FGM Prohibition

Michigan Judge’s Genital Mutilation Ruling Shocks Women’s Advocates

A federal judge in Michigan rules a federal statute against female genital mutilation is unconstitutional.

Judge Friedman said:

“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.”

Click to expand...

I am stunned that a federal judge would rule any federal statute beyond the enumerated federal powers, but one might wish for a better case to which to apply the standard.

I fear that if Michigan were to enact a state statute prohibiting FGM, that some federal judge would be found to rule it a denial of the mutilators' "equal protection of the laws."

seebell said:

Is it a religious freedom issue?

Click to expand...

No, the judge ruled on enumerated powers. The Constitution does not delegate to Congress the power to regulate or prohibit FGM. I'm pleased to see a federal judge rule an act of Congress, any act frankly, unconstitutional when it it not related to those powers delegated to them, but this is a terrible case.

From the NYT:

“Given how this statute is written I think he’s correct,” Professor Henning said. “I hate to say Congress whiffed, but they whiffed on this law. There isn’t a federal police power, so they can’t just adopt anything they want. It has to be located in one of Congress’s express powers and this wasn’t.”

Click to expand...

I'm a bit surprised to hear a law professor say that, but she's right.

“There are ways that Congress could write a different statute that would be more closely connected to conduct that has an effect on interstate commerce,” said Michael Rosman, general counsel for the Center for Individual Rights, although he said he believed such a law would still be vulnerable to claims it violated equal protection or religious freedom.

Click to expand...

It is a disgusting barbaric custom. (A minor girl cannot give legal consent to the procedure.) Michigan and Minnesota could and should enact laws prohibiting it.
If they do, there will be some scummy low-life who will file a suit based on "equal protection."

Its On A Slab said:

I am all for cultural diversity, but if you live in this country, you don't practice suti(where the wife is burned alive in her husand's pyre), you don't marry off child brides, you don't beat your kids, honor killings, and you damn sure don't do this.

Click to expand...

Sir Charles Napier, Vice-Roy of India, outlawed throwing widows onto funeral pyres. When Hindu leaders came to remonstrate against this prohibition, Napier let them have it.

Chuck Napier said:

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.

Click to expand...

Its On A Slab said:

We had some Afghan immigrants across the street from us when I lived in Omaha. The Dad was under a child services protective order for physical abuse. That might have flown in Kabul, but it won't here.

Click to expand...

Times in Kabul have changed, I guess.