Posted on 11/21/2018 4:16:59 AM PST by C19fan
A federal judge dismissed charges Tuesday against two doctors and six others involved in the genital mutilation of nine girls at a Detroit clinic, and also declared a US law banning the practice unconstitutional. US District Judge Bernard Friedman dismissed mutilation and conspiracy charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, who performed the surgery, and Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, who allowed his clinic in Livonia, Michigan, to be used for the procedure. The same charges were dismissed against Attar's wife, Farida, and Tahera Shafiq, who assisted in the procedure, as well as four women who tricked their daughters into going to the suburban clinic to undergo the practice for religious purposes. Four of the nine girls are from Michigan; the others are residents of Illinois and Minnesota.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
To the Supreme Court. This Must be heard
It’s OK to cut people up as long as you don’t kill them, it seems.
The best meme I have seen in a while (and regrettably I didn’t save it) on the top half is Luke Skywalker saying “I’m not racist.” In the bottom half is Yoda saying “You will be.”
He may have been a Reagan appointee, but he has been a particularly bad one.
Sooooo....What’s the verdict on male circumcision?
“What’s the verdict on male circumcision?”
To answer my own question, I’m assuming that the courts wouldn’t touch that one with a ten-foot pole.
Another neo-Nazi black robe coarsening our republic.
No, he threw it out at the FEDERAL level. This is a STATE issue.
He may have been a Reagan appointee, but he has been a particularly bad one.
The equivalent procedure in men would be to cut off their man parts. Circumcision is not even remotely comparable.
This is strictly a federalism decision.
The judge agrees that FGM can be a criminal act, but it isn’t a federal government issue. It should be charged and proscecuted by the state.
But banning Reparative Therapies for volunteer patients is Constitutional?
According to the story, the judge ruled that FGM is properly regulated by the states and that the federal law against it is unconstitutional because it infringes on state authority. Michigan has also passed a law against FGM but apparently after these instances occurred. My guess is that the judge was simply looking for a way to get the Muslim doctors off and, being a judicial activist, he grabbed at anything that gave him an excuse.
And because the victims are voiceless females in an obviously backward, hateful, sharia community, they will never have the opportunity to sue or charge the “medical” staff, nor their own families, for forcing this barbarism upon them. It’s equivalent to the worst practices of slavery.
God damn them all.
Interesting question. As an MD I have DONE over 75 circs. It is a tradition that goes back millennia as opposed to FGM. About the only medical benefit I have ever seen in serious medical literature is penile squamous cell cancer (the male equivalent of cervical cancer) which is rare is non existent in circumcised males. So there may be a real medical benefit which is small. There may be also some resistance theoretically to some STDs. Beyond that I am unaware of any real argument that can be made for either side. Some argue that like FGM it degrades the “intimacy experience” but I don’t think that can ever be tested as there is no “control group” possible. Some would like to make circumcising and FGM equivalent but they really aren’t. Tl/dr: apples to oranges IMHO.
Female circumcision involves cutting the clitoris off. The true male equivalent would be cutting the entire penis off. Like what Kasich and Romney had done to themselves.
Unlike circumcision, which an argument can be made that it provides certain health benefits, FGM provides none. It is done to disfigure and damage the patient, both physically and emotionally.
“The judge threw out the charges because he declared the anti FGM law unconstitutional. The is what happens when a country imports a barbaric religion.”
Like about 95% of federal laws, and 80% of federal spending, all of which rely on the ‘Commerce Clause’ of the Constitution for their justification (i.e., it’s written into virtually every spending bill). They judge threw it out on THAT BASIS, meaning that if it does get appealed, the Supreme Court may well uphold his rationale to the ENTIRE US GOVERNMENT and wipe out practically everything, other than Defense, the Courts, Congress, and INS.
...and also wipe out the entire federal deficit all at the same time!
“No, he threw it out at the FEDERAL level. This is a STATE issue.”
Yes, the judge made the correct decision in this particular case. Activists judges on the left should not excuse nor encourage judicial activism from the right.
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.