US Law banning female genital mutilation struck down as 'Unconstitutional'.

Zorya

The law banning Female Genital Mutilation in the US has been declared unconstitutional by a US Federal Judge in Detroit.

Charges were thus dropped against two doctors who had performed FGM on several young girls. One doctor is estimated to have performed at least 100 FGM operations. FGM is the partial or total removal of the clitoris.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman said Tuesday that Congress lacks the authority to outlaw the procedure, and insisted only states can make such a decision, the Detroit Free Press reports.

“As despicable as [FGM] may be,” Friedman said, Congress “overstepped its bounds” by banning the practice.

http://time.com/5460982/michigan-judge-female-genital-mutilation-ban-unconstitutional/

Presumably those states (23 in number) who have not already got laws banning FGM will hurry up now and do so, as the Federal Law from Congress does not hold sway. Because it was enacted under the wrong clause, apparently.
https://www.theahafoundation.org/female-genital-mutilation/fgm-legislation-by-state/#popup


Weirdly, the lawyer for the accused said - "We are very excited about today's ruling, although the victory is bittersweet given we fully anticipated our client to be vindicated at trial on those charges," (Molly Blythe, a lawyer for Dr Nagarwala) - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-21/female-genital-mutilation-law-voided-by-us-judge/10519048

Further -
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/nov/20/us-female-genital-mutilation-detroit-michigan-unconstitutional



Obviously, this is disgusting. Hopefully states will fill the jurisdictional gap pronto.
Note - estimates are made that hundreds of girls are taken annually from Ireland and genitally mutilated, before returning here. At least 6000 girls and woemn here have had FGM. The Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland says that FGM should be legally permitted here.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/female-circumcision-should-be-allowed-by-law-member-of-irelands-islamic-cultural-centre-36585441.html

There are four major types of FGM:
Clitoridectomy: Involves the removal of the
clitoris and or clitoral hood, an otherwise normally
functioning body part that is sliced off and thrown
away.
Intermediate infibulation: As much of the
clitoris as possible is removed and the labia minora
cut, often times the labia majora as well to narrow
the vaginal opening.
Vaginal fusing or total infibulation: Total
infibulation includes the clitoris and the inner labia
being removed and the outer labia cut or scraped, then sewn together. Vaginal fusing is the most severe form
of FGM which includes all aspects of total infibulation, as well as the inner walls of the vagina scratched to
cause bleeding and sewing again. The girl’s feet are then tied together in an effort to fuse the two sides of the
vagina with scar tissue to close it up.
The ‘nick’: Involves pushing a girl’s legs apart and using a needle to prick her clitoris, typically to draw blood.
This can sometimes include cutting, scraping or cauterizing the girls genitals.

https://www.theahafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/AHA-Foundation-FGM-Report.pdf

Neyite

Probably because if they ban FGM then they would also have to ban it's counterpart - circumcision.



And that would be quite unpopular with Americans who routinely mutilate circumcise their male infants for spurious reasons.

TheValeyard

It's a disgusting and barbaric practice.

CinemaGuy45

People that practice this disgust me but at the same time I don't really care once they are only doing it to their own children.

We as a culture can not police the world.

Glad to say I have all my bits.:D

Edit the capital of the United States should be Disneyworld and not Washington DC.

MadYaker

It’s the states job to legislate for this.

Zorya

Neyite wrote: »

Probably because if they ban FGM then they would also have to ban it's counterpart - circumcision.



And that would be quite unpopular with Americans who routinely mutilate circumcise their male infants for spurious reasons.

It's to do with jurisdiction - as the Federal Judge saw it in this case. Although he probably could have read the law differently if he tried.

But certainly states who will now have to actively ban it - and hopefully they will! - should also look at banning male circumcision while they are at it.

The problem is there is some sensitivity about fgm laws, culturally. Example - there has not been a prosecution for FGM in the UK even though the law has been in place for over 30 years and thousands upon thousands have had FGM.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/07/reported-cases-fgm-rise-sharply-uk-no-court-convictions

Amirani

States need to get moving on this. And this is the sort of thing that should be a focus for various campaign groups in the US that seem to spend all their time fixated on ridiculous issues and campaigns.

This is a massive issue of bodily autonomy and individual liberty, particularly for women, and far more important than complaining that certain Hollywood stars get paid more than others. Yet the latter seems to get far more attention than the former.

jimgoose

Neyite wrote: »

Probably because if they ban FGM then they would also have to ban it's counterpart - circumcision.



And that would be quite unpopular with Americans who routinely mutilate circumcise their male infants for spurious reasons.

Are you referring to the brit milah?

Neyite

jimgoose wrote: »

Are you referring to the brit milah?

No I wasn't. There's a massive amount of Americans who don't belong to a religion practising circumcision but do it for reasons such as "well his dad has it done so we will do it to him" or "we think it's cleaner" or "eww, foreskin"

but yes, I personally think those practices in the name of a religion are ridiculous and should be optional for a person to choose to do it to themselves upon reaching adulthood. Not for a parent to decide.

jimgoose

Neyite wrote: »

No I wasn't. There's a massive amount of Americans who don't belong to a religion practising circumcision but do it for reasons such as "well his dad has it done so we will do it to him" or "we think it's cleaner" or "eww, foreskin"

but yes, I personally think those practices in the name of a religion are ridiculous and should be optional for a person to choose to do it to themselves upon reaching adulthood. Not for a parent to decide.

I can't disagree with you, chief.

Zorya

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

People that practice this disgust me but at the same time I don't really care once they are only doing it to their own children.

.

So if people were eating children you wouldn't care as long as it was their own children?

Point is really we are democracies that uphold human rights and a certain cultural atmosphere of which we have somehow become disdainful. And of late there is creeping equivalence being made between 'cultural practices' due to sensitivity or some such BS, which is wrong. Just plain wrong. There can be no creep.

CinemaGuy45

Zorya wrote: »

So if people were eating their children you wouldn't care as long as it was their own children?

Point is really we are democracies that uphold human rights and a certain cultural atmosphere of which we have somehow become disdainful. And of late there is creeping equivalence being made between 'cultural practices' due to sensitivity or some such BS, which is wrong. Just plain wrong. There can be no creep.

Don't misunderstand me I agree with you I just said I don't really care as there is only some much a society can achieve.

Trust me I practice no sensitivity to any culture but if they don't give a crap about their children why should I?


I mean that in the context of massive homelessness violent crime poverty and so on.

Sure we have an ethnic minority here that won't even send their children to school.

I am not making excuses I really just mean with the number of overwhelming problems I just don't have the energy to care.

fleet_admiral

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

It's a disgusting and barbaric practice.

As is MGM

Skylinehead

fleet_admiral wrote: »

As is MGM

Ah they make a good oul' film.

CinemaGuy45

Nixonbot wrote: »

Ah they make a good oul' film.

Sure that Lion has all its bits.

Bordglas

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Sure that Lion has all its bits.

That lion was Irish and was forced to immigrate to find work.

biko

Zorya wrote: »

The Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland says that FGM should be legally permitted here.

The Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland want girls and women mutilated in the name of religion?
The Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland can go **** themselves.
The rights of people not have to have bodyparts cut off overrules any barbaric religions.

suicide_circus

hard to justify the ban when the American medical establishment have been mutilating baby boys en masse for a hundred years

Cordell

Is there a need for a law specifically against <any gender>GM? Surely cutting body parts with no medical reason is already covered by the existing laws, right?

Zorya

suicide_circus wrote: »

hard to justify the ban when the American medical establishment have been mutilating baby boys en masse for a hundred years

okay, now for sure, I am against circumcision, a bad old practice that came out of a long ago desert that has no justification, except in the rarest of cases. It should be stopped, absolutely,
But honestly I cannot make an exact equivalence between circumcision and FGM. The latter is savage and removes the ability of the victim to feel sexual pleasure. Some of the more extreme forms are beyond belief in terms of the amount of tissue they remove and may also involve surgically tightening the vagina so that intercourse will be forever excruciating. It is just not the same, the two practices.

suicide_circus

Cordell wrote: »

Is there a need for a law specifically against <any gender>GM? Surely cutting body parts with no medical reason is already covered by the existing laws, right?

nope, you can hack away at the end of a baby boy's winky for religious, cultural or aesthetic reasons.

Neyite

suicide_circus wrote: »

hard to justify the ban when the American medical establishment have been mutilating baby boys en masse for a hundred years

Strange how benign genital mutilation is purported to be when western white Christians & Jews do it to infant boys because of their culture.

suicide_circus

Zorya wrote: »

okay, now for sure, I am against circumcision, a bad old practice that came out of a long ago desert that has no justification, except in the rarest of cases. It should be stopped, absolutely,
But honestly I cannot make an exact equivalence between circumcision and FGM. The latter is savage and removes the ability of the victim to feel sexual pleasure. Some of the more extreme forms are beyond belief in terms of the amount of tissue they remove and may also involve surgically tightening the vagina so that intercourse will be forever excruciating. It is just not the same, the two practices.

Oh it's a million times worse for a girl but if you allow medically unnecessary removal of parts of a male child then that is the thin end of the wedge.

Neyite

Zorya wrote: »

okay, now for sure, I am against circumcision, a bad old practice that came out of a long ago desert that has no justification, except in the rarest of cases. It should be stopped, absolutely,
But honestly I cannot make an exact equivalence between circumcision and FGM. The latter is savage and removes the ability of the victim to feel sexual pleasure. Some of the more extreme forms are beyond belief in terms of the amount of tissue they remove and may also involve surgically tightening the vagina so that intercourse will be forever excruciating. It is just not the same, the two practices.

I think both are savage practices but I do agree that for victims of FGM the effects are horrific and lifelong especially the more extreme forms. The female equivalent to a circumcision might be having a small part (not all) of the labia removed. FGM goes way beyond that. But I think if we are campaigning for one, we might as well campaign for the other.

Grayson

Amirani wrote: »

States need to get moving on this. And this is the sort of thing that should be a focus for various campaign groups in the US that seem to spend all their time fixated on ridiculous issues and campaigns.

This is a massive issue of bodily autonomy and individual liberty, particularly for women, and far more important than complaining that certain Hollywood stars get paid more than others. Yet the latter seems to get far more attention than the former.

Child marriage is still legal in some states . They're in no rush to get rid of it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/200000-children-married-us-15-years-child-marriage-child-brides-new-jersey-chris-christie-a7830266.html

Eight-seven per cent of the minors who married across the country between 2000 and 2015 were girls, with the majority either 16 or 17.

The youngest wedded were three 10-year-old girls in Tennessee who married men aged 24, 25 and 31 in 2001. The youngest groom was an 11-year-old who married a 27-year-old woman in the same state in 2006.

Children as young as 12 were granted marriage licences in Alaska, Louisiana and South Carolina, while 11 other states allowed 13-year-olds to wed.

More than 1,000 children aged 14 or under were granted marriage licences.

Most states set the age of sexual consent between 16 and 18 and a person can be charged with statutory rape for having sex with a minor. Yet many children were granted marriage licences, approved by judges, before they could legally consent to sex.

Only 14 per cent of the children who wedded were married to other minors. Most married a partner aged 18 to 29, with 60 per cent aged between 18 or 20.

But in rare cases children were permitted to wed someone decades older.

A 14-year-old girl married a 74-year-old man in Alabama, while a 17-year-old wed a 65-year-old groom in Idaho.

Some of they states are quite backwards.

btw, you said this doesn't get attention. It did get attention. Congress made it illegal. It just turns out they weren't allowed to. But to say that it gets no attention is wrong. Congress made it illegal and allowed child marriage to be legal.

vonlars

Excuse my ignorance, but what is their justification for doing it? Same for circumcision, is there any actual justification (when not medically necessary) other than it being part of a belief?

tabby aspreme

Some adult Men opt to be circumcised for a variety of non medical reasons, do many adult Women have their clitoris removed for non medical reasons.

suicide_circus

vonlars wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but what is their justification for doing it? Same for circumcision, is there any actual justification (when not medically necessary) other than it being part of a belief?

bronze age mumbo jumbo

Grayson

btw, as a side note, FGM is declining massively in some places

http://time.com/5447132/africa-female-genital-mutilation-decline-fgm/

The rate of girls under the age of 14 who undergo female genital mutilation (FGM) in Africa has seen a “huge and significant decline” over nearly three decades, according to a new analysis.

The study, published Wednesday in the global health journal BMJ, drew on data from two prior surveys that covered nearly 210,000 children in 29 countries between 1990 and 2017, Agence France-Presse reports.

An estimated 200 million women and girls around the world are estimated to have suffered the traditional mutilation, which experts and rights advocates say has devastating consequences on women’s physical and psychological health, including complications during childbirth. Some countries have made efforts to ban FGM outright.

The BMJ study found the steepest decline in East Africa, where FGM rates fell from 71.4% in 1995 to just 8% in 2016. (FGM has historically been widely prevalent in East Africa: a 2016 UNICEF report found that 98% of women and girls in Somalia experienced genital cutting.)

Other African regions exhibiting declining rates were North Africa, where the percentage of girls who underwent FGM decreased from 57.7% to 14.1% between 1990 and 2015, and West Africa, where the rate fell from 73.6% in 1996 to 25.4% in 2017.

But the study also found that in two Middle Eastern countries, Yemen and Iraq, the rate of girls undergoing FGM actually increased.

Researchers also expressed concerns that growing stigma around FGM may discourage families from reporting it in areas where it is still practiced.

“Preventing FGM should be a major public health priority in countries and regions still showing a high prevalence among children,” Ngianga-Bakwin Kandalathe, the study’s lead author, told AFP.

While the study’s authors acknowledged that outlawing FGM may help contribute to its decline, they also advocated for “culturally sensitive” efforts to deter it in regions where the procedure still retains strong cultural and traditional associations.

Neyite

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Some adult Men opt to be circumcised for a variety of non medical reasons, do many adult Women have their clitoris removed for non medical reasons.

Adults are free to do all sorts of things to their bodies. For whatever reason they choose.



Children who are circumcised get no say in what was done to them. And that's wrong.

Zorya

Grayson wrote: »

btw, as a side note, FGM is declining massively in some places

http://time.com/5447132/africa-female-genital-mutilation-decline-fgm/

Ironically :rolleyes: FGM rates are increasing in the multicultural west, because we are tolerant, you see.

Grayson

vonlars wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance, but what is their justification for doing it? Same for circumcision, is there any actual justification (when not medically necessary) other than it being part of a belief?

It's just part of a belief. Strange thing is that it's cultural rather than tied to a religious belief. In the areas where it's practised it's performed by christians, muslims and animists.

There's different types and they're performed for different reasons although one of the most prominent is "hygiene". So it's kind of like male circumcision in the US in that way. there's no religious reason for doing either, it's just because it's something parents had done to them and they think it's hygienic.

BTW, according to the wiki page in north/east africa it dates back to the Egyptians. So it's been around a long time.

bodice ripper

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Some adult Men opt to be circumcised for a variety of non medical reasons, do many adult Women have their clitoris removed for non medical reasons.

No, but the WHO classifies female genital peircing as FGM, with no distinction made as to consent or age of the recipient.

topper75

Religion: 1 measure hilarious to 1 measure downright dangerous.
Shake and serve.

ohnonotgmail

topper75 wrote: »

Religion: 1 measure hilarious to 1 measure downright dangerous.
Shake and serve.

It is a cultural practice not a religious one.

Wibbs

tabby aspreme wrote: »

Some adult Men opt to be circumcised for a variety of non medical reasons, do many adult Women have their clitoris removed for non medical reasons.

And some yahoos shove metal bolts through their knob, but they're adults and if an adult wants to do something utterly daft that doesn't affect anyone else, work away.

Wibbs

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is a cultural practice not a religious one.

Religion is a cultural practice. It's not present in Christianity(and the Roman Greek world snipped out the Jewish practice on boys part, because it was considered barbaric), but in Islam both practices are mentioned specifically. Mandatory for boys/men, a choice for girls/women, but considered good, but not to take away too much.

Zorya

Wibbs wrote: »

And some yahoos shove metal bolts through their knob, but they're adults and if an adult wants to do something utterly daft that doesn't affect anyone else, work away.

*Whole Body Cringe*

ohnonotgmail

Wibbs wrote: »

Religion is a cultural practice. It's not present in Christianity(and the Roman Greek world snipped out the Jewish practice on boys part, because it was considered barbaric), but in Islam both practices are mentioned specifically. Mandatory for boys/men, a choice for girls/women, but considered good, but not to take away too much.

and it is not present in all muslim societies. And it is not only done by muslims.

Zorya

Wibbs wrote: »

Religion is a cultural practice. It's not present in Christianity(and the Roman Greek world snipped out the Jewish practice on boys part, because it was considered barbaric), but in Islam both practices are mentioned specifically. Mandatory for boys/men, a choice for girls/women, but considered good, but not to take away too much.

I read that it is practised among Christians in parts of Africa. Could be wrong though.

Captain Obvious

It's unlikely this will be appealed successfully to a Republican Supreme Court. All that can be hoped is that all states that haven't already legislate for future cases.

JupiterKid

A despicable, disgusting, cruel and barbaric act of mutilation to inflict on young girls. All part of a means to control them and deny then pleasure from sex.

All US states must move to outlaw this heinous practice.

tabby aspreme

bodice ripper wrote: »

No, but the WHO classifies female genital peircing as FGM, with no distinction made as to consent or age of the recipient.

That's a crazy situation, when one is done without consent to cause discomfort and the other with consent to increase pleasure, allegedly.

Grayson

Wibbs wrote: »

Religion is a cultural practice. It's not present in Christianity(and the Roman Greek world snipped out the Jewish practice on boys part, because it was considered barbaric), but in Islam both practices are mentioned specifically. Mandatory for boys/men, a choice for girls/women, but considered good, but not to take away too much.

There were two reasons it was gotten rid of in christianity.

1) It differentiated Christians from Jews. Most, in fact nearly all, of the early Christians were jews. And they were for quite a while after Jesus' death. All the christians you heard about in greece etc were jewish settlements. Christianity was just a jewish sect in the early days. After a while christians wanted to leave judaism behind so hey got rid of some of the practices. For quite a while there

2) it stopped them getting new converts. It's all well and good to try and get someone to join a religion, but when you tell them they have to cut of a bit of their cock, they might be less likely to convert. So they came up with a compromise, gentile converts didn't need to circumcise.

BeerWolf

Disgusting.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

I think both are savage practices but I do agree that for victims of FGM the effects are horrific and lifelong especially the more extreme forms. The female equivalent to a circumcision might be having a small part (not all) of the labia removed. FGM goes way beyond that. But I think if we are campaigning for one, we might as well campaign for the other.

There should be no ‘might as well’ about it. Boys or girls, it matters SFA. Be straight about that.

What kind of a sick f*** would want to be involved in cutting off parts of a child for any purposes like these anyway?

I’d turn their tools on them and I wouldn’t be using the rope to bind their ankles. There’s better use for it with a rotten mouldy butcher the likes of them.

As for people who think a ‘cut’ cock is something preferable to having all the bits you were born with, and I’m excluding those who get it snipped for genuine and real medical conditions, you’re sick and twisted. You prefer the look of male genitalia when it’s been altered by a cruel and f***ing mindless act that’s no less than child abuse? You sick ****s.

SusieBlue

I just don't understand the logic of being lucky enough to be handed a perfect little newborn baby, and then promptly arranging for a piece of their anatomy to be chopped off. Its illogical to me.

If we held other body parts to the same standard, we'd also be getting tonsils & appendix removed at birth as well, just in case they gave any trouble in the future. Its ridiculous.

professore

SusieBlue wrote: »

I just don't understand the logic of being lucky enough to be handed a perfect little newborn baby, and then promptly arranging for a piece of their anatomy to be chopped off. Its illogical to me.

If we held other body parts to the same standard, we'd also be getting tonsils & appendix removed at birth as well, just in case they gave any trouble in the future. Its ridiculous.

Tonsils can pain you and an appendix can kill you. A foreskin gives you more pleasure during sex despite what Americans say - and also you don't need lube during a J Arthur Rank.

vonlars

vonlars wrote: »

Same for circumcision, is there any actual justification (when not medically necessary) other than it being part of a belief?

I have talked to a number of "pro" americans on this topic and their justifications tend to be ridiculous. Interesting though the people who are religious and those who are not tend to give the same justifications. Those doing it for religious reasons - in other words - tend not to be up front about that or mention it at all.

Here is a short list of the justifications they tend to give when I talk to them:

1) They claim - based on remarkably poor science as it happens - that there are many preventative medical benefits to the practice. Specifically a reduction in STIs, UTIs, Penile Cancer, and even more ridiculously balanitis, balanoposthitis and phimosis. The evidence for these claims is poor and in fact one citation I was offered specifically said in it "This was done in Culture X and we warn specifically against attempting to transfer it to the west".

2) They claim personal genital hygiene is "easier" without a foreskin. Which also baffles me given how easy it is already.

3) They claim that because the culture is to do it - that not doing it places your child in a disadvantaged sexual category as women will be turned off by it. A lot of people who have had it done seem to like calling people who have not had it done "Pencil dick" for reasons I can not fathom.

4) Like the hitting children for discipline justification of "Well my parents slapped me about and I turned out ok" there is a strong contingent of "Well I have lived just fine without that skin" people on the matter.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

I have talked to a number of "pro" americans on this topic and their justifications tend to be ridiculous. Interesting though the people who are religious and those who are not tend to give the same justifications. Those doing it for religious reasons - in other words - tend not to be up front about that or mention it at all.

Here is a short list of the justifications they tend to give when I talk to them:

1) They claim - based on remarkably poor science as it happens - that there are many preventative medical benefits to the practice. Specifically a reduction in STIs, UTIs, Penile Cancer, and even more ridiculously balanitis, balanoposthitis and phimosis. The evidence for these claims is poor and in fact one citation I was offered specifically said in it "This was done in Culture X and we warn specifically against attempting to transfer it to the west".

2) They claim personal genital hygiene is "easier" without a foreskin. Which also baffles me given how easy it is already.

3) They claim that because the culture is to do it - that not doing it places your child in a disadvantaged sexual category as women will be turned off by it. A lot of people who have had it done seem to like calling people who have not had it done "Pencil dick" for reasons I can not fathom.

4) Like the hitting children for discipline justification of "Well my parents slapped me about and I turned out ok" there is a strong contingent of "Well I have lived just fine without that skin" people on the matter.

For some it's a probably slippery slope to allowing the government dictate their parenting and the decisions they can make.