MI Judge Strikes Down Fed Anti-FGM Law

[Revoltingest]

In the news...
Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case
In a major blow to the federal government, a judge in Detroit has declared America's female genital mutilation law unconstitutional, thereby dismissing the key charges against two Michigan doctors and six others accused of subjecting at least nine minor girls to the cutting procedure in the nation's first FGM case.

The historic case involves minor girls from Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, including some who cried, screamed and bled during the procedure and one who was given Valium ground in liquid Tylenol to keep her calm, court records show.

The judge's ruling also dismissed charges against three mothers, including two Minnesota women whom prosecutors said tricked their 7 -year-old daughters into thinking they were coming to metro Detroit for a girls' weekend, but instead had their genitals cut at a Livonia clinic as part of a religious procedure.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate. FGM is banned worldwide and has been outlawed in more than 30 countries, though the U.S. statute had never been tested before this case.

"As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress."

 

[Curious George]

In the news...
Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case
In a major blow to the federal government, a judge in Detroit has declared America's female genital mutilation law unconstitutional, thereby dismissing the key charges against two Michigan doctors and six others accused of subjecting at least nine minor girls to the cutting procedure in the nation's first FGM case.

The historic case involves minor girls from Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, including some who cried, screamed and bled during the procedure and one who was given Valium ground in liquid Tylenol to keep her calm, court records show.

The judge's ruling also dismissed charges against three mothers, including two Minnesota women whom prosecutors said tricked their 7 -year-old daughters into thinking they were coming to metro Detroit for a girls' weekend, but instead had their genitals cut at a Livonia clinic as part of a religious procedure.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate. FGM is banned worldwide and has been outlawed in more than 30 countries, though the U.S. statute had never been tested before this case.

"As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress."

*the sound of states scurrying to pass anti FGM laws*

 

[Revoltingest]

*the sound of states scurrying to pass anti FGM laws*

MI already has a law stricter than the federal one.

More info from the link...
urrently, 27 states have laws that criminalize female genital mutilation, including Michigan, whose FGM law is stiffer than the federal statute, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, compared with five under federal law. Michigan's FGM law was passed last year in the wake of the historic case and applies to both doctors who conduct the procedure, and parents who transport a child to have it done. The defendants in this case can't be retroactively charged under the new law.


Gina Balaya, spokesperson for the U.S. Attorneys Office, said the government is reviewing the judge’s opinion and will make a determination whether or not to appeal at some point in the future.

Friedman's ruling stems from a request by Dr. Jumana Nagarwala and her codefendants to dismiss the genital mutilation charges, claiming the law they are being prosecuted under is unconstitutional.

A victory for the defendants

The defendants are all members of a small Indian Muslim sect known as the Dawoodi Bohra, which has a mosque in Farmington Hills. The sect practices female circumcision and believes it is a religious rite of passage that involves only a minor "nick."

The defendants have argued that “Congress lacked authority to enact" the genital mutilation statute, "thus the female genital mutilation charges must be dismissed.” They also argue that they didn't actually practice FGM, but rather performed a benign procedure involving no cutting.

"Oh my God, we won!," declared Shannon Smith, Nagarwala's lawyer, who expects the government to appeal. "But we are confident we will win even if appealed."

Smith has maintained all along that her client did not engage in FGM.

"Dr. Nagarwala is just a wonderful human being. She was always known as a doctor with an excellent reputation," Smith said. "The whole community was shocked when this happened. She's always been known to be a stellar doctor, mother, person."

For FGM survivor and social activist Mariya Taher, who heads a campaign out of Cambridge, Massachusetts, to ban FGM worldwide, Friedman's ruling was a punch to the gut.

"Oh my God, this is crazy," said Taher, stressing she fears the ruling will put more young women in harm's way. "Unfortunately, this is going to embolden those who believe that this must be continued ... they’ll feel that this is permission, that it’s OK to do this."

Taher, who, at 7, was subjected to the same type of religious cutting procedure that's at issue in the Michigan case, said she doesn't expect laws alone to end FGM. But they are needed, she stressed.

"This is a violation of one person’s human rights. It's a form of gender violence. … This is cultural violence," 35-year-old Taher said.

Yasmeen Hassan, executive global director for Equality Now, an international women's rights organization, agreed, saying the ruling sends a disturbing message to women and girls.

"It says you are not important," Hassan said, calling the ruling a "federal blessing" for FGM.

"In this day and age, for FGM to still occur — and a federal government can’t regulate this with a human rights violation — is very bizarre," she said. "This is not what I expected. It's so not what I expected."

Hassan added: "I don't think it's possible for the federal government not to appeal this case. My feeling is that it will go all the way to the Supreme Court."

Friedman's ruling also drew the ire of Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge.

“I’m angry that the federal judge dismissed this horrific case that affected upwards of a hundred girls who were brutally victimized and attacked against their will," Jones said in a statement, noting 23 states don't have FGM laws.

“This is why it was so important for Michigan to act. We set a precedent that female genital mutilation will not be tolerated here, and we did so by passing a state law that comes with a 15-year felony punishment," Jones said. "I hope other states will follow suit.”

The federal statute at issue states: "Whoever knowingly circumcises, excises or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person" under the age of 18 shall be fined or imprisoned for up to five years, or both.

 

[Nakosis]

In the news...
Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case
In a major blow to the federal government, a judge in Detroit has declared America's female genital mutilation law unconstitutional, thereby dismissing the key charges against two Michigan doctors and six others accused of subjecting at least nine minor girls to the cutting procedure in the nation's first FGM case.

The historic case involves minor girls from Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, including some who cried, screamed and bled during the procedure and one who was given Valium ground in liquid Tylenol to keep her calm, court records show.

The judge's ruling also dismissed charges against three mothers, including two Minnesota women whom prosecutors said tricked their 7 -year-old daughters into thinking they were coming to metro Detroit for a girls' weekend, but instead had their genitals cut at a Livonia clinic as part of a religious procedure.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate. FGM is banned worldwide and has been outlawed in more than 30 countries, though the U.S. statute had never been tested before this case.

"As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress."

What is supposedly the God of Abraham's concern with our reproductive organs. God designed them wrong so tasked us with making alterations?

Male circumcision is generally an accepted religious practice.

Female Genital Mutilation is bad, so why is Male Circumcision for non-medical reasons OK?

"God's" fascination with our private parts, why? What justification is there for these acts?

Is it just an act of faith without reason or purpose?

 

[Revoltingest]

What is supposedly the God of Abraham's concern with our reproductive organs. God designed them wrong so tasked us with making alterations?

Male circumcision is generally an accepted religious practice.

Female Genital Mutilation is bad, so why is Male Circumcision for non-medical reasons OK?

"God" fascination with our private parts, why? What justification is there for these acts?

Is it just an act of faith without reason or purpose?

Ya got me.
I see no reasonable justification for it, male or female.

 

[Curious George]

Ya got me.
I see no reasonable justification for it, male or female.

Ehh, but you see reason for government intervention?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ehh, but you see reason for government intervention?

It's useful to prevent people from altering children's bodies
in ways which don't serve a needed medical purpose.
It should be a person's own decision to alter one's body.

 

[Curious George]

It's useful to prevent people from altering children's bodies
in ways which don't serve a needed medical purpose.
It should be a person's own decision to alter one's body.

Yeah, sorry I just think government telling parents they cannot pierce a girls ears is a little overboard.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, sorry I just think government telling parents they cannot pierce a girls ears is a little overboard.

This isn't about her ears.
But does the girl oppose getting her ears pierced?

 

[Curious George]

This isn't about her ears.
But does the girl oppose getting her ears pierced?

Idk. My point was that your guideline doesn't work. Our standard is amd should be harm. When there is harm then we should look to see if there are benefits. If we cannot fimd clearly that the harm outweighs the benefit, then we have no right to impose our will on the parent.

 

[Revoltingest]

Idk. My point was that your guideline doesn't work. Our standard is amd should be harm. When there is harm then we should look to see if there are benefits. If we cannot fimd clearly that the harm outweighs the benefit, then we have no right to impose our will on the parent.

I think my standard is better and clearer.

 

[Curious George]

I think my standard is better and clearer.

And would include ear piercing. I understand you are an advocate for rigorous governmental involvement in personal freedom, I am not. That, it seems, is where we differ politically.

 

[Revoltingest]

And would include ear piercing. I understand you are an advocate for rigorous governmental involvement in personal freedom, I am not. That, it seems, is where we differ politically.

If the child wants ear piercings, I've no objection.
If the parents want to force it upon an unwilling child,
this unwanted procedure should be prevented.

You're changing this from genital alteration to
ear piercings. Why do this?

 

[Curious George]

If the child wants ear piercings, I've no objection.
If the parents want to force it upon an unwilling child,
this unwanted procedure should be prevented.

You're changing this from genital alteration to
ear piercings. Why do this?

Why? Because of the standard you tried to set:

It's useful to prevent people from altering children's bodies
in ways which don't serve a needed medical purpose.

Your standard is untenable. It requires medical reasoning for a hair cut, to trim nails or to remove a splinter. In effect, it is absurd. We must decide if we want to police every decision with regard to parenting or if we are capable of lettimg the parents handle parenting. I am all in favor of stepping in when abuse is present, but one must articulate the actual abuse. This changes the standard to a harm standard as opposed to a necessity standard.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Interesting thread. The judge was undoubtedly correct, so far as only "the law as it is written" is concerned. The Constitution certainly grants the states rights to make laws over which Congress has no authority.

The other interesting thing about the thread is that it has gone from FGM to ear piercing and other mutilations, and still not even touched on probably the most common mutilation of all, what we might call MGM, the routine circumcision of baby boys. Something like 80% of US males are circumcised, almost always as infants, although some have it done voluntarily later in life, for their own reasons, and with their own informed consent. And by the way, it's more like 90% in some Muslim countries, and oddly, I have no numbers for Israel.

Why do we not consider that to be anything at all like FGM? And I ask this with full disclosure -- I am a gay man with a very, very decided preference for men who are circumcised.

 

[Nakosis]

Ya got me.
I see no reasonable justification for it, male or female.

Perhaps to prevent women from enjoying sex? You don't want your daughters to enjoy sex because they might become a ****? Not divine wise but misogynistic wise.

Keep them at home, taking care of the house, making babies not looking for a roll in the hay with the neighbor.

Note, it predates Islam, is not an Islamic requirement. Perhaps an adoption of older pagan beliefs around Africa.

 

[BSM1]

In the news...
Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case
In a major blow to the federal government, a judge in Detroit has declared America's female genital mutilation law unconstitutional, thereby dismissing the key charges against two Michigan doctors and six others accused of subjecting at least nine minor girls to the cutting procedure in the nation's first FGM case.

The historic case involves minor girls from Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, including some who cried, screamed and bled during the procedure and one who was given Valium ground in liquid Tylenol to keep her calm, court records show.

The judge's ruling also dismissed charges against three mothers, including two Minnesota women whom prosecutors said tricked their 7 -year-old daughters into thinking they were coming to metro Detroit for a girls' weekend, but instead had their genitals cut at a Livonia clinic as part of a religious procedure.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman concluded that "as despicable as this practice may be," Congress did not have the authority to pass the 22-year-old federal law that criminalizes female genital mutilation, and that FGM is for the states to regulate. FGM is banned worldwide and has been outlawed in more than 30 countries, though the U.S. statute had never been tested before this case.

"As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be ... federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute," Friedman wrote in his 28-page opinion, noting: "Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM ... FGM is a 'local criminal activity' which, in keeping with long-standing tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress."

First of all, what doctor in their right minds would even consider doing such a thing? What purpose (medically at least) does it serve? To me this is simply mind boggling that such a thing exists.

Ya got me.
I see no reasonable justification for it, male or female.

According to my studies, circumcision was given to the Hebrews as a form of ethnic identification. This brings up a whole world of questions. Like, there's only one way you could tell a fellow Jew and this on a whole different path. I can picture two guys meeting on a path and trying to convince each to prove he's a Hebrew. Why couldn't the identifying feature been something like a secret handshake, an inconspicuous mole, or maybe an intricate dance step instead? Go figure...

 

[Nakosis]

Why? Because of the standard you tried to set:
Your standard is untenable. It requires medical reasoning for a hair cut, to trim nails or to remove a splinter. In effect, it is absurd. We must decide if we want to police every decision with regard to parenting or if we are capable of lettimg the parents handle parenting. I am all in favor of stepping in when abuse is present, but one must articulate the actual abuse. This changes the standard to a harm standard as opposed to a necessity standard.

How about it's wrong to alter a woman's body in such a way to purposely limit their sexual pleasure? It's wrong to support this idea even by a symbolic nick.

 

[Curious George]

How about it's wrong to alter a woman's body in such a way to purposely limit their sexual pleasure? It's wrong to support this ideal even by a symbolic nick.

Are you trying to say that ideas sgpuld be illegal? That will never do.

I agree that altering a persons body to limit sexual pleasure is harmful. The question then is do the benefits outweigh the harm.

 

[Skwim]

Let's just hope the states quickly fill in this void left by the Federal ruling.