DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

Intactivists had been watching this case closely. We knew that what was riding on this case, what the possible outcomes, and what their implications were. We knew that whatever the outcome would be, it would be a landmark decision, and progress in the fight for basic human rights.

A year ago on June 2, 2017, I asked the question:

How far can "religious freedom" and "parental choice" justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors?

This was it; the one case that would finally address this question.

Either "religious freedom" and "parental choice" could be used to justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors, or it could not.

You cannot have it both ways.

Recapitulation

In March, 2017, one Dr. Jumana Nagarwala was charged with performing female genital cutting on two girls from Minnesota on February 3rd, 2017, at a Livonia clinic owned by one Dr. Fakhruddin Attar. She had been doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, would have faced life in prison for violating the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996.

This was, unless, the doctor could prove that what she did wasn't "mutilation," but "benign religious procedure," which she and her defense lawyers were already trying to allege, or unless the federal ban could somehow be thwarted, since, under the ban, all cutting of female genitals, great or small, constitutes "mutilation."

The outcome of this case would have far-reaching implications, particularly in the case of another alleged "benign religious procedure."

Readers know what I'm talking about; male infant genital cutting.

Who was on the case, and why would it matter?
Who the doctor's defense lawyers were is important to note because it would appear that they had personal stake in the matter.

Famed constitutional law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz and prominent Birmingham defense attorney Mayer Morganroth were hired by Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an international religious organization overseeing a small sect of Shia Muslim mosques around the world.

According to Morganroth, they were hired "to protect the people charged and to represent the religious organization."

Morganroth had represented numerous high-profile clients, including ex-Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, auto executive John DeLorean and Jack Kevorkian.

Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School professor and lawyer who defended celebrity clients in some of the country's highest profile criminal cases, including O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and British socialite Claus von Bulow.

Alan Dershowitz is Orthodox Jewish, and Morganroth is a Jewish surname.

This is important because male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment in Judaism, and it has been a highly contested practice for the past two millennia.

A negative outcome in a case against a physician performing non-medical genital cutting in children at the request of religious parents would mean the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

Of course, the defense of a client is the duty of any lawyer, but for these lawyers, the outcome would mean a bit more, and so they would see to it that it would result in a favorable one for them.

Religious Freedom or Basic Human Rights?
A year ago, I said that the outcome of this decision would be a landmark decision either way.

On the one hand, upholding the federal ban on FGM would mean a loss for this doctor, and it would mean not only that what she did was illegal, it also meant that the legality of Jewish circumcision would be brought into question.

It would mean that parents couldn't just do abusive things to their children and get away with it under the cloak of "religious freedom."

On the other hand, a landmark win would mean  a win for "religious freedom," and the legality of Jewish circumcision would remain unquestioned.

A year ago, I also warned that such an outcome might result in the Federal FGM Ban of 1996 being struck down, opening the door for other forms of FGM, and possibly other abusive practices, to be legally performed in the US.

Today, we read about the outcome of this case.

History Made
So what was it going to be?

The protection of "religious freedom?"

Or the protection of basic human rights?

For all people?

The powers have decided "religious freedom" must be protected at all costs.

On November 10 of this year (2018), the charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala were dismissed, precisely because the judged declared the federal ban against FGM "unconstitutional."

The judge deciding this was none other than US District Judge Bernard Friedman.

US District Judge Bernard Friedman

I must say, with a name like "Friedman," I'm really not surprised.

There is not a doubt in my mind that the unstated reasons the judge ruled this was precisely to protect male infant circumcision.

Intactivists would have wanted the federal ban on female genital mutilation to be struck down on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, but it was struck down on the grounds that genital mutilation is said to lie outside the scope of federally regulated interstate commerce instead. 

But to me, it really doesn't really matter; those who wanted to prevent a legal precedent that would invalidate "religious freedom" and thus place male infant circumcision under scrutiny from occurring, found a way to invalidate the Female Genital Mutilation Act, just as I predicted they would do a year ago.

I have always said, and continue to say this; either religious freedom and parental choice can be used to justified the forced cutting of genitals of children, or it cannot. It can't be had both ways.

The Ramifications of This Decision
I don't know about other intactivists, but I for one, welcome this decision.

Either decision would have been progress for our movement, because either decision would result in questioning "religious freedom" and "parental choice" sooner or later. However, I believe we couldn't have wished for a better outcome.

Had the judge upheld the federal FGM ban, it would have merely prolonged the grace period for male infant circumcision. The fact is that most, including activists against female genital mutilation, would laud the decision as the "correct" one, and life would have continued business as usual.

The fact is that striking the federal ban against FGM down is going to get people's attention; I don't think campaigners against FGM are going to be happy. There is going to be hell to pay.

Perhaps this judge inadvertently gave this conversation a push in the right direction.

The topic of the extent of "religious freedom" and "parental choice" is going to be a lightning rod for conversation.

In the past, activists against FGM and advocates of male infant circumcision alike were able to dismiss the topic "because they're not the same." Still others would hem and haw and hoped that the conversation would just go away.

Dismissing and ignoring is no longer a choice.

Sitting on the fence is no longer an option.

We intactivists have been saying for years that laws against FGM would not stand unless male infant circumcision were addressed. We were attacked by FGM activists for it. Now, exactly what I and others have predicted has come to pass.

This decision has propelled this topic from its usual position as the elephant in the room, to the forefront of conversation.

It can no longer be said that "male and female are not the same," because thanks to this legal precedent, male and female forced genital cutting are on the same tier.

The firewall between male and female forced genital cutting has been officially knocked down.

Anti-FGM groups will now have a decision to make; either recognize basic human rights for both boys and girls, or watch their movement crash and burn.

The conversation can no longer be dismissed on the grounds that the forced cutting of one sex is more or less "severe" than the other, because that's neither here nor there.

Either "religious freedom" and/or "parental choice" justifies the forced cutting of the genitals of healthy, non-consenting children or it does not.

Ultimately the question is this:

What is more important?

"Religious freedom and/or "parental choice?"

Or basic human rights?

You cannot have it both ways.

We are going to have to choose once and for all which it will be.

What's it going to be, FGM activists?

What's it going to be, world?

Knock-knock!

Reality is here.

Related Posts:

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

External Link:

Detroit Free Press: Judge dismisses female genital mutilation charges in historic case

Harvard Porn-Shames Employee for Anti-Circumcision Show

In my last post, I wrote about how Harvard University was trying to censor Eric Clopper for his intactivist show “Sex & Circumcision: An American Love Story.” It turns out that what they’re actually doing is far worse.

It would be one thing if the university administration merely fired him and told him to look elsewhere for a job because they were “offended” or whatever bullshit reason they could come up with.

Instead, Eric Clopper reveals on his GoFundMe page that not only did Harvard’s student news paper The Crimson publish 5 libelous articles against him, they refused to publish his letter to the editor.

Harvard suspended Clopper for 2 months for a supposed “investigation,” during which they solicited claims against him and eliminated his position.

And, as if that weren’t enough, Harvard colluded with the sound company that handled Clopper’s show to obtain intimate footage of his, which they then showed to senior administrators, his boss, his friends and colleagues.

This is a screen shot from a video College Humor did on circumcision.
Actually, Eric Clopper uses the video in his show.

In essence, Harvard University, The Crimson and Baystate Sound engaged in a smear campaign against Clopper.

Obviously his show pinched some nerves, and now people are trying to shut him down.

This is no different than if people were trying to porn-shame women who performed in the Vagina Monologues.

Clopper effectively, conclusively and irrefutably destroys the lie that male infant circumcision before an audience.

He highlights the historical reasons circumcision was performed on males, a lot of which are beliefs still held today.

He takes apart the pseudo-science used to prop up the claim that circumcision has "medical benefits"

He exposes the AAP and the so-called "circumcision task-force" for the frauds they are, and for the crock of deliberate lies they try and feed the public.

He attacks the conflict of interests that Jewish doctors and physicians have when propping up the so-called "medical benefits."

He rejects the Jewish covenant imposed on him as an infant and openly repudiates it.

This man's presentation is an indictment of American medicine and America as a whole for holding on to, repeating, and perpetuating a lie which is clear and obvious to anyone well-versed in basic human anatomy, history and medicine, basically the rest of the English-speaking world.

It is a call to action that we reject this lie for truth, and to protect the most basic, the most fundamental human rights of the next generation.

I recon this does not sit will with the AAP, Jewish members of Harvard, and gentiles who are circumcised themselves, spouses of circumcised men, or parents of circumcised children, who do not want to have to question this, who fear the spread of Eric Clopper's message.

His message is solid.

So solid and irrefutable, that the only chance people who want to silence him have is to attack his character and plague him with financial ruin and shame.

You can shoot the messenger, but the message stands or falls on its own.

I beseech my readers to please help this man with whatever you can.

Help him win his fight against those who are trying to shame him into silence.

Watch and help spread his video.

Male infant circumcision is a crime against humanity.

It is a violation of the most basic of human rights.

It is scientific profanity and an insult to human intelligence.

It is a sick, disgusting, bold-faced lie respected medical organizations in the rest of the world can see right through, and it's about time American medical organizations stop telling it.

Links to Eric Clopper's webpage, his video and his GoFundMe page can be found at the bottom of this post.


Related Links:

Harvard Censors Intellect for Circumcision Play at Sanders Theatre

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

External Links: 

https://www.clopper.com/

Eric's 2-hour performance on YouTube (Watch while it's still available.) 

Eric Clopper's Go Fund Me Page

CONNECTICUT: Baby's Glans Partially Amputated - Doctor Cleared of Negligence

Particularly in the United States, suing for circumcision malpractice is an uphill battle.

About 80% of US males are circumcised from birth, and though male infant circumcision rates have fallen in the past years, to about about 56% if CDC numbers are to be believed, the practice is still quite prevalent, at about 1.3 million boys circumcised a year.

This means that male infant circumcision is viewed favorably by a considerable number of the population.

The country is exposed to a constant drizzle of news articles and "studies" saying that circumcising male infants is "beneficial," and that adverse effects of it are "negligible."

So we, as a nation, are predisposed to believe that circumcision is a benign, "harmless" procedure and that nothing could ever go wrong.

It's no surprise, then, that any adverse results that do present themselves are minimized, and those who are at fault for negligence or malpractice are often absolved, boys and men who have to live with the consequences of a circumcision gone wrong be damned.

Connecticut Mogen Clamp Case
A circumcision malpractice case is currently stirring up controversy on Facebook, where at least one user who posted the case on his timeline has been punished with a 30 day ban.

The case in question is Mahoney v. Smith, a case in Connecticut where parents sued Dr. Lori Storch Smith over malpractice for a circumcision performed at Norwalk Hospital on December 29, 2010.

During this procedure, Dr. Smith used a Mogen Clamp, and then realized that she had cut off approximately 30% of the glans of the baby's penis. The baby was subsequently transported to Yale-New Haven Hospital where he had the amputated portion reattached.

The trial began on April 15, 2015 – and the jury cleared the defendant. The verdict was appealed, and the Appellate Court ruled against the plaintiffs on July 13, 2017.

Long story short, the jury was presented with evidence, and despite the fact that the child's circumcision resulted in 30% of his glans being amputated, decided that the Bay Street Pediatrics doctor should be cleared of medical negligence.

The Devil in the Details
The parents tried appealing the court decision but were unsuccessful.

They tried to argue that  a video shown in court was unfairly allowed by the trial judge, which may have swayed or confused the jurors.

The video shows a Mogen procedure being completed successfully without any complications.

Furthermore, details that were never an issue or point of contention were addressed, namely that anesthesia and the right surgical tools to control bleeding were used. (The end result was 30% of the child's glans being severed, regardless of how much anesthesia or which tools were used.)

According to the appellate court, rather than confuse, the video likely illustrated for the jury the testimony given by the Mahoneys’ own expert witness, Dr. David Weiss, describing a circumcision using a Mogen clamp, an allegation that can't be true, given the fact that the child's circumcision was a botched surgery, not one completed successfully as shown in the video.

The problem lies in the technicality that the Mahoneys' counsel identified the video as acceptable evidence for presentation prior to the trial.

The Mahoneys are apparently at fault for not having requested to see the video before it as presented and rejected it as evidence.

According to Law360, "The plaintiffs could have asked to watch the video prior to its introduction at trial, but did not do so; nor did they file a motion in limine seeking to preclude its admission into evidence, move for a continuance after it was marked for identification or recall Dr. Weiss to serve as a rebuttal witness concerning the video," the panel wrote in a nine-page opinion.

The Mahoneys tried to argue that use of the video violated the court rules regarding disclosure of expert testimony, but the panel rejected this argument saying the plaintiffs did not specifically make those claims in their motions to set aside the verdict for a new trial.

The jury, while deliberating, wanted to see the video again. However, this request was denied because the video itself was not part of the evidence, because it was not produced as evidence and was not a recording of the actual botched surgery. (Begging the question of why it was allowed to be shown in the first place.)

The jury then requested to hear again the declaration of the expert witness, the one that presented the video. They were told they could get a  transcript but that would take about 2 days to just listen to the transcript again.

It must be asked, what was the purpose of showing a video where the procedure went how it was supposed to in the first place?

How was it significant enough to show it to the jury the first time, but suddenly not significant enough to request to see it a second?

So if your blogger read the appellation correctly, the court discouraged the jury from re-hearing this testimony. In my opinion, this is necessarily the result of judges who are already circumcised themselves, and/or have circumcised children, working with a jury whose members are likely to be circumcised/parents of circumcised children themselves, both of whom already want believe circumcision is benign and could never go wrong, and want to see this case dismissed, so that they can go back to believing circumcision is "harmless" and "good."

In the end, a child's glans was partially amputated, and the jury believed the doctor wasn't negligent and performed the circumcision "properly" because that's what they saw in a video.

And it's the parents' fault for not requesting to see the video before it was presented.

The details can be read here.

It Doesn't Matter

 A Mogen clamp; the circumcision clamp used in this case

We can go on and on quibbling about the details in this case, how the judges, jury, lawyers handled it etc., but that is beating around the bush.

The fact is a mogen clamp was used in 2010, when it was already clear that there is potential for injury even in the best case.

I have already written numerous posts on this before, but the Mogen Clamp is notorious for glans amputations.

Common Mogen Problem: The circumciser is blind to the

conditionof the child's glans. Some or all of the glans is pulled up

along with the foreskin, resulting in partial or full glans amputations.

Back in August, 2000, the FDA issued a warning regarding the potential for injury employing the use of the Mogen and Gomco clamps, after 105 reports of injuries between July 1996 and January 2000.

On July of 2010, six months before this botched procedure, an Atlanta Lawyer won a $10.8 million lawsuit for the family of a baby whose glans was amputated during a Mogen clamp circumcision.

Mogen Circumcision Instruments of New York was already $7 million in default on another lawsuit, and was thus forced out of business.

Another baby, born on March of 2010 (9 months before this botched circumcision) also had the glans of his penis removed during a Mogen clamp circumcision. His parents filed a lawsuit on April of 2015.

The FDA warning was later archived, but remained accessible on their website for some time.

(Incidentally, your blogger tried accessing that warning today, but it is nowhere to be seen. The failed search even offers to search the FDA archive, but this is also a dead end. Fortunately, a copy of the warning can be found archived on the CIRP webpage.)

AAP Silent
In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued their policy statement on circumcision, in which they make the self-contradictory statement that “the benefits outweigh the risks”, but that “the benefits are not enough to recommend circumcision.”

Dr. Andrew Freedman from the task force said that “there are modest benefits and modest risks."

In their statement, the AAP tries to minimize the risks and complications of male infant circumcision, including the most catastrophic risks, which include partial or full ablation of the penis, hemorrhage and even death. Reported incidences of adverse effects of circumcision are dismissed as "case reports" because of the lack of statistics.

The AAP admits in their 2012 statement that "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown."

The AAP policy statement on circumcision is turning 5 years next month.

Will they reaffirm it?

Will they present a new one?

Are they even trying to document the actual number of catastrophic injuries?

The fact is, physicians and hospitals are not required to report adverse outcomes of circumcision procedures.

It's also a fact that the AAP is first and foremost a trade union, whose primary interest is the welfare of their members, a great deal of who profit from the business of male infant circumcision.

Something tells me they're not interested in conducting investigations that could prove devastating to their members.

The bottom line is that male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic non medical surgery whose risks and complications are no longer deniable.

Are parents being warned of these risks?

But more importantly, can doctors get away with reaping profit performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals?

Were it the amputation or extraction of any other part of the body, the medical fraud would be undeniable.

Why is it that doctors who perform male infant circumcision get a free pass?

Related News Articles:

Schmidt Law - Mogen Clamp Circumcision Lawsuit Filed for Penis Amputation

AJC - Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision

WCPO Cincinnati - Cincinnati protesters demand end to circumcisions at Good Samaritan Hospital

Journal of Perinatology - Pain During Mogen or PlastiBell Circumcision

Related Posts:
Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit

The Ghost of Mogen

CINCINNATI: Intactivists Protest Circumcision "Experiment" at Good Samaritan Hospital

AFRICA: Botwsana to Implement Controversial Infant Circumcision Devices

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

If "religious freedom" and "parental choice" can be used as alibis to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting boys, can they be used to justify it in girls?

The world is about to find out.

There exists an inconsistent hypocrisy in this country when it comes to the forced genital cutting of minors.

We have a two-track system that says that forcibly cutting off the foreskin of a healthy, non-consenting male child is defensible under so-called "religious freedom," as well as so-called "parental choice," but it is "mutilation" to cut the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting female child in any way shape or form.

There is no exemption for parents who wish to have their daughters' genitals cut for "cultural" or "religious reasons," though with male circumcision, only "parental choice" suffices and a doctor can perform a circumcision in a male child with for no further reason than that a parent wanted it done.

In South-East Asian countries, girls are circumcised in infancy.

In different countries around the world, including regions of Africa and South-East Asia, girls are often circumcised in infancy in pretty much the same way as boys are in the US.

When media outlets present female genital cutting, it is often generalized that all of it takes place in the bush, performed by amateur tribal shamans with crude utensils such as rusty blades, tin can remnants and glass shards. (Which is funny, because male circumcision is often performed in these exact same settings in the exact same places where female circumcision is performed in this way.)

When you say "female circumcision," the default for most Americans is to correct you and say "no, it's mutilation," citing the above, and citing infibulation (AKA "pharaonic circumcision"), where the protruding part of the clitoris is excised, the outer and inner labia excised and the remnants sewn shut to leave but a small hole for menstruation.

While infibulation exists, this is actually the rarest form of FGM, constituting only about 15% of all female genital cutting.

Most FGM is not as severe.

"Severity" is not the issue here.

Yet there seems to be this unspoken rule that "the least severe of the practices is justifiable."

Most people in the West don't seem to be aware that infant girls can be circumcised in pretty much the same way as infant boys are, in the setting of a hospital, performed by a medical professional using pristine utensils, and excising only external, vestigial pieces of flesh, though in the Western mind, there is no acceptable amount of flesh that can be removed in a girl.

While the entire foreskin can be removed in a male for "religious" or "cultural" purposes in males, the removal of any amount of flesh in a female constitutes "mutilation" as is simply unacceptable.

Pictured here is the amount of flesh that was removed in a circumcision in South-East Asia.

The original blogger, the mother, claims it was the clitoris, which is barely visible on the blades.

 Pictured here is the freshly severed foreskin of a newborn infant in the US.

It is often claimed by female circumcision advocates that male infant circumcision as it is commonly performed in the United States is actually more severe than female circumcision is it is commonly performed in South-East Asian countries, and as readers can see for themselves, they wouldn't be exaggerating.

It is often claimed that the reason female circumcision is "more severe" in girls is supposedly because female circumcision removes the clitoris, and that without the clitoris sexual enjoyment and even orgasm aren't possible.

What is removed in female circumcision, if at all (not all FGM removes the clitoris), is the *tip* of the clitoris. Complete removal of the clitoris is actually impossible.

For this reason, even women who have undergone the most severe form of FGM can still enjoy sex and even experience orgasm, as documented by Johnsdotter and Catania.

FGM is not all the same. The WHO recognizes for different types, not all of which remove any part of the clitoris.

 FGM is not all one and the same.

For better or for worse, female infant circumcision is not seen as "mutilation" in the countries and cultures where it is performed.

In fact, it is often considered a religious requirement, known as "sunat" in South-East Asia.

Female circumcision is seen as a normal "non-issue" by South-East Asian parents, just as male circumcision is seen as a normal "non-issue" by American parents.

 If you ignore the fact that this is a South-East Asian parent talking about

circumcising her daughter, she would sound like any American parent on

a parenting forum like BabyCenter or BabyGaga.

We intactivists have always asked, if "religious freedom" and "parental choice" can be used to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting male children, why can't it be used to justify the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting female children?

The question is often circumvented with assertions that "they are not the same," because "one is more severe than the other," not to mention "the potential medical benefits of which there are zero in female circumcision."

These may or may not be true, but true or not, they would be irrelevant conclusions to the question posed.

Either "religious freedom" or "parental choice" can be used to justify the cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors, or they cannot.

Actually, as shown here, female circumcision can be more severe than male circumcision, and removing the labia can prevent the accumulation of smegma in females, as removing the foreskin can in males.

The fact that we do not circumcise females is testament to the fact that surgery is not necessary for hygiene.

And here, before I go on any further, I'd like to point out how in the face of scrutiny, "religious freedom" and "parental choice" have to be abandoned as alibis.

These arguments are so weak and frail that after their demise, male infant circumcision advocates have to look elsewhere for recourse, in this case being "disease prevention," as if their concern for public health were genuine.

As with male infant circumcision advocates, female infant circumcision advocates are ready, complete with published "research" showing how female circumcision may be able to prevent this or that disease.

Again, because "religious freedom" and "parental choice" fail.

It's Here
Anti-FGM advocates have up until today sidelined and ignored anyone who dare ask the above question, hoping we go away, but I think that by now, they're realizing that they can only do that so much.

Today, that question is staring them directly in the face, and they have to make a decision.

America has to make a decision.

Very soon, doctors, lawyers, ethicists, members on committee boards of respected medical organizations, our entire justice system will be faced with the question; how far can "religious freedom" and "parental choice" justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors?

How far can something be justified before it constitutes "abuse?"

Female genital cutting in any way shape or form has been illegal in the US since a federal ban against it was instituted in 1996.

No such ban exists for male genital cutting.

This insconsistency, this sexist two-track system is finally going to be challenged in a court of law.

The State of Affairs
The situation is as follows; a woman is facing charges for FGM performed in Detroit.

Not too long before that, an Ethiopian Man had been deported after serving a sentence for having her daughter circumcised.

According to Detroit News, Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville is accused of mutilating the genitalia of two girls from Minnesota on Feb. 3 at a Livonia clinic owned by Dr. Fakhruddin Attar.

The Farmington Hills man has been indicted along with his wife, Farida Attar, who is accused of helping arrange the procedure and being in the examination room during the procedure.

Defense lawyers are saying the girls underwent a benign religious procedure, and that the government is overreaching. (E.g., it's not genital mutilation because it was religious.)

Nagarwala’s lawyer Shannon Smith said the doctor merely removed mucous membrane from the girls’ genitalia, placed the material on gauze pads and gave it to their families for burial. (There is a federal ban against any form of FGM regardless.)

All three are members of the Dawoodi Bohra community, a religious and cultural community based in India where FGM is practiced.

They are being held without bond pending a trial in federal court in Detroit on October 10th this year.

Fakhruddin Attar, 52, and Nagarwala, 44, face up to life in prison if convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity.

Farida Attar, 50, faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted of conspiring to obstruct the investigation.

The trio is accused of committing female genital mutilation, trying to cover up the crime and conspiring to cut girls as part of a procedure practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra.

Top Laywers on the Case
Famed constitutional law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz and prominent Birmingham defense attorney Mayer Morganroth were hired about three weeks ago by the Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an international religious organization overseeing a small sect of Shia Muslim mosques around the world.

According to Morganroth, they were hired "to protect the people charged and to represent the religious organization."

Morganroth has represented numerous high-profile clients, including ex-Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, auto executive John DeLorean and Jack Kevorkian.

Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School professor and lawyer who defended celebrity clients in some of the country's highest profile criminal cases. His client list includes O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and British socialite Claus von Bulow.

Conflicts of Interest
It looks like Alan Dershowitz is Orthodox Jewish. I couldn't find much on Morganroth, except that Morganroth is a Jewish surname.

Why is this important?

Male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment in Judaism.

They have personal stake in this case, because if the federal government wins this landmark case against a physician performing genital cutting on children at the request of religious parents, then the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

A Delicate Dance
So much hangs in the balance in this case.

The defense lawyers have a delicate dance to perform; the dance around the candle that FGM activists and male infant circumcision advocates have been struggling to perform for decades, only now, it's being performed in federal court.

On the one hand, a landmark win is a win for "religious freedom," and the legality of Jewish circumcision will remain unquestioned.

It also means, however, that this may result in the Federal FGM Ban of 1996 to be lifted, opening the door for other forms of FGM, and possibly other abusive practices, to be legally performed in the US.
 

For the Holy Day of Ashura, parents cut the tops of childrens' heads.
Harmless, really...

In some cultures, children marry early.
It's religiously sanctioned of course...

 In some cultures, children's faces are scarified.

Some belief the scars provide religious protection. Does that count?

 What if I want to tattoo my faith on my child?

What if, instead of taking my child to the doctor, I insist on praying for him?

Because I believe only god can and should heal my child from diseases?

 Where does it end?
What if I invent a new religion that says that all children

must have their ears modified to look like Princess Zelda?

On the other hand, a landmark loss means the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.

This also means, however, that parents can't just do abusive things to their children and get away with it under "religious freedom."

So these lawyers have to decide what's more important: protecting the most basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting minors, or sacrificing them on the altar of "religious freedom."

You can't have it both ways.

Choose wisely.

While it seems like it's a lose-lose for them, I can't help but seeing it as a win-win for basic human rights.

As a human rights activist, I want the judge uphold the federal ban on FGM to rule in favor of basic human rights, and to condemn the actions of the people involved.

On the other, a rule in favor of "religious freedom" is a tacit admission that genital cutting is the same issue, male or female.

Actually, male circumcision and female circumcision will be legally recognized as being parallel, and neither FGM activists nor circumcision advocates will be able to deny it.

The firewall between the forced genital cutting of males and females will have been officially broken down.

Normalizing and even legalizing FGM will force the public to take a closer look at the issue, and to recognize that male and female circumcision are both one and the same, for they violate the exact same principles and are defended on the exact same grounds.

In either case, I see nothing but progress in the fight for basic human rights.

Related Posts:

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

DETROIT: Woman Doctor Faces Charges For FGM

Last month, I posted about an Ethiopian man who was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his daughter's genitals.

In recent news, a woman doctor was charged with performing female genital cutting on young girls between six and eight years of age. Apparently, she's being doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, she faces life in prison.

Female genital cutting was made illegal in 1996 under the umbrella term "Female Genital Mutilation" (FGM). I assume that this law refers in particular to the forced genital cutting of girls for cultural or religious reasons, because women can go to doctors for "labiaplasty" and "vaginal rejuvenation" without a hitch.

In fact, there's a website openly running for a labiaplasty clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, right here.

My Thoughts
On the one hand, this ought to be the fate of any doctor who performs non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

On the other, whatever happened to "religious freedom" and "parental choice?"

If doctors are obliged to surgically alter the genitals of a male child on these grounds, then surely, they're obliged to alter the genitals of a female child, right?

I mean, at least for the case of male infant circumcision, the argument seems to be that doctors are these vassals who are supposed to respond to a parent's every beck and call.

What is the doctor in this case truly guilty of, other than honoring a parent's request and respecting their religious beliefs?

Whenever somebody objects to male infant circumcision, someone always has to defend it on the grounds that prohibiting it would be a "violation of religious freedom," and a "violation of parental rights."

Why the double-standards?

Why does it constitute "justice" to throw the book at a doctor who performs genital cutting in girls for "religious purposes" and honoring "parental prerogative," but "religious persecution" or "infringement on parental rights" to go after doctors who perform male genital cutting for the same reasons?

Why is it called "genital mutilation" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting girls without exemption, but "religious freedom" or "parental choice" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting boys?

For better or for worse, female genital cutting is a religious and/or cultural obligation for those who practice it. If this weren't so, people would not be risking their reputations, facing charges, being deported etc., to perform it.

Navigating the FGM problem without hypocrisy is impossible, and this is becoming increasingly obvious in this day and age.

Related Posts:

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals

According to New York Daily News, an Ethiopian man was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his 2-year-old's daughters genitals with scissors, highlighting American hypocrisy when it comes to genital cutting.

While this man has been deported for cutting his daughter's genitals, 1.3 million baby boys have their foreskins forcibly cut off at birth.

While it is taboo to question the practice of male genital cutting, people do not hesitate to openly condemn the practice of female genital cutting.

There seems to be two different yardsticks when measuring the forcible genital cutting of each sex.

While forced genital cutting in boys is defended on the grounds of "culture," "religion" and "parental choice," the same alibis fly out the window when it comes to the forced genital cutting of girls.

While the risks, complications and side-effects of forced male genital cutting are glossed over, if not ignored completely, those who oppose forced female genital cutting highlight and exaggerate them.

In either case, both of these practices are painted with broad strokes; while forced male circumcision is depicted harmless, benign, and there are ever adverse effects, female circumcision is always depicted as harmful, and its effects are always adverse, with every female, every time.

It is not my intention to justify female circumcision, because this blogger opposes the forced genital cutting of either sex.

Rather, my intention is to show simply this:

Whatever can be said about the forcible cutting of one sex, applies directly to the forcible cutting of the other.

For this post, I'd like to take excerpts of this report and analyze them.

"...female genital mutilation [is] a ritualistic practice common in certain parts of the world, but widely condemned in western countries."

Male genital mutilation, euphemised as "circumcision," is also a ritualistic practice. It is worthy to note that it is common in precisely those same parts of the world where female circumcision, condemned as "mutilation," is practiced.

It must also be noted that while "holy ritual" seems to be a perfectly good justification for male circumcision, the same does not apply for female circumcision.

"A young girl's life has been forever scarred by this horrible crime... [t]he elimination of female genital mutilation/cutting has broad implications for the health and human rights of women and girls, as well as societies at large."

...says Sean Gallahgher, a director with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Of course, when two-year-old male children are circumcised as this girl is, their lives are also scarred forever by this terrible... act. I have to call it an "act" here, because people don't want to condemn it as "crime" as they readily do female circumcision.

Let's not talk about the fact that boys are circumcised in the same countries girls are, at about the same ages.

"Ritualistic cutting is common in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia and some 200 million women and girls have been subjected to the practice, according to estimates from the World Health Organization."

Ritualistic cutting for boys is common in those same parts of the world. It's only a problem when it happens to girls.

"While genital cutting is seen as central to certain communities, WHO notes that the practice often leads to long-term health consequences, such as increased risk of newborn deaths, psychological distress, severe infections and problems urinating. Girls are typically cut before they turn 15."

This same statement can also be said of male circumcision.

And here I have to highlight how FGM is being painted with broad strokes.

The statement says "The WHO notes that the practice *often leads* to long-term health consequences..."

But doubtlessly, people are going to read this as "always leads" to "long-term health consequences."

This statement must be clarified, because even the WHO admits that there are various levels of severity when it comes to FGM.

When it comes to the most absolute brutal form of FGM, which is infibulation, a practice where the protruding part of the clitoris is cut off and the outer labia are cut off and sewn together to leave only a small hole for menstruation, yes, this can result in dire-consequences for the women involved.

The fact is, however, that infibulation only accounts for about 15% of all FGM cases globally.

In other parts of the world, such as countries in South East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore as well as others, the female genital cutting that goes on there is not as severe. The girls and women there typically don't suffer ANY of the consequences noted here.

In fact, not too long ago, the AAP tried to approve a form of FGM that wouldn't have removed anything. A "ritual nick," as they called it.

In another recent paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, authors called for the legalization of some forms of FGM.

I'd like to contrast this with how forced male circumcision is treated in the West.

When "experts" talk about male circumcision, they say it's "mostly harmless" and "seldom results" in adverse effects.

Of course, most people take this to mean it's "always" harmless, and read that "seldom" part as "never."

The risks of male infant circumcision are infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

But these risks are always minimized, if ever even talked about.

While the fact that girls and women often suffer complications because they are circumcised by amateurs using crude utensils like rusty blades and glass shards in the bush is highlighted, we hardly hear of the same complications in males circumcised in the same conditions.

Every year, scores of men die as a result of their circumcision, and still, scores of others lose their penises to gangrene.

The boys, men and their families will be "scarred for life," but let's not talk about them.

After all, who are we to judge ageless tradition?

Instead, we hear highlighted all the "potential medical benefits" that "might result" from a boy being circumcised.

We read of all the "rigorous research" that has gone into male circumcision, "showing" that it "could reduce the risk of transmission" of every disease you can name.

"Research" that involved "thousands of men."

I have to ask, is there a "right" amount of research that would ever justify the forced genital cutting of girls and women?

What would we think of "research" where thousands of women had their labia removed, just to see how much STDs they *didn't* get?

What if the "results" showed that it could "reduce the transmission of HIV" in women by "60%?" Would we allow ourselves to change our minds?

What if that number were a more persuading "70%?" "80%?" "90%?"

Yes?

No?

Why is it we think differently when it comes to the forced genital cutting of boys?

The man in this case is being made an example of.

But while this is happening, why do we turn a blind eye when it comes to male infant circumcision?

Especially when it comes to complications?

I'm keeping a growing list of circumcision complications that surface on Facebook and in the news (scroll to the bottom of this post).

Why don't people care?

"Thoughts and prayers" for the parents of these poor boys who will be, in the words of Director Sean Gallagher, "scarred for life."

Deportation for this father, whose daughter is probably alive and well.

Not too long ago, a mother was forced to sign consent papers for the forced genital cutting of her son.

 Contrast this picture with the one above

A father is deported for cutting his daughter.

A mother is jailed, separated from her son and forced to sign his circumcision consent papers.

While one parent is guilty of mutilating his daughter, another is "guilty" of trying to protect her son.

Yes, let's not talk about how the boy will be "scarred for life."

This is the country we live in today.

"Thousands more have been sent abroad for so-called "vacation cutting" — a human rights violating practice that involves sending American-born females overseas to be cut. More than 380 people have been arrested in the U.S. for facilitating such crimes since 2003, according to ICE."

Yes, let's pat our selves on the back.

While we ignore the fact that 1.3 million male baby boys are circumcised in this country a year.

American medical boards such as the AAP minimize the number of complications regarding male infant circumcision.

The number presented is a conservative one, at about 2.0%.

This number is rather questionable, because hospitals are not required to release this data, and because parents are often accomplices with doctors who have reputations to protect to keep this information under wraps, but let's just go with it for the sake of argument.

Even at 2.0%, with 1.3 million babies circumcised a year, that is still 26,000 baby boys who will have suffered adverse effects.

How is this conscionable for an elective, non-medical procedure?

Whose "benefits" are already affordable by less invasive, more effective means?

Conclusion
Don't get me wrong; this father is getting what he deserves.


I am dead against the forcible genital cutting of all sexes.

However, I will not let this case go by without highlighting American, if not Western hypocrisy on this matter.

The following questions must be asked:

How far are actions justified by "culture?"

Are we picking which "cultures" or "religions" are more important now?

Is a doctor's duty to practice "medicine," or "culture?"

Since when are doctors obligated to participate in brokering "culture" or "religion?"

What other "religious cuttings" are doctors obliged to participate in?

Shouldn't doctors be sticking to medicine only?

What about "parental choice?"

How far are actions justified by "parental choice?"

How are we deciding what is "abusive" and what is "parenting?"

How far are doctors supposed to honor the wishes of a parent to have something cut off?

In the name of "culture?"

In the name of "religion?"

Why do we condemn one father for cutting is daughter, while we award another father for wanting to take his son to have his foreskin cut off?

Shouldn't we be condemning the forced genital cutting of children of BOTH sexes equally?

Relevant Links:

Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch


New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

FRANCE: French Surgeon Heavily Fined for Circumcision

This was recent news, but on the count of I can't read French, I just recently got wind of it. Were it not for a fellow intactivist who translated this from French to English, I may have never heard of it.


The original article in French can be accessed here. (Last accessed 6/26/2016)


I'm not going to comment on it, as I think it's pretty self-explanatory.

CIRCUMCISION: French Surgeon Heavily Fined
June 24, 2016

A French man has won a conviction against the surgeon who circumcised him as an adult. The court acknowledged sexual harm and ethical harm following the lack of information on alternatives to circumcision.

In early 2016, the Tribunal de Grande Instance (TGI) in Paris ruled on a dispute between a patient and his surgeon, a member of the French Association of Urology. In 2007, then aged 26, the patient was circumcised by his surgeon for an indication of a phimosis. Not only did the surgeon not inform him about the risks and consequences associated with this action, but he failed to propose less invasive alternative therapies.

Deeply affected by the injury, especially by a loss of sensation following the removal of his foreskin, the victim of this procedure decided to sue the surgeon in court and won the case.

After an investigation which revealed that the recommendation to circumcise was made "arbitrarily", and further that the operation had not been carried out properly, the Paris Court fined the surgeon almost 32,000 euros in compensation:

- € 5000 for moral damage resulting from the lack of information given;
- € 3000 for physical and mental suffering;
- € 250 for temporary functional deficit and € 3,560 for permanent functional deficit;
- € 20,000 for sexual harm because, inter alia, "a partial loss of the ability to access pleasure."

Essentially, what can we learn from this judgment?

- The law does not tolerate circumcision as the only therapeutic solution proposed by the medical profession in cases of phimosis;
- The law recognizes that foreskin removal can cause a loss of sexual pleasure; and
- The law recognizes that circumcision, practiced even in a medical setting, can cause considerable and currently irreparable damage.

This is a landmark judgment: the time has come for circumcision victims not to hesitate to prosecute those responsible for their mutilation.

There's been a policy of covering-up, and medical insurance, public or private, will have to make a 180 degree turn: in France, circumcision simply has no place in health care practices, except in extremely rare exceptions. How many circumcisions are performed each year on infants or children under the guise of "phimosis" in order to receive a payment by the medical system? * This fraud is all the more immoral considering it generates great suffering, as illustrated by the testimony of victims, among others.

This judgment confirms the position of the organization Droit au Corps; namely, that we need to have a public debate surrounding consent to circumcision.

* * *

* In Belgium in 2014, 25,698 circumcisions were performed at a cost of 2.6 million euros (from among 11 million inhabitants).

Related Posts:

Phimosis and Circumcision in Japan

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Child Forcibly Circumcised, Diagnosed With Leukemia

I am not going to recapitulate the entire Florida Circumcision Saga. Readers who are interested can read past posts which are posted below.

In short, a mother had been fighting to keep the father of her son from circumcising him, and she lost that battle when a judge ordered her to sign the consent forms under duress for the circumcision of the 4-year-old.

The most that the mother could hope for was that doctors acknowledge that it would be unethical for them to circumcise a healthy, non-consenting child against his wishes, knowing that her "assent" was obtained by force.
One doctor has threatened to file a complaint with the State Department of Health.

It has now come to light that the child has been forcibly circumcised against his wishes, and against his mother's wishes, as his father wanted.

The child was not allowed to see his mother for six months, and only recently was allowed one single, brief hospital visit with her.

And, as if this child weren't suffering enough, he has been diagnosed with leukemia and is beginning treatments.

Intactivist Speculation
Word on Facebook is that the child was circumcised with no pre-operation lab tests performed as part of his pre-surgery clearance. The child may have not been healing well or looking well after the surgery, which prompted doctors to run the tests, and that this is how they found out that the child had leukemia.

Unfortunately, this is all pure speculation; all of this is unknown, or information that has not been made public.

If these rumors are true, then it shows negligence on the part of all who facilitated this child's needless surgery, and that they were all interested in having this child undergo needless surgery above all else.

The whole lot of them.

The father, the father's doctor friends who gave him referrals to pediatric surgeons, the father's attorneys, the judge who made it possible for the boy to be snatched from his mother, and ultimately, the doctor who performed needless surgery on the child, all of them should be held responsible for negligence and malicious/selfish intent at the expense of a child's rights and his health.

Medical and Legal Battles Ahead
The mother will be facing more legal battles ahead, in addition to her child's new battle with cancer.

Readers can support this family's needs by:

1) Giving via PayPal directly to the family: HironimusFundraiser@gmail.com

2) Giving a tax deductible donation to Chase's Family via Saving Our Sons: PayPal

3) Mailing a check directly to Heather's attorney with a memo that it is for Heather Hironimus:

Law Offices of Brian M. Moskowitz
Memo: Heather Hironimus
Boca Raton Divorce Lawyer
2295 NW Corporate Blvd, Suite 117
Boca Raton, FL 33431

4) Taking part in the Fight4CRH fundraisers.

Update (11/16/2015)
Intact America has posted the following statement on their Facebook page, and I felt it needed to be repeated here:

The collective heart of the intactivist movement is breaking for Chase Hironimus, barely five years old. First, he was ripped from his mother’s arms by a father and a court system that judged her to be an unfit parent for daring to protect her son from medically unnecessary circumcision. Then, he was handed over to a father obsessed with the desire to mutilate his genitals. In turn, Chase’s father delivered him to doctors eager to violate his rights and his body by carrying out that mutilation for a fee. Only when Chase’s circumcision wound did not heal did those doctors begin to worry about the child’s well-being, conducting tests which led to the discovery that Chase has leukemia. 

Our country, the United States of America, has passed laws prohibiting any genital cutting of girl children. But our courts, hospitals, and medical professionals (who have taken an oath to “do no harm”) assiduously promote the amputation of normal, sensitive body parts from innocent boys whose “consent” is a fantasy made possible because of the ease with which children are overpowered. 

We are sickened almost beyond words at the genital mutilation and serious illness of this innocent child. But we also know that both Chase and his mother Heather are in intense need of support. Please send your cards filled with love and best wishes to Chase Hironimus, c/o Brian Moskowitz, 2295 Corporate Blvd NW, Ste 117, Boca Raton, FL 33431.

Mr. Moskowitz, Heather’s attorney, will see that the cards are delivered to Heather and Chase.
Please share this post widely.

What a sad, sad day it is in this country...

Past Posts:

FLORIDA UPDATE: Father Intent on Circumcising 4-yo Son Seeks to Legally Paralyze Mother

FLORIDA UPDATE: Mother in Circumcision Dispute Fails to Appear in Court - Judge Orders Her Arrest

FLORIDA: Belligerent Judge Seeks the Circumcision of a 4 Year Old

FLORIDA UPDATE: 4-yo Circumcision Case Goes Federal

FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Mother Arrested, Child Nabbed

FLORIDA UPDATE: Court Battle Slated for Monday - Father Objects to British TV Coverage

A Word Of Prayer for Chase

FLORIDA: What Happened Today As Per Intact America

FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Withdrawal of Motion and Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Filed

FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Insult to Injury

FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: It's Not Over Yet

FLORIDA BULLETIN: Circumcision Scheduled for 4-yo - Anonymous User Discloses Details

FLORIDA: Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital Complicit in Medical Fraud, Child Abuse?

 FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Mother May Get Monitored Visits With Her Son