Posted on 11/21/2018 6:52:04 AM PST by Enterprise
‘The historic case involves minor girls from Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota, including some who cried, screamed and bled during the procedure and one who was given Valium ground in liquid Tylenol to keep her calm, court records show.’
(Snip)
‘The judge’s ruling also dismissed charges against three mothers, including two Minnesota women whom prosecutors said tricked their 7-year-old daughters into thinking they were coming to metro Detroit for a girls’ weekend, but instead had their genitals cut at a Livonia clinic as part of a religious procedure.’
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.us ...
So the federal government does not have the authority to dictate laws throughout the US and make genital mutilation illegal ...but it does have the authority to dictate laws throughout the US and make abortion legal?
Do I have that right?
Asking for a friend....
But what about male circumcision? Required by my religion and given at 8 days of life?
“If banning it irritates the shock troops we need to overthrow Western Civilization and usher in the Great Progressive Utopia, then no - we don’t want to ban it.” - the American Establishment, 2018
Does “Genital Mutilation” mean only the elimination of a woman’s sexual feelings?
I am not getting that either. Why if fgm is a State’s Right, done to a child, isn’t abortion?
No one culture is to be preferred over any other. At least that is what high schools and colleges teach us. So the answer is "No". /s
I simply cannot wrap my brain around this one.
Only if the sole law prohibiting it is federal. I wish conservatives would look beyond the hideousness of the act and see that this judge has upheld the Constitutional doctrine of enumerated powers. X Amendment clearly reserves this kind of lawmaking to the states. Conservatives cannot follow progs down the road of “if the outcome is one we like, the hell with the Constitution.”
Agreed. If Congress had inserted an interstate component into the law as it usually does when trying to micro-manage our lives, the judge would have upheld the law.
In all fairness to Judge Friedman -- who was appointed by President Reagan -- his opinion clearly shows that he made a decision based upon sound constitutional principles, even though he disapproves of the result. An activist judge -- the type of judge that conservatives are supposed to hate -- would have upheld the law in order to produce the desired result regardless of the constitutional limitations upon congressional power.
Bull. The bottom line result is that young girls will be sexually mutilated and not only will the perps be exonerated but they will be validated and continue their atrocities. He could have ruled in a different way to uphold the law since it preserved the civil rights and human rights of the girls. This judge is being cheered by his lowlife peers on the bench and at all the “proper progressive “ law schools. Meanwhile people suffer as the collective will of the people’s representatives is again negated on flimsy grounds..
Brilliant!!!
“sometimes means sewing her up so tight ...”
Why on earth would that sort of thing be done to women? It goes without saying the women don’t want it done, correct?
Federal crime
Impeach and jail the judge
Sentence the evil mudslime parents
“How is this a Federal issue? Did the doctor or patient cross state lines or something?”
Why yes, some of them did.
The very first part of the excerpt:
“The historic case involves minor girls from Michigan, Illinois and Minnesota”
It is not the business of the Federal Government so the answer can be located among state laws.
Urologists have reported increase in infections since there have been fewer circumcisions. It’s much more painful when it needs to be done later than the neonatal period.
So does this then set precedent that parents can now NOT be charged for FGM. So America is now a FGM promoting nation?
So still against the law?
This is how you know the top American feminists are phonies and Marxists.
In contrast, the genital mutilation case was not decided under the 5th and 14th Amendments; but rather under the 10th Amendment, which limits the powers of federal government to the powers delegated to it in the Constitution, and specifically, the enumerated powers delegated to Congress in Article I, §8 of the Constitution. None of those enumerated power grant Congress the power to regulate activities and conduct that take place entirely within a state no matter how despicable the activities or conduct might be. Congress can only legislate within its enumerated powers and the only enumerated power that could possibly apply is the power to regulate commerce between the states. Thus, the genital mutilation law at issue would have been constitutional if (a) the law was written to prohibit only the transport of minors across state borders for the purpose of receiving a genital mutilation procedure and/or prohibit a person from knowingly performing a genital mutilation procedure on a minor from out of state; or (b) the law contained a congressional finding that the practice of performing genital mutilation has a substantial impact on interstate commerce.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.