Judge rules in genital mutilation case on kids

I dont normally post in the mud pit but I'm doing it here.

I changed the head so it would fit.

"Charges dropped in first federal genital mutilation case in US"

"CNN) A Detroit judge has dropped nearly all the charges against a Michigan doctor accused of performing female genital mutilation on at least nine underage girls, according to court documents.

In a decision filed Tuesday, Judge Bernard Friedman ruled that the federal female genital mutilation law is unconstitutional and that Congress did not have the right to criminalize the practice, and therefore he dismissed six of eight charges in the United States' first federal case involving the procedure."


If an 18 year old woman want to cut her parts to pieces, hey whatever...

But these girls are age 8 to 13! Wtf!

This crap makes me sick...

www.google.com...

Hopefully this goes to the Supreme Court and this mutilation is ruled as the barbarism that it is and not a protected religious practice.

Male circumcision too.

a reply to: watchitburn

Ya know, at least with circumcision the parts still function.
But to remove parts entirely is barbaric

a reply to: Bluntone22

The sickness in this country grows every day.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Can someone please show me in the Constitution where adults have a legal right to cut off and mutilate the genitals of small girls?



Thanks.

Now I'm going to ####ing barf.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Judge Bernard Friedman ruled that the federal female genital mutilation law is unconstitutional and that Congress did not have the right to criminalize the practice

I always thought that was exactly Congress's job in it's entirety. It being the Legislative Branch and all. What an ignorant Judge.


Appeal to a higher court.

This Judge could be in for a rude awakening.

I thought ya'll were for states rights.

"Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit [female genital mutilation]," Friedman wrote, calling it a "local criminal activity" for the states to regulate, not Congress.

originally posted by: Phage
I thought ya'll were for states rights.

"Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit [female genital mutilation]," Friedman wrote, calling it a "local criminal activity" for the states to regulate, not Congress.

So you are okay with it? Cool.

a reply to: highvein

That would be an incorrect assumption.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: highvein

That would be an incorrect assumption.

So you agree that the State is wrong and it is a Federal Crime?

originally posted by: Phage
I thought ya'll were for states rights.

"Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit [female genital mutilation]," Friedman wrote, calling it a "local criminal activity" for the states to regulate, not Congress.

Can states ban abortion?

a reply to: Phage

Defending FGM?

C’mon man. You should be vehemently against this practice.
Every liberal, leftist and democrat on the planet should also be vehemently against this practice.
Every sjw, every single person who ‘claims’ to stand for what’s right should be vehemently against this practice.

“But it’s their culture” “but it’s their choice” what a pathetic cop-out that i’m sure we’re bound to see on this thread soon. Those cop-outs don’t work for nazism do they?

This needs to be called out by everyone on Earth. This is NOT the same as ANY other practice, religious or otherwise. This practice is disgusting, disgraceful and supremely barbaric.

Especially when one looks at the actual reasons behind it.

Don’t defend this sh#t. You’re above that.
(I see your previous reply. “Phew!”)

The United states, the last hope for the future of humanity, is rapidly going to devolve a century into 3rd a world #hole.

Don't know how that happened.....ohh well.

Humans always were highly flawed, I guess this is why aliens haven't contacted us to join in the galactic community of intelligent beings.

a reply to: Breakthestreak

He's not defending fgm.
He is pointing out that states have rights to rule themselves.
Same as the judge.

But like abortion, the Feds do still have power to influence state laws

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Phage
I thought ya'll were for states rights.

"Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit [female genital mutilation]," Friedman wrote, calling it a "local criminal activity" for the states to regulate, not Congress.

Can states ban abortion?

SCOTUS says no.

"Settled law", say the newest Justice.

a reply to: watchitburn

I agree. Any genital mutilation on minors or otherwise non-consenting parties should be illegal. I'm circumsized, and I didn't consent to it. Male or female, it shouldn't be legal.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Breakthestreak

He's not defending fgm.
He is pointing out that states have rights to rule themselves.
Same as the judge.

But like abortion, the Feds do still have power to influence state laws

And? That judge’s decision needs to be reversed.

How anyone can not be wanting this reversed is beyond me.

He/she needs to be barred.

(It’s just my opinion)

a reply to: Breakthestreak

The appeal will be something to watch.

It is obvious it will be, and the judge knows it.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: Phage
I thought ya'll were for states rights.

"Congress overstepped its bounds by legislating to prohibit [female genital mutilation]," Friedman wrote, calling it a "local criminal activity" for the states to regulate, not Congress.

Can states ban abortion?

SCOTUS says no.

"Settled law", say the newest Justice.

Then that's an example where states do have limits on their rights.
This will undoubtedly move up the court latter.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Breakthestreak

The appeal will be something to watch.

It is obvious it will be, and the judge knows it.

Agreed, it will determine if science or superstition will ultimately be what this country chooses to persue.