US district judge orders that female genital mutilation case be dropped in historic case

5 (100%) 2 votes

The judge who made this ruling was appointed by Reagan and in 2014 overturned Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban.

From MSN: A federal judge on Tuesday declared the country’s female genital mutilation law as unconstitutional, dismissing nearly all charges against two doctors in Michigan and others accused of subjecting minor girls to genital cutting at a clinic in Detroit.

The case involves at least nine minors from Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois – some of whom prosecutors alleged were tricked by their mothers into thinking they were going to Detroit for recreational activities before having their genitals cut at the Livonia clinic, The Detroit Free Press reported, citing court records.

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala said the practice was custom as part of the young girls’ religion and said the girls belonged to her Muslim sect, the Dawoodi Bohra. She also argued that the federal female genital mutilation law she and others who assisted her were being prosecuted under is unconstitutional.

The U.S. statute at issue states that “whoever knowingly circumcises, excises or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person” who is under the age of 18 will face a fine and/or up to five years in prison.

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman reportedly concluded in the case that the law criminalizing female genital mutilation that Congress passed in 1996 was unconstitutional and said that the regulation of the practice is up to the states.

“As laudable as the prohibition of a particular type of abuse of girls may be … federalism concerns deprive Congress of the power to enact this statute,” Friedman wrote in his opinion of female genital mutilation, abbreviated as FGM.

“Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit FGM … FGM is a ‘local criminal activity’ which, in keeping with longstanding tradition and our federal system of government, is for the states to regulate, not Congress,” he added.

As a result of the ruling, charges brought against Nagarwala, those who assisted her and four mothers who took their daughters to the Livonia clinic, were dismissed, according to The Detroit Free Press.

Shannon Smith, Nagarwala’s lawyer, praised the judge’s decision but also said she expects the government to appeal the ruling. “But we are confident we will win even if appealed,” she told the local paper.

However, women’s rights activists are calling the judge’s ruling a setback for the protection of women and girls.

“It’s a giant step backward in the protection of women’s and girls’ rights,” Shelby Quast, the Americas director of equality for the rights organization Equality Now, told The Detroit News. “Especially when there is a global movement to eliminate this practice.”


Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:

25 responses to “US district judge orders that female genital mutilation case be dropped in historic case

  1. How about the little girls rights? Maybe they don’t want it done. Maybe we should do it to the female members of the Judge’s family and see how well it goes over.
    He is just giving the parents the right to mutilate their own children, isn’t that abuse? Regardless of any religion involved or excuse to hide behind.
    Have you seen the tools used and what kind of sterilization is used?
    BTW, anyone sure that is a woman doctor?

  2. Pingback: US district judge orders that FGM case be dropped in historic case – Occasion2B

  3. So, according to District Judge Bernard Friedman, a law against female genital mutilation is unconstitutional, but murdering unborn humans is constitutional. Friedman’s ruling should be appealed, right up to the Supreme Court if necessary.

    • I wonder if Judge Friedman’s ruling has something to do with this: If female genital mutilation is banned, so too might Jewish male circumcision.

      • Perhaps. I thought about that. In the case of male circumcision, there can at least be a medical argument that it is “cleaner” or has some “benefit”. Outside of Judaism I don’t think it is thought of as a religious issue.

        There could be a strong argument against it as it ignores the minor’s rights in favor of the parents wishes, but many medical doctors recommend the procedure.

        I don’t know of any medical doctors (unless they are Muslim) prescribing FGM. My understanding is that this practice is done to “desensitize” the area and, therefore, make sex less attractive. If I’m wrong about that I welcome anyone correcting me.

        In this sense, I don’t think the two are comparable. Certainly male circumcision is not “sold” as a deterrent to sex. Some argue that it diminishes sexual pleasure, but I’m not sure how they arrive at that conclusion. Surely no competent medical authority would prescribe something that knowingly damaged human sexuality.

        • I’m in complete agreement with all of your points. FGM is an unacceptable, ghastly, life-changing and soul murdering barbarism. I’m positive we’ll never find a single female worldwide who’ll tell you it was a benefit for her.

          Being a circumcised male, the procedure done by Dr Salvatore Mirabella in Mother Cabrini Hospital, Chicago, I can testify from personal experience, so to speak. What it does do, with 100% certainty, is allow the glans penis to become accustomed to cloth rubbing it, in the decades that follow.

          This will gradually slightly desensitise the glans, so that a young male is not as likely to climax prematurely. This is truly a benefit for females, as I’m sure there are fewer disappointed women married to a circumcised male than those who must cope with a non-circumcised partner.

          • Thanks Joseph. I had not thought of that. I had only considered that the glans was exposed on erection and, therefore, the sensation should be the same. I see what you mean though. I’ve been circumcised all my life too. In the forties and fifties just about all the doctors recommended it.

      • That’s an interesting point.
        (Reminds me of the rabbi who never charged for a bris—He only took tips! Woo! Hoo!)

        • Having had my tool trimmed as an infant in the 1950’s I do not remember the procedure… I can say it does make a difference in staying clean… “Fumunda Cheese” is a nasty byproduct and it does stink…. Many years ago as a young Watertender I worked inside boilers so much that I had soot ground into my skin and it even got under the folds of skin in that area… I have always had good function in the pleasure department so no complaint there…. The FGM procedure practiced by Muslims is beyond barbaric. To them a female is only there to produce children. For pleasure the male Muslims go on dates with their goats….

          • So, having less “fumunda cheese” (which can be prevented by simple good hygiene) is worth the pain suffered by baby Watertender when his weenie was circumcized?

            The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that alleged health benefits are not great enough to recommend universalnewborn circumcision.

            • Doc I am sure I howled when the procedure was done but I don’t remember…. I have a feeling mine was done with a Gomco Clamp… Never having known my foreskin I have no comparison… Hey Steve a really talented leatherworker could make those tips into a wallet that turns into a briefcase with 3 strokes…

              • I probably had the same reaction as you when I was a wee little baby, like millions of others.

                And I’m none worse for the wear. I don’t remember it being done, and I don’t have any psychological scars.

                I don’t put much stock in what the AAP says about circumcision. Even though it’s unrelated other than the fact that it comes from AAP, the AAP also recommends a heavy vaccination schedule, much heavier than when I was growing up.

                And I have a close relative who works there.

        • Good one!

  4. This is horrid. The government is supposed to have one job: that is, to protect us from the aggressive acts of others. By the same token, male circumcision isn’t any better.

    Why don’t we leave our kids as God made them? Correcting birth defects is one thing, of course; MODIFYING one’s body is another thing altogether, and should be left up to the individual to decide for him-or-herself once s/he has reached the age of majority.

    • Absolutely. This is a ridiculous practice, it is made more ridiculous by the recipients being minors. This is not a “job” for government. If an adult woman wants to get a “Mom” tattoo, cut off her hair and get her labia sewn shut, I suppose that’s her choice (given she can find accomplices to help).

      Just as with queerness, nobody is doing anybody any favors to encourage mental illness. So the Government in it’s infinite wisdom has decided that they should never interfere with women’s “rights” to murder infants, but they should actively protect a woman’s “right” to mutilate herself or her offspring?

      Are there no standards for judges?

    • IDK about that. Not to get personal here, but, you know, you know, I’ve… You know… It hasn’t bothered me. Actually, I think circumcision is better—for hygiene reasons (although it does not render the male disease-proof).
      Seriously: I think tattoos are a greater health risk—for the lymph glands, liver and kidneys. To each his own, I guess.

  5. Regrettably, it seems to me that Friedman interpreted the Constitution “as written” in saying that this matter “belongs to the states” (which may be the case). But, let us consider that legislation, sponsored by Adam Clayton Powell, which made lynching a federal crime: Would Friedman strike this law down, also?

    How many times do judges, both right and left, fail to see the forest for the trees? Does the answer to this question lay in the Constitution itself? Or does the failure of Friedman to uphold the law reside in his reasoning alone? Whatever the answers to these questions may be, clearly, it is time for enough people to get outraged to the point where something is done.

    Under President Eisenhower, it was illegal to practice Islam in the United States, and the muslims who lived here were rare, indeed. Since the War on Terror, President Bush, Jr. invited these people over here, according to his own strange reasoning. And God Knows the Culture War has been lost; Not even Reagan could stop it.
    Now it has come to this.
    We stand at the cusp of a thousand years of darkness. The Muslims in their funk shall not succeed in casting us all into it (and not for a lack of desire or drive); The Left with its insane reasoning shall beat them to the punch.

  6. This may be off-topic, but a justice system which is jewed, as it has become since the 1960’s, is not off-topic, and this type of situation needs to be known about and shouted far and wide. Too many tend to pass these types of things with little to no thought. They pick our people off one by one, or a few at a time. The “justice” system enables it.

    As Recynd77 said above, ” The government is supposed to have one job: that is, to protect us from the aggressive acts of others.”

    “White Man Turned Into Vegetable After Brutal Beating by Black Man Who Will Walk Free”

  7. There ARE some very important “rights” which the jewstice system protects.

    “Challenge to Jewish religious chicken-killing ritual defeated in court”

    “NEW YORK (WABC) —
    The New York Court of Appeals delivered a big victory Wednesday to the ultra-orthodox Jewish community which has been defending an ancient atonement tradition known as Kaporos.

    The ritual involves waving a chicken over one’s head three times while reciting a prayer for forgiveness then slitting the chicken’s throat.”

    The New York Court of Appeals delivered a big victory Wednesday to the ultra-orthodox Jewish community which has been defending an ancient atonement tradition known as Kaporos.

    The ritual involves waving a chicken over one’s head three times while reciting a prayer for forgiveness then slitting the chicken’s throat.

    • The secret was out over a year ago: Hillary Clinton ADMITTED to engaging in this ritual herself. Her father was Jewish (which kind I don’t know), and her mother may have been Jewish. It turns out she is either a Crypto or a Marrano, for the Methodist thing is just a ruse: I have read (I believe it was Dr. Makow) that she was reared in the Jewish tradition. (Not that she practices any of it save the chicken twirling). She missed JONESTOWN. Oh well….

  8. So, my wish is that maybe one day Judge Friedman will spend a few minutes with someone in “legal charge according to his interprettion of the Constitution” of his genitalia…and a box cutter….and he might change his mind as to the “legality” of the rights of the individual…regardless of age….regardless of religion….in light of the Constitution. This MAN is an abomination, a SCOURGE on the face of the earth to have ruled in a manner that allows willful disfigurement/torture, and CONTROL of a helpless minor female child. And, DO NOT EVEN go there in comparing it to male circumcism…which has a proved medical benefit to BOTH male and female sexually active adults in reduced reproductive cancers….infections, etc. There is NO medical benefit in female sexual mutilation… has a purely religious, social, personal control aspect/goal.

    • I agree, Cal Girl. But again, there is, I believe, a real danger (albeit occasional, for now) in rending legal rulings that are limited to “ruling based on the Constitution ‘as written.'” Whether it’s Friedman here or Roberts there, here a Sotomayor, there a Ginsberg, etc., etc., etc., this standard (desire, really) to “interpret the Constitution ‘as written,'” poses a real danger: A right-leaning judge and a leftist commie judge could render their opinions based on this same so-called standard, even when a Justice does not ADVOCATE in any given decision. So what is to be done with a LOONY ruling such as this???

      • So, Steven…help me understand: I don’t “get” your meaning in this case—are you saying that an individual female of any age or any religion is protected from bodily mutilation only SOMETIMES…according to this or that interpretation from this or that appointed Supreme, regardless of the provisions of the Constitution? Do you think that, as the Constitution is a written/basic instrument of our government, that, an errant judge, either right or left, supercedes this instrument? That, if they DO supercede in real life, as maybe a Roberts…that this remains “written in stone” and the Contitution does not ulitmately prevail through subsequent rulings or through Congressional laws passed and signed by a President–as upheld probably by judicial review? As I read the court pronouncement in this case—-it says that it is up to the states to decide if female genital mutilation is “OK” or not (meaning…”anything ” not covered in the Constitution is left up to the states). Pretty much I’ve always interpreted the US Constitution as “covering” bodily harm” to me as my right to safety, privacy in my own home, community, church, and so on, without fear of censorship, harm or death from other-minded persons. I don’t know WHERE in God’s name this court came up with the idea that it was not covered in the Contitution and therefore left up to the states….like maybe the maximum speed laws for their state highways, or legal drinking age. No comparison. No way. Physical/surgical alteration of a minor for no good medical/health reason( minors in CA can’t even have their ears or anything else pierced…or tattoed), especially if it is non-elective, as other things are—as in circumcism—-is as barbaric as any other act against, by law, I am a “mandated reporter” in my state and in my school system. If I knew about this happening with a student of mine…I’d report it to CPS. Of course, it would THEN become an issue for the courts….and that is where it is going to end up case after case (I hope) until it is rule that sexual mutilation for the purposes of religious or sexually-held beliefs/control of a minor who has no participation in the decision as an adult —has a “say” over her own body. ForGodSake, in CA, a 12-yr-old can legally CHOOSE his/her own sexual orientation without input of his/her parents and I MUST comply with his/her preferences regardless of parental opinions/statements otherwise. This is NOT a far cry from Supreme rulings that disallowed the summary sterilizations of under-aged (or older) and mentally compromised females in former days. Unfortunately, Steven, the courts experience independent interpretation of our Constitution as you noted, which are according to political interpretation/leanings, as you have hinted at…..but, the Constitution does NOT change….only opinions do, back and forth from one season, one generation to another…..and, thankfully, we are not one of those European governments who have a sea change of head of state/reps when peers /people feel peeved for a day….nor one of the more socialistic Nordic governments, where people pay passing interest in their governments & just “adjust” for instance, to run their own “underground lives” and “underground” tax-free businesses in addition to their own “tax-paying jobs.” Everyone in Norway and Sweden, for example, knows how this goes and how to “work” this system….. In the end, I guess , Steven, you can just say I am a strict constructionist. I don’t think, no matter who makes up the Supreme Court, that the state in which I reside has the final say in whether or not my female sexual parts can be altered by an adult “in charge” while I am a dependent minor. I believe the ruling that designated it to the states, relegating it equal to highway speed laws, minimum-aged marriage laws, drinking age laws, et al, was a laughable mis-judgment and misuse of the US Constitution. I also believe this will arrive at the door of the courts time and again until they rule in favor of the rights, safety, bodily protection of the individual. In the end….individual rights was and is the basis of our Constitution, anyway, unlike the basis for most other governments even today that you can find on Earth…..

        • What I am saying, Cal Girl, is that a judge, in thinking he is interpreting the Constitution “as written,” may actually deliver the exact wrong decision, according to our God-Given rights, or according to what the Constitution says they are, without even realizing it. The question, most regrettably (given Roe Vs. Wade) is not what it does to the person who would be most affected (either Roe or this decision), but the person making the decision, whether that decision affects another person or not.
          This, I believe, is the problem, spawned by Roe Vs. Wade. You and I may agree that the life of a fetus is extinguished, yet the Justices, in the Roe decision, refused to acknowledge that, at least in the first trimester. Thus, the door was left open to further abominations.

          It seems to me that many judges seem to abandon both common sense and the Natural Law when they make decisions like this, and these mistakes seem to be common enough to make me wonder this: Are they really reading the Constitution and ruling thereby, or, are they rendering the decision for someone else, some other interest? It’s a game to them: We can suspect all we wish, but will never be able to prove a thing. And meanwhile, as a Nation or Culture, we continue to slide into barbarism.

  9. Have to say, that any type of “circumcision”, regardless of which gender it is pushed on, should be considered a violation of the person’s rights, this includes the sicko followers of the judaizer dr. kellogg (same 7th day adventist cultist that got the cereal brand going, was a eugenicist well before billy gates was born, and whose nephew was responsible in large part for the cultic & anti-christian “urantia book” text.) who was responsible for kicking off that barbaric practice in the U.S. on little boys, allegedly to “prevent the evils of masturbation”, among other things. They should have shut him down just as much as they should shut down this vile beast claiming to be a doctor, as, if what happened with him is any indication, this lack of opposition signals approval, which means it will spread… then they’ll start heaping idiotic justifications on it, same as they did with the male version like claiming that it “prevents aids” (bill gates has used this excuse to chop up much of the male children in africa, while claiming he is performing a “service” to them.) or has other nigh-magical properties, and cum laude panacea-type health benefits, and then start applying political, social, (peer pressure garbage like “it would be abuse not to do this to your daughter because she’ll look weird.” or “she’ll be a barbarian or practice unsafe sex because she is uncut.” etc.) and religious pressure (“they won’t be saved unless its cut off. God won’t accept or protect them unless they’re cut” “If they’re not cut they’re breaking covenant.” etc.) to try to force it into the majority public practice.

    Suffice it to say the reasonings for it are the height of stupidity by and large, and it is meant as a direct attack upon the genders, male & female, as practiced. Are they aware of the blasphemy they commit by insisting God made human beings corrupted in their form & genitalia from the start, (As surely Adam & Eve would have been intact.) that He somehow made a “mistake” in making the human form, a mistake which would put a person in spiritual peril simply for being intact, that somehow mankind must “fix” said “mistake” by doing a savage blood-letting ritual on the person in question?

    This is a worrying thing, hopefully the case will be pressed, and a better court will rule against the mad butcheress “doctor”. Thanks for calling attention to it, DCG.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.