Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case

[Wyatt earp]

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 !

So that's really it, Skye?

I just an average guy .

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I fail to see the problem? ....

We legally allow circumcision on male babies.

So why outlaw female circumcision? ...

Because....

IT'S NOT!

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Tell what are the odds of getting penile cancer and compare that to any other cancer and let me know exactly how big of a risk it is

And this is the American Association of Pediatrics position

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

Circumcision Policy Statement

 

[Silhouette]

More specifically, the defendants have argued that “Congress lacked authority to enact” the genital mutilation statute, “thus the female genital mutilation charges must be dismissed.”

Federal judge finds female genital mutilation law unconstitutional

So MIchigan, Illinois and Minnesota HAVE the authority to ban it and to punish it. That's all that's being said. Tell me they don't and next we will pass a law that it's OK for parents to have little boys castrated. No? On what authority? ....

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Tell what are the odds of getting penile cancer and compare that to any other cancer and let me know exactly how big of a risk it is

And this is the American Association of Pediatrics position

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

Circumcision Policy Statement

So you feel like rolling the dice when it comes to contracting penile cancer all for the sake of a ridiculous annoying and useless flap of penis skin? That says it all, doesn't it.

And if you think your chances of penile cancer are small you can thank all the circumcised people that had the good sense to do the right thing or the luck to have responsible parents.
Those odds of losing your precious penis, foreskin and all, to cancer goes up for the fanatical ridiculous fans of
penis turtlenecks.

From your own link the issue is settled quite clearly.
"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision".

Why a supposedly responsible medical association would not recommend a simple medical procedure that's been used for thousands of years and they admit is beneficial is a mystery to me. Pressure from zealous nut jobs, no doubt.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Tell what are the odds of getting penile cancer and compare that to any other cancer and let me know exactly how big of a risk it is

And this is the American Association of Pediatrics position

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

Circumcision Policy Statement

So you feel like rolling the dice when it comes to contracting penile cancer all for the sake of a ridiculous annoying and useless flap of penis skin? That says it all,doesn't it.

And if you think your chances of penile cancer are small you can thank all the circumcised people that had the good sense to do the right thing or the luck to have responsible parents.
Those odds of losing your precious penis, foreskin and all, to cancer goes up for the fanatical ridiculous fans of
penis turtlenecks.

From your own link the issue is settled quite clearly.
"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision".

Why a supposedly responsible medical association would not recommend a simple medical procedure that's been used for thousands of years and they admit is beneficial is a mystery to me. Pressure from zealous nut jobs, no doubt.

You know what's fatal 100% of the time?


LIFE.

Stop being such a scared little *****

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

"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.

Tell what are the odds of getting penile cancer and compare that to any other cancer and let me know exactly how big of a risk it is

And this is the American Association of Pediatrics position

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.

Circumcision Policy Statement

So you feel like rolling the dice when it comes to contracting penile cancer all for the sake of a ridiculous annoying and useless flap of penis skin? That says it all,doesn't it.

And if you think your chances of penile cancer are small you can thank all the circumcised people that had the good sense to do the right thing or the luck to have responsible parents.
Those odds of losing your precious penis, foreskin and all, to cancer goes up for the fanatical ridiculous fans of
penis turtlenecks.

From your own link the issue is settled quite clearly.
"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision".

Why a supposedly responsible medical association would not recommend a simple medical procedure that's been used for thousands of years and they admit is beneficial is a mystery to me. Pressure from zealous nut jobs, no doubt.

You know what's fatal 100% of the time?


LIFE.

Stop being such a scared little *****

LOL...Your so called argument for foreskins comes down to this brilliant life plan: **** cancer! Light em' up smokey.
Go ahead and smoke like a stove. It shows you are a real man. Heart attacks? **** that! Have pizzas and cream puffs every meal and wash it down with Jim Beam. AIDS? Don't be a scared little *****! **** anything that gets near you.

Your advice is hilarious and even funnier when you consider I don't want a skin overcoat for my penis. It's ugly, comical
looking and a bother to deal with. Animals like dogs have their penises covered by skin. I am not a dog.
You are ridiculous and a sensible fear of cancer is only part of the story.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Yes. We need more penis cancer in this country.

 

[Silhouette]

Your advice is hilarious and even funnier when you consider I don't want a skin overcoat for my penis. It's ugly, comical
looking and a bother to deal with. Animals like dogs have their penises covered by skin. I am not a dog.
You are ridiculous and a sensible fear of cancer is only part of the story.

Female mutilation removes the clitoris. It's the same as amputating the penis. So, if it can be done to girls... or would amputating a little boy's penis not be covered under the federal protections against child abuse?

The court erred in this case BTW. The federal government does have powers of enforcement when it comes to child abuse: Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect in Federal Law - Child Welfare Information Gateway

***

Federal legislation provides guidance to States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g), as amended by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

• "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"; or
  
• "An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."

This definition of child abuse and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers. A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is younger than age 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.


While CAPTA provides definitions for sexual abuse and the special cases of neglect related to withholding or failing to provide medically indicated treatment, it does not provide specific definitions for other types of maltreatment such as physical abuse, neglect, or emotional abuse. While Federal legislation sets minimum standards for States that accept CAPTA funding, each State provides its own definitions of maltreatment within civil and criminal statutes.

***

Now I'd say offhand, amputating the stimulatory organ of a female in order to prevent her from achieving orgasm later in life is abso-*******-lutely child sexual abuse as federally defined and regulated. What asshole judge came to the conclusion otherwise? I get why the judge ruled how he did. He's a pocket boy for the LGBT who want "sex change" mutilations done on kids really really badly! And, they want it not to be illegal.

When are we going to stop catering to this cult of pedophiles? We are SERIOUSLY going to "legalize" (read, legislate override federal child abuse protections from the bench) AMPUTATING A LITTLE GIRL'S CLITORIS SO SHE MAY NEVER ACHIEVE ORGASM????!!!!!!

WHAT THE ****!!!!!?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

We have the chance to protect ALL our citizens from child abuse by getting some legislation passed that bans female genital mutilation.

This district court judge, Bernard Friedman, did indeed make a serious error in ruling the state had a right to protect those there whose religious dictates promotes this heinous form of child abuse. It was a sick mistaken ruling, in my opinion.

 

[Silhouette]

We have the chance to protect ALL our citizens from child abuse by getting some legislation passed that bans female genital mutilation.

This district court judge, Bernard Friedman, did indeed make a serious error in ruling the state had a right to protect those there whose religious dictates promotes this heinous form of child abuse. It was a sick mistaken ruling, in my opinion.

There ALREADY is federal protection preventing the mutilation of a child's sexual organs. Let's review:

The court erred in this case BTW. The federal government does have powers of enforcement when it comes to child abuse: Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect in Federal Law - Child Welfare Information Gateway

***

Federal legislation provides guidance to States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g), as amended by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

• "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"; or
• "An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."

This definition of child abuse and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers. A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is younger than age 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.


While CAPTA provides definitions for sexual abuse and the special cases of neglect related to withholding or failing to provide medically indicated treatment, it does not provide specific definitions for other types of maltreatment such as physical abuse, neglect, or emotional abuse. While Federal legislation sets minimum standards for States that accept CAPTA funding, each State provides its own definitions of maltreatment within civil and criminal statutes.

***

To remove a little girl's clitoris is the same as amputating a little boy's penis. Both are grotesque forms of child sexual abuse preventing that child from ever reaching orgasm. In fact, the Muslims who do this heinous crime to girls are not the slightest bit shy about stating the sexual nature of the abuse "to prevent females from sexual arousal". Their rationale is that if women enjoy sex, they might stray. Well, if their husbands enjoy sex, they might stray too, so off with their penis. If they want kids, they can have sperm harvested at a clinic. They don't need to be sexual either.

The doers of such things must be immediately arrested and put in jail where they belong, and, the judge should go to jail as well for failure to protect a child from having their sexual organs amputated.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The decision of District Judge Friedman should be appealed and taken up to the Supreme Court then.
His opinion was wrong in any case.

 

[Silhouette]

The decision of District Judge Friedman should be appealed and taken up to the Supreme Court then.
His opinion was wrong in any case.

Absolutely. And, he should be jailed for failure to protect. He's a federal judge who should know the CAPTA guidelines in his sleep. The removal of a little girls' clitoris is the epitome of child sexual abuse....forbidden and regulated by FEDERAL LAW.

That guy at a minimum should be immediately removed from the bench because he is a proven danger to children via his huge legal ignorance and therefore, inability to sit as a federal judge. You think before he reached his decision on FEDERAL LAW, he might have glanced at the existing FEDERAL LAWS governing child sexual abuse in a child sexual abuse case??

You think?

 

[danielpalos]

Your advice is hilarious and even funnier when you consider I don't want a skin overcoat for my penis. It's ugly, comical
looking and a bother to deal with. Animals like dogs have their penises covered by skin. I am not a dog.
You are ridiculous and a sensible fear of cancer is only part of the story.

Female mutilation removes the clitoris. It's the same as amputating the penis. So, if it can be done to girls... or would amputating a little boy's penis not be covered under the federal protections against child abuse?

The court erred in this case BTW. The federal government does have powers of enforcement when it comes to child abuse: Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect in Federal Law - Child Welfare Information Gateway

***

Federal legislation provides guidance to States by identifying a minimum set of acts or behaviors that define child abuse and neglect. The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) (42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g), as amended by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010, defines child abuse and neglect as, at minimum:

• "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"; or
  
• "An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."

This definition of child abuse and neglect refers specifically to parents and other caregivers. A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is younger than age 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.


While CAPTA provides definitions for sexual abuse and the special cases of neglect related to withholding or failing to provide medically indicated treatment, it does not provide specific definitions for other types of maltreatment such as physical abuse, neglect, or emotional abuse. While Federal legislation sets minimum standards for States that accept CAPTA funding, each State provides its own definitions of maltreatment within civil and criminal statutes.

***

Now I'd say offhand, amputating the stimulatory organ of a female in order to prevent her from achieving orgasm later in life is abso-*******-lutely child sexual abuse as federally defined and regulated. What asshole judge came to the conclusion otherwise? I get why the judge ruled how he did. He's a pocket boy for the LGBT who want "sex change" mutilations done on kids really really badly! And, they want it not to be illegal.

When are we going to stop catering to this cult of pedophiles? We are SERIOUSLY going to "legalize" (read, legislate override federal child abuse protections from the bench) AMPUTATING A LITTLE GIRL'S CLITORIS SO SHE MAY NEVER ACHIEVE ORGASM????!!!!!!

WHAT THE ****!!!!!?

Appealing to our temporal and secular Government means it is no longer about Religion, but about natural rights, equality, and equal protection of the law.

 

[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.

Yes. We need more penis cancer in this country.

Oh shut up you moron. Go peddle your bullshit child abusing nonsense elsewhere. Mutilation is mutilation no matter what gender it is.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I won't read all the nonsense in this thread, but does anyone know if the state of Michigan will go after this barbarian on any other charges?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Yes. We need more penis cancer in this country.

Oh shut up you moron. Go peddle your bullshit child abusing nonsense elsewhere. Mutilation is mutilation no matter what gender it is.

Why so angry? You are the idiot here. Circumcision has healthful benefits that move it out of the "mutilation" category that nuts, zealots and mental cases like yourself cannot deny.
You might as well claim dentists are "mutilating" children when they pull out wisdom teeth or doctors remove appendixes.

I've run into you psychos before. This issue seems to bring the loonies out of the woodwork. Enjoy your penis skin turtleneck if you like and you are welcome to your penile cancer too.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Libturds are sicko bastards!

Forget APPS....

The Constitution says....."There's an Amendment for that"

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Absolutely. And, he should be jailed for failure to protect. He's a federal judge who should know the CAPTA guidelines in his sleep. The removal of a little girls' clitoris is the epitome of child sexual abuse....forbidden and regulated by FEDERAL LAW.

That guy at a minimum should be immediately removed from the bench because he is a proven danger to children via his huge legal ignorance and therefore, inability to sit as a federal judge. You think before he reached his decision on FEDERAL LAW, he might have glanced at the existing FEDERAL LAWS governing child sexual abuse in a child sexual abuse case??

You'd think these people defending this are in Somalia or Syria. This is how far down we've already fallen that we have people...no less "Federal Judges" giving this the ok here in the US.

But this is what happens when alleged patriots refuse to fulfill their Constitutional duties. Gonna get worse. All the stuff that's getting a pass today, will lead to things in the future unimaginable not long ago.

 

[Silhouette]

I won't read all the nonsense in this thread, but does anyone know if the state of Michigan will go after this barbarian on any other charges?

The feds can go after them on CAPTA charges.