitoris.

Do read the blog post I posted above. Neither the "severity argument", the "health benefits" argument, nor any other argument is going to hold up in court. The FGM'ers have all the same arguments the MGM'ers have, they have the apologetic research all  lined up, and they are going to be able to point straight at "routine neonatal circumcision" to justify their practices, and given the equal protection clause, they are going to win. It's rather interesting in a horrific way. Welcome to America, where equality means they get to mutilate their girls if you are allowed to mutilate your boys. Maybe the legal permissiveness will stimulate medical tourism...

[freakazoid]

Can you explain the vast difference?

Well for starters nothing get's sewn shut or anything at all like this being done...
To quote from Wiki,

The vulva is closed with surgical thread, or agave or acacia thorns, and might be covered with a poultice of raw egg, herbs and sugar. To help the tissue bond, the girl's legs are tied together, often from hip to ankle; the bindings are usually loosened after a week and removed after two to six weeks.

[zahc]

Well for starters nothing get's sewn shut or anything at all like this being done...
To quote from Wiki,

Strawman; the FGM in the court case under discussion is nothing like that. Now, I appreciate you are trying to discredit all FGM, because it all is abhorrent, but what is going through court is a much more common and much "milder" form of FGM (the good kind, right? /s), which its proponents point out is less severe then routine neonatal circumcision. They are technically correct, so the courts will either need to publish charts and graphs explaining which types of FGM are permitted, or they will have to affirm a ban on FGM absolutely, which is the outcome we should all hope for. However, MGM will never be able to stand under a ruling that make all FGM illegal, because MGM is just as severe or more so, and the FGM'ers have just as compelling harmless/cultural/religious/sanitary arguments as the MGM'ers. A ban on all forms of infant or child mutilation would be the best outcome of course, because all genital mutilators should be told to take their religious and cultural beliefs and stuff them, or in other words, put the &$(+ knife away and back away from the baby you +&$# savages.

[Ron]

We have to stand for what is right and not let religious minorities use our legal system to normalize practices that otherwise would seem abhorrent.

The arguments in favor of both are rationalizations of decisions that have already been made by the arguers.

In the first world where we have running water and understand health, cleanliness and sanitation there is no justification for either practice.

Step outside your frame of reference and look at both practices dispassionately. It’s actually kind of crazy.

Us Christians have remained silent on circumcision to a large extent because being opposed to it somehow might seem to indict God. That’s a poor excuse as even the Bible dispensed with the practice over 2000 years ago.

It’s a Jewish religious practice that served its purposes of health and separation from other people’s in premodern times.

This will be my last post in this thread, I’m done beating on the subject.

[230RN]

https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/2066855002?__twitter_impression=true

I am not quite sure what to say about this.  

Ditto.  On the one hand, what business is it of the government?  On the other hand, it could be considered the legitimate business of the government if there's a legitimate health concern.

But humanklnd survived umpteen thousands/millions of years before the concept was developed.

All I know is it was a requirement of the Health Department in New York City in 1939.

Up yours.  I want my foreskin back.  

Terry

[Ron]

Ditto.  On the one hand, what business is it of the government?  On the other hand, it could be considered the legitimate business of the government if there's a legitimate health concern.

But humanklnd survived umpteen thousands/millions of years before the concept was developed.

All I know is it was a requirement of the Health Department in New York City in 1939.

Up yours.  I want my foreskin back.  

Terry

For most American men it’s a moot point, they don’t have skin in the game.

[230RN]

^ Owie.  Roffle.

[freakazoid]

We have to stand for what is right and not let religious minorities use our legal system to normalize practices that otherwise would seem abhorrent.

The arguments in favor of both are rationalizations of decisions that have already been made by the arguers.

In the first world where we have running water and understand health, cleanliness and sanitation there is no justification for either practice.

Step outside your frame of reference and look at both practices dispassionately. It’s actually kind of crazy.

Us Christians have remained silent on circumcision to a large extent because being opposed to it somehow might seem to indict God. That’s a poor excuse as even the Bible dispensed with the practice over 2000 years ago.

It’s a Jewish religious practice that served its purposes of health and separation from other people’s in premodern times.

This will be my last post in this thread, I’m done beating on the subject.