Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case

[Pogo]

This is how creeping Sharia begins in civilized nations.

Pogo's "funny" only shows how clueless and dangerous tards are in power. And their concern for basic human rights. I'm sure he has no problem with a 16 year old girl being sold on Zuckerbergs Facebook

And I'm sure you lick your own feces for lunch.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why shouldn't the federal government step in and act on this brutality ? Why only individual states ?

That's how our country was set up. The Constitution delegates a limited set of powers to the federal government, and the Tenth Amendment clarifies that the federal government is to have only those powers that are thus delegated to it; all other powers being reserved to the states or to the people.

It is illegal for the federal government to claim or exercise any power that the Constitution does not clearly delegate to it.

One of the things most broken and corrupt about this country is the degree to which we have foolishly allowed the federal government to claim and exercise powers that do not legitimately belong to it.

 

[Blackrook]

This ruling is based on the Commerce Clause, not the First Amendment. Basically, FGM does not impact interstate commerce, so Congress has no power to regulate it. The case leaves open the power of the states to step in and ban this practice.

 

[danielpalos]

Millions of little girls and young women have been subjected to a painful rite of passage that involves cutting their genitals — often without anesthesia — for centuries in parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Detroit Free Press

Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case
----------------------------

It's mind blowing how many bimbo's think this doesn't exist and isn't real . Yet here is a real case on it.

these are modern times. it should be mutual full body massage with happy ending, not mutilation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

<snipped for brevity>CONCLUSION: According to the Court's ruling, a law against FGM is not a violation of the Constitution. If it were, individual states could not prohibit it. The judge was very specific in saying the matter was for the various states to decide.

`
The judge said; "“As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault,” Friedman wrote. “FGM is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.”
`
In effect, the federal government cannot legislate this through the 'commerce clause'" because of constitutional barriers. As the judge stated it is "an assault' which must be adjudicated by the individual state. That makes perfect sense to me.
`

So what does this ruling make circumcision ?

Infant boys have been mutilated with no anesthesia in this country for many many decades.

Who gets circumcised without anesthesia? And how is removing a useless skin overcoat for your penis "mutilation"?

Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe

The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap.

Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do.

The foreskin is an evolutionary relic, like wisdom teeth and the appendix. It serves no useful purpose except to give deranged zealots something to obsess over.

The foreskin is indeed like a skin overcoat you can't get rid of and is a great repository for many diseases (like cancer for instance Penis Cancer Causes, Signs, Symptoms & Treatment) if not scrupulously scrubbed on a regular basis and not even then in many cases.

Hmmm....would I rather have a bothersome, useless, ridiculous looking flap of skin hanging over the end of my penis or the likelihood of penile cancer hovering over my head the rest of my life?
What a "tough" decision.

As for the statistics about the number of doctors that do not use anesthesia it is unsourced and therefore not reliable and anecdotal. And even if true (IF) the trade off between the temporary pain of circumcision without pain killer and the very real chance of cancer as a direct result of this useless funny looking skin hat is a very good deal indeed.

Does Circumcision Prevent Cancer?

“The only reason to have a circumcision in America is for cosmetic reasons - if you want to look like everyone else,” says James Mohler, MD, Associate Director and Senior Vice President, Translational Research, Chief, Inter-Institutional Academics, and Professor of Oncology. “Cancer risk is not lowered if you live in an area with good personal hygiene, but cancer risk may be lowered by circumcision if one is unable to keep their foreskin washed properly,” says Dr. Mohler.

 

[flewism]

`
The judge said; "“As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault,” Friedman wrote. “FGM is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.”
`
In effect, the federal government cannot legislate this through the 'commerce clause'" because of constitutional barriers. As the judge stated it is "an assault' which must be adjudicated by the individual state. That makes perfect sense to me.
`

So what does this ruling make circumcision ?

Infant boys have been mutilated with no anesthesia in this country for many many decades.

Who gets circumcised without anesthesia? And how is removing a useless skin overcoat for your penis "mutilation"?

Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe

The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap.

Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do.

The foreskin is an evolutionary relic, like wisdom teeth and the appendix. It serves no useful purpose except to give deranged zealots something to obsess over.

The foreskin is indeed like a skin overcoat you can't get rid of and is a great repository for many diseases (like cancer for instance Penis Cancer Causes, Signs, Symptoms & Treatment) if not scrupulously scrubbed on a regular basis and not even then in many cases.

Hmmm....would I rather have a bothersome, useless, ridiculous looking flap of skin hanging over the end of my penis or the likelihood of penile cancer hovering over my head the rest of my life?
What a "tough" decision.

As for the statistics about the number of doctors that do not use anesthesia it is unsourced and therefore not reliable and anecdotal. And even if true (IF) the trade off between the temporary pain of circumcision without pain killer and the very real chance of cancer as a direct result of this useless funny looking skin hat is a very good deal indeed.

Does Circumcision Prevent Cancer?

“The only reason to have a circumcision in America is for cosmetic reasons - if you want to look like everyone else,” says James Mohler, MD, Associate Director and Senior Vice President, Translational Research, Chief, Inter-Institutional Academics, and Professor of Oncology. “Cancer risk is not lowered if you live in an area with good personal hygiene, but cancer risk may be lowered by circumcision if one is unable to keep their foreskin washed properly,” says Dr. Mohler.

Cancer that is funny, it reduces infection from men boys not washing properly especially in the past when bathing and washing wasn't an everyday occurrence.

Male circumcision does not affect the penis's performance or sexual pleasure.

Female circumcision removal of the clitoris is done exactly for that reason to deny a woman sexual pleasure.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

`
The judge said; "“As despicable as this practice may be, it is essentially a criminal assault,” Friedman wrote. “FGM is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.”
`
In effect, the federal government cannot legislate this through the 'commerce clause'" because of constitutional barriers. As the judge stated it is "an assault' which must be adjudicated by the individual state. That makes perfect sense to me.
`

So what does this ruling make circumcision ?

Infant boys have been mutilated with no anesthesia in this country for many many decades.

Who gets circumcised without anesthesia? And how is removing a useless skin overcoat for your penis "mutilation"?

Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe

The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap.

Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do.

The foreskin is an evolutionary relic, like wisdom teeth and the appendix. It serves no useful purpose except to give deranged zealots something to obsess over.

The foreskin is indeed like a skin overcoat you can't get rid of and is a great repository for many diseases (like cancer for instance Penis Cancer Causes, Signs, Symptoms & Treatment) if not scrupulously scrubbed on a regular basis and not even then in many cases.

Hmmm....would I rather have a bothersome, useless, ridiculous looking flap of skin hanging over the end of my penis or the likelihood of penile cancer hovering over my head the rest of my life?
What a "tough" decision.

As for the statistics about the number of doctors that do not use anesthesia it is unsourced and therefore not reliable and anecdotal. And even if true (IF) the trade off between the temporary pain of circumcision without pain killer and the very real chance of cancer as a direct result of this useless funny looking skin hat is a very good deal indeed.

Does Circumcision Prevent Cancer?

“The only reason to have a circumcision in America is for cosmetic reasons - if you want to look like everyone else,” says James Mohler, MD, Associate Director and Senior Vice President, Translational Research, Chief, Inter-Institutional Academics, and Professor of Oncology. “Cancer risk is not lowered if you live in an area with good personal hygiene, but cancer risk may be lowered by circumcision if one is unable to keep their foreskin washed properly,” says Dr. Mohler.

"Causes and risk factors for developing penis cancer include human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, not being circumcised, being age 60 or older, phimosis, poor hygiene, many sexual partners, AIDS, UV treatment for psoriasis, and tobacco use."

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what does this ruling make circumcision ?

Infant boys have been mutilated with no anesthesia in this country for many many decades.

Who gets circumcised without anesthesia? And how is removing a useless skin overcoat for your penis "mutilation"?

Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe

The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap.

Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do.

The foreskin is an evolutionary relic, like wisdom teeth and the appendix. It serves no useful purpose except to give deranged zealots something to obsess over.

The foreskin is indeed like a skin overcoat you can't get rid of and is a great repository for many diseases (like cancer for instance Penis Cancer Causes, Signs, Symptoms & Treatment) if not scrupulously scrubbed on a regular basis and not even then in many cases.

Hmmm....would I rather have a bothersome, useless, ridiculous looking flap of skin hanging over the end of my penis or the likelihood of penile cancer hovering over my head the rest of my life?
What a "tough" decision.

As for the statistics about the number of doctors that do not use anesthesia it is unsourced and therefore not reliable and anecdotal. And even if true (IF) the trade off between the temporary pain of circumcision without pain killer and the very real chance of cancer as a direct result of this useless funny looking skin hat is a very good deal indeed.

Does Circumcision Prevent Cancer?

“The only reason to have a circumcision in America is for cosmetic reasons - if you want to look like everyone else,” says James Mohler, MD, Associate Director and Senior Vice President, Translational Research, Chief, Inter-Institutional Academics, and Professor of Oncology. “Cancer risk is not lowered if you live in an area with good personal hygiene, but cancer risk may be lowered by circumcision if one is unable to keep their foreskin washed properly,” says Dr. Mohler.

Cancer that is funny, it reduces infection from men boys not washing properly especially in the past when bathing and washing wasn't an everyday occurrence.

Male circumcision does not affect the penis's performance or sexual pleasure.

Female circumcision removal of the clitoris is done exactly for that reason to deny a woman sexual pleasure.

Male circumcision removes skin that has nerve endings therefore sensation is decreased.

And the usual excuse for mutilating infant boys is that it will prevent cancer of the penis but as the oncologist I quoted says

“The only reason to have a circumcision in America is for cosmetic reasons

 

[Skull Pilot]

So what does this ruling make circumcision ?

Infant boys have been mutilated with no anesthesia in this country for many many decades.

Who gets circumcised without anesthesia? And how is removing a useless skin overcoat for your penis "mutilation"?

Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe

The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap.

Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do.

The foreskin is an evolutionary relic, like wisdom teeth and the appendix. It serves no useful purpose except to give deranged zealots something to obsess over.

The foreskin is indeed like a skin overcoat you can't get rid of and is a great repository for many diseases (like cancer for instance Penis Cancer Causes, Signs, Symptoms & Treatment) if not scrupulously scrubbed on a regular basis and not even then in many cases.

Hmmm....would I rather have a bothersome, useless, ridiculous looking flap of skin hanging over the end of my penis or the likelihood of penile cancer hovering over my head the rest of my life?
What a "tough" decision.

As for the statistics about the number of doctors that do not use anesthesia it is unsourced and therefore not reliable and anecdotal. And even if true (IF) the trade off between the temporary pain of circumcision without pain killer and the very real chance of cancer as a direct result of this useless funny looking skin hat is a very good deal indeed.

Does Circumcision Prevent Cancer?

“The only reason to have a circumcision in America is for cosmetic reasons - if you want to look like everyone else,” says James Mohler, MD, Associate Director and Senior Vice President, Translational Research, Chief, Inter-Institutional Academics, and Professor of Oncology. “Cancer risk is not lowered if you live in an area with good personal hygiene, but cancer risk may be lowered by circumcision if one is unable to keep their foreskin washed properly,” says Dr. Mohler.

"Causes and risk factors for developing penis cancer include human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, not being circumcised, being age 60 or older, phimosis, poor hygiene, many sexual partners, AIDS, UV treatment for psoriasis, and tobacco use."

And I quoted an oncologist who says otherwise

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Who gets circumcised without anesthesia? And how is removing a useless skin overcoat for your penis "mutilation"?

Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe

The foreskin is half of the penis's skin, not just a flap.

Most newborns do not receive adequate anesthesia. Only 45% of doctors who do circumcisions use any anesthesia at all. Obstetricians perform 70% of circumcisions and are least likely to use anesthesia - only 25% do.

The foreskin is an evolutionary relic, like wisdom teeth and the appendix. It serves no useful purpose except to give deranged zealots something to obsess over.

The foreskin is indeed like a skin overcoat you can't get rid of and is a great repository for many diseases (like cancer for instance Penis Cancer Causes, Signs, Symptoms & Treatment) if not scrupulously scrubbed on a regular basis and not even then in many cases.

Hmmm....would I rather have a bothersome, useless, ridiculous looking flap of skin hanging over the end of my penis or the likelihood of penile cancer hovering over my head the rest of my life?
What a "tough" decision.

As for the statistics about the number of doctors that do not use anesthesia it is unsourced and therefore not reliable and anecdotal. And even if true (IF) the trade off between the temporary pain of circumcision without pain killer and the very real chance of cancer as a direct result of this useless funny looking skin hat is a very good deal indeed.

Does Circumcision Prevent Cancer?

“The only reason to have a circumcision in America is for cosmetic reasons - if you want to look like everyone else,” says James Mohler, MD, Associate Director and Senior Vice President, Translational Research, Chief, Inter-Institutional Academics, and Professor of Oncology. “Cancer risk is not lowered if you live in an area with good personal hygiene, but cancer risk may be lowered by circumcision if one is unable to keep their foreskin washed properly,” says Dr. Mohler.

"Causes and risk factors for developing penis cancer include human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, not being circumcised, being age 60 or older, phimosis, poor hygiene, many sexual partners, AIDS, UV treatment for psoriasis, and tobacco use."

And I quoted an oncologist who says otherwise

And I am quoting the American Medical Association and their position paper of circumcision:"The only longitudinal study to address the former found a 4% incidence of phimosis in uncircumcised boys.The medical benefits suggested to accrue from circumcision are reduced incidence of urinary tract infection in infant males, decreased incidence of penile cancer in adult males, and possibly decreased susceptibility to certain sexually transmissible diseases, including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

Don't remove your skin turtleneck if you don't want to . Just don't pretend it's just as healthy as being circumcised.
The vast consensus says it is not. Good luck with your penile cancer.

 

[skye]

I fail to see the problem? ....

We legally allow circumcision on male babies.

So why outlaw female circumcision? ...

yeah, but in circumcision the don't chop off the whole thing!

big difference!

that judge is a monster !

 

[protectionist]

--- she said, offering no evidence whatsoever. Ipse dixit aside, they couldn't do if they wanted to because ---- again ---- it's not a religious custom. Has nothing to do with anyone's religion. This too is not an argument.

If FGM had something to do with Islam then essplain to the class why it's also practiced by those who happen to be Christians. Or the indigenous Emberá in South America. Or the indigenous animists in Africa. Happy hunting.

So you are saying that FGM is not a Muslim thing ? If so, you are wrong. If other cultures do it too, that doesn't change Islam's attachment to it.

 

[Preacher]

Millions of little girls and young women have been subjected to a painful rite of passage that involves cutting their genitals — often without anesthesia — for centuries in parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Detroit Free Press

Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case
----------------------------

It's mind blowing how many bimbo's think this doesn't exist and isn't real . Yet here is a real case on it.

Good. Hopefully this will kick Congress in the ass and they ban BOTH kinds of genital mutilation.

 

[idb]

I fail to see the problem? ....

We legally allow circumcision on male babies.

So why outlaw female circumcision? ...

yeah, but in circumcision the don't chop off the whole thing!

big difference!

that judge is a monster !

He would be if he was ruling on the morality of FGM.

 

[protectionist]

That's how our country was set up. The Constitution delegates a limited set of powers to the federal government, and the Tenth Amendment clarifies that the federal government is to have only those powers that are thus delegated to it; all other powers being reserved to the states or to the people.

It is illegal for the federal government to claim or exercise any power that the Constitution does not clearly delegate to it.

One of the things most broken and corrupt about this country is the degree to which we have foolishly allowed the federal government to claim and exercise powers that do not legitimately belong to it.

Some things should not be allowed ANYWHERE in America, as a matter of who we are as Americans. States should not have discretion to allow them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Some things should not be allowed ANYWHERE in America, as a matter of who we are as Americans. States should not have discretion to allow them.

That goes very much against the principles on which this nation was founded, and which are laid out in our Constitution. What you want is a country like the now-extinct Soviet Union, with all power concentrated in a central government, distant and unaccountable to the will of the governed. That's not what this country was intended to be. It was specifically the intent, here, that government power be, for the most part, more localized, closer to the people, and more accountable thereto.

 

[anotherlife]

Here is another interesting statistics about female genital mutilation. This statistics is also evident on this forum. Only men care about it.

Yeah, women don’t care they are unable to enjoy sex after mutilation.

Fuckhead.

Nah ... Stop projecting. *****. Hehehe. Your turn.

 

[protectionist]

That goes very much against the principles on which this nation was founded, and which are laid out in our Constitution. What you want is a country like the now-extinct Soviet Union, with all power concentrated in a central government, distant and unaccountable to the will of the governed. That's not what this country was intended to be. It was specifically the intent, here, that government power be, for the most part, more localized, closer to the people, and more accountable thereto.

How good that is all depends on WHO gets to be in power in the state, In some places it's a bad thing, like California. Anybody remember Gray Davis ?

 

[Pogo]

--- she said, offering no evidence whatsoever. Ipse dixit aside, they couldn't do if they wanted to because ---- again ---- it's not a religious custom. Has nothing to do with anyone's religion. This too is not an argument.

If FGM had something to do with Islam then essplain to the class why it's also practiced by those who happen to be Christians. Or the indigenous Emberá in South America. Or the indigenous animists in Africa. Happy hunting.

So you are saying that FGM is not a Muslim thing ? If so, you are wrong. If other cultures do it too, that doesn't change Islam's attachment to it.

Yes I am saying that because it's a known fact, and no I'm not wrong. FGM predates all of our contemporary religions and has no religious function at all even where it has been practiced. Because it's a social custom, not a religious one. It is or has been practiced in some areas, to the exclusion of others. In Mecca for instance it's considered barbaric, as it should be.

What's more this has been pointed out and proven on this board over and over and over and over. Your waddling out here to moan "IS NOT" does not in the least alter literally thousands of years of anthropological evidence.

Social customs have zero to do with religion. For example in our social customs a young girl reaching puberty starts to paint her fingernails red, the color of blood, to show the world that she's menstruating and therefore fertile. That's got nothing to do with religion either.

 

[protectionist]

Yes I am saying that because it's a known fact, and no I'm not wrong. FGM predates all of our contemporary religions and has no religious function at all even where it has been practiced. Because it's a social custom, not a religious one. It is or has been practiced in some areas, to the exclusion of others. In Mecca for instance it's considered barbaric, as it should be.

What's more this has been pointed out and proven on this board over and over and over and over. Your waddling out here to moan "IS NOT" does not in the least alter literally thousands of years of anthropological evidence.

Social customs have zero to do with religion. For example in our social customs a young girl reaching puberty starts to paint her fingernails red, the color of blood, to show the world that she's menstruating and therefore fertile. That's got nothing to do with religion either.

Islam has nothing to do with religion. It's a weird, vile cult, posing as a religion, and FGM is one of its numerous evils, that comes from Muslims' deranged ideas about women.