We Care About The Children, Really We Do

December 24, 2018 By Michael D. Shaw @ HealthNewsDigest.com

 

According to the World Health Organization, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. Indeed, it is well established that the procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.

There are four major types of FGM:

Type 1—Often referred to as clitoridectomy, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris, and in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
Type 2—Often referred to as excision, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora (the inner folds of the vulva), with or without excision of the labia majora.
Type 3—Often referred to as infibulation, this is the narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the labia minora, or labia majora, sometimes through stitching, with or without removal of the clitoris.
Type 4—This includes all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping, and cauterizing the genital area.

Reasons for performing FGM involve regional social norms, and various beliefs about how a woman should be more suitable as marriage material. According to UNICEF, the practice of FGM is mostly limited to central Africa. It is not common in Algeria, Iran, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Saudi Arabia, or Syria. FGM is concentrated in a small swath of states in western Africa and another swath of states along the Red Sea. Except for a handful of countries, only a small percentage of women who undergo FGM believe the practice is required by religion.

While usually identified with Islam, participation by members of Christian religions in these countries is nearly as high. FGM is also practiced by an Ethiopian-based group of Jews, known as the Falashas.

A host of health conditions are associated with FGM, including menstrual, vaginal, sexual, and urinary problems, along with increased risks of complications in childbirth and psychological issues. There are also immediate risks during the procedure itself, including excessive bleeding, infection, shock, and even death.

Some try to compare FGM to male circumcision, but this is a fool’s errand. The advantages of circumcision are well-documented, and include decreased risk of penile cancer, decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections, decreased risk of urinary tract infections, easier hygiene, and prevention of penile problems. There may even be derivative benefits—with respect to lower rates of STD infection to the partners of circumcised men.

As to the practice of FGM in the United States, it had been illegal since 1996, in accordance with 18 U.S. Code § 116. There are anti-FGM laws in several states, as well. And, Michigan is on this list, but its law was enacted in June, 2017.

Which brings us to the celebrated recent case of US v. Jumana Nagarwala, et al. In April, 2017, Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville, MI was arrested and accused of heading a conspiracy that lasted twelve years, involved seven other people and led to mutilating the genitalia of nine girls. (The prosecution held that Nagarwala may have performed the procedure on up to 100 girls.) The defendants were said to be in violation of the federal law prohibiting FGM.

However, in a November 20, 2018 ruling that can only be called bizarre, US District Judge Bernard Friedman (a Reagan appointee) dismissed all charges under the federal anti-FGM law, but did leave intact the conspiracy and obstruction charges. Even though several of the affected children were transported from other states to receive FGM, Friedman held that the law did not involve interstate commerce. And, he declared the law unconstitutional.

Of course, missing in all of this was the basic rationalization of Roe v. Wade. In that case, women should not have to travel out-of-state to receive their abortion. Thus, the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause would apply, and the procedure should be legal in all states. The same reasoning was used to legalize gay marriage in all states. As such, protection from FGM should be upheld in all states.

The Societies for Pediatric Urology issued this statement, in reaction to the ruling:

“While respecting the federal judge’s ruling, the Societies for Pediatric Urology (SPU) repudiates the ruling that deemed the federal genital mutilation law as unconstitutional. The procedure of female circumcision, for which there is no medical justification, is traumatic both physically and emotionally, and serves only to make sexual relations for women unpleasurable. The medical community is well aware of the significant risks inherent to this procedure which are potentially permanent, and life altering.” 

“It should be noted that pediatric urologists were among the first doctors to call attention to this tragic practice when the girls of Middle Eastern and African origin began arriving in the United States as a form of child abuse. It is our responsibility as doctors who care for the genitourinary system in children to ensure their safety.”

As you can imagine, most of the reaction to the decision was negative, typified by this tweet. Oh yes, we live in interesting times.

A Libertarian Quandary

"The Purpose of the United States Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government, not the American people."

November 24, 2018 by Dan Mitchell  @ International Liberty

My opinions on crime are very straightforward.

• Have very few laws, mostly at the state level, with the goal of protecting life, liberty, and property.
• Have strong constitutional and procedural protections for the rights of the accused.
• To alter the cost-benefit calculations of bad people, impose serious punishment on those convicted.

This set of principles explains my views on a wide range of issues, such as the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, money laundering, search and seizure, and the death penalty.

But I sometimes come across an incident that challenges these principles.

Let’s look at a horrible story from Michigan about girls being genitally mutilated.

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala was arrested in April 2017 and accused of leading a criminal conspiracy that involved multiple doctors and resulted in the mutilation of nine girls over the course of twelve years. The practice, which is universally recognized as a gross violation of human rights, is traditional among the Dawoodi Bohra, the Muslim sect to which Nagarwala and his co-conspirators belong.

My visceral instinct is for some tit-for-tat justice. The so-called doctors should receive equivalent treatment, without the benefit of anesthesia.

Since that’s not an option, a very lengthy prison sentence could be the next-best alternative.
But something very unusual happened. The barbaric doctors had been charged by the federal government based on a federal law against genital mutilation, and a judge decided that the statute exceeded the proper powers of the federal government.

A federal judge dismissed charges Tuesday against several Michigan doctors accused of mutilating the genitals of numerous underage girls, ruling that the federal prohibition against the practice is unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman argued that the 22-year-old federal law prohibiting female genital mutilation (FGM), which went unused until last year, constitutes federal overreach. …the judge’s ruling entirely clears four defendants in the case, including three mothers who allegedly handed their underage daughters over to Nagarwala to be mutilated.

This is a quandary.

I want the “doctors” to be thrown under the jail, yet part of me is very happy that a federal judge actually acknowledges that the Constitution imposes some limits on federal power.

(Editor's Note:  The only time a federal judge determines there's a limit on federal powers is when it doesn't fit their personal views. RK)

Too bad Judge Friedman wasn’t sitting in for Justice John Roberts when the Obamacare case was (wrongly) decided.

Anyhow, here’s what has since happened.

In response to the case, Michigan governor Rick Snyder signed new laws prohibiting the practice of FGM, but as those laws applied only to future violations, the defendants in this case were charged under the old federal statute. Twenty-three other states, however, do not have laws banning the practice, leading critics of the judge’s ruling to suggest that parents intent on mutilating their daughters for religious purposes will simply travel to states where they can do so legally.

I have a couple of concluding thoughts.

First, I imagine that all 50 states – even crazy California – will pass laws against this barbaric ritual. So there’s no reason to relax my strong support for federalism.

Second, I hope Michigan authorities figure out how to charge the so-called doctors under existing state laws against assault, kidnapping, and anything else that might work.

In conclusion, I’m not under the illusion that any system will deliver perfect justice. But I do think we would get the best-possible outcomes if we adhered to constitutional principles and restricted the size and scope of the federal government.

P.S. Let’s not forget that jury nullification also should exist as an additional bulwark against bad laws and abusive officials.

 

UK Top Cop: Female Genital Mutilation Too “Nuanced” to Prosecute

Robert Spencer — January 21, 2018

Recently Ivan Balhatchet, the British National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead on honour violence, was asked by a former police officer why there had not yet been a single conviction for female genital mutilation (FGM) in the entire United Kingdom, despite there having been tens of thousands of cases of it recorded since 1985. Balhatchet’s response unwittingly revealed the priorities of Theresa May’s “diverse,” shattered, staggering, dhimmi Britain.  Amid a great deal of meaningless bureaucratic verbiage, Balhatchet let it slip by way of explanation that “there are many nuances to this crime type.”

So, apparently, it is because of these “many nuances” that practitioners of female genital mutilation could continue to operate with impunity in Britain.  Why not arrest them? It’s complicated.

In reality, it isn’t complicated at all, and there aren’t “many nuances,” either......So, when Ivan Balhatchet says that he hasn’t prosecuted thousands of cases of FGM because of nuance, he means “In Britain today, the Muslims are in charge.”..........To Read More....