Posted on 11/21/2018 6:52:04 AM PST by Enterprise
No. It means they can’t be charged in FEDERAL court.
I read the first person account in the book Slave written by a Somali tribal girl of how it was performed in her tribe. Pretty ghastly. Her sister lost her first child in childbirth because of it. Other than this barbaric thing, her life was pretty happy - they lived mostly according to simple tribal tradition with a few Muslim things added. But then richer Muslims stormed into the village and captured young girls for slavery elsewhere. This is a contemporary account.
Your patient explanation is wonderful but I still don’t quite understand how you can have a fundamental right to kill your child. I’m all stuck on the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe that is for another thread.
That gives it some basis for Federal intervention, then.
But it should still be handled by the state or local government.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," is from the Declaration of Independence. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution refers to "life, liberty, and property."
The SCOTUS in Roe vs. Wade decided that an unborn child is not a constitutionally protected "life" within the meaning of the 5th Amendment until the third trimester, and therefore, a women's constitutional right to liberty beats an unborn child's right to life, at least until the third trimester, and even then there are exceptions (health of the mother, rape, and incest -- and don't get me going on that).
I agree that State agencies should have handled it.
The Interstate Commerce Clause has been so abused that the original intent has been forgotten.
The judge was right to dismiss the case IMVHO.
True, that is why I stated what the source was. The question you could easily ask is what is the true state of cosmetic surgery these days? Could they even do a fix? I do know that reattaching nerves is a very chancy gambit, so I believe the TV story took significant liberty with reality.
However the issue they were dealing with, that the girl, now at an age where she could be sexually active and wanted to undo what was done to her, but at the same time was willing to go along with her parents who wanted to leave her as she was. She did not expect to have her nerves reconnected, as she was initially only concerned with the physical appearance. (She was still a minor, so her parents could control the use of a medical procedure)
I am aware of all the issues with the use of a piece of fiction to use as an analogy, but that was why the show picked this topic— PS, the issue was being truthful or lying. She wanted the reversal without her mother’s permission, and got it because the doctor considered it a medical necessity, but after her mother showed up they had to face the religious concerns of her family.
Then the doctor decided to reattach the nerves during the surgery and not tell anyone, but the girl could obviously tell that things were different. At that point she elected to keep this to herself and allow her mother to believe she was still sexually insensitive.
Then what we need is comprehensive education for the parents and children about cleaning habits, not more genital mutilation.
It’s the 21st century - we have soap and clean water.
Let’s just say that I deeply disagree with the Supreme Court that not being able to consent automatically gives up your right to life under the constitution, shall we?
However, I understand abortion will always be with us. Legal or not, and my push to allow more babies to be allowed to live is on a different path, more hearts, minds, and respect than legal, which doesn’t necessarily save one life.
What hedonistic values does this judge exhibit? How is following the Constitution in anf way ‘progressive jurisprudence’?
the physical parts that enable her to have them are removed...
Under whatever guise, he has found a way to exonerate those who practice female genital mutilation to go free and unpunished. He has validated them. He is not so dumb as to not realize the end result of his actions. He has in the final analysis ruled and is with them. Despite his robes and the sanctified status the judiciary has in this country, it is still all about power and outcomes. A lawyer with a briefcase can steal more money than a thousand men with guns. Similarly a determined appointed judge with a gavel can alter the culture more than a duly elected Congress.
No, the judge condemned the practice and said that it could be banned under state law, but that nothing in Congress's enumerated powers covers this federal law.
Thanks for that. Still a serious issue, and it still burns me this is practices in the US.
They were taken across state lines to perform the battery. How is that not interstate, and thus federal?
They weren’t abducted. They were brought by their parents. That’s a major distinction in Federal crimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.