Not content to allow MGM, now the AAP wants to curb the prohibition on FGM, too

Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2010-05-08 17:51

From an IA email:

We thought America's baby girls were safe from genital cutting, until now...

Last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a new policy statement proposing changes to the Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Act, a law that has prohibited any form of FGM in the United States since 1996.

But now the AAP wants to change the law to allow a "ritual nick" of girls' genitals, so families whose cultures accept FGM don't send their daughters overseas for the full genital cutting procedure.

At Intact America, we know that any form of genital cutting of babies is wrong – ethically, morally, and medically.

We can't afford to allow our leaders to destroy the progress we've made in outlawing genital mutilation for our baby girls. We must act quickly – send a message demanding that the AAP revoke its policy statement IMMEDIATELY.

For years, we've been focused on male circumcision because we believed the horror of female genital mutilation had been outlawed forever in the United States.

But now those protections are at risk.

We must do EVERYTHING in our power to stop the AAP from sanctioning the cutting of our baby girls.

Tell the AAP to revoke its statement immediately and remind the members of its Committee on Bioethics that any form of genital cutting, whether male or female, is unnecessary, harmful, and ethically wrong.

You can also go one step further by spreading the word to your friends and family or sharing this action on Facebook and Twitter.

Thank you for all your help in this critical moment.

Sincerely,

Georganne Chapin
Executive Director, Intact America
www.intactamerica.org

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I received the same message from Intact America to my email. Since it concerned girls, I did not expect it to be posted here. But then I got thinking that this may be a chance to raise awareness of the whole genital mutilation argument. If the average mainstream person starts defending the ban on female circumcision the conversation will most likely lead to the moral and legal issues of male circumcision.

Whether the law is changed or not, I think it will have little effect on people who want this done. In my experience in talking to people about religious freedoms and the rights they (wrongly) feel they have over their own children - I believe they will not be satisfied with a 'ritual nick' and will still opt to send their daughters overseas or have it done in a 'back alley'.

Hopefully, this proposed change to females will get the discussions and arguments exposed in the media and will end up helping boys as well.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Sat, 2010-05-08 22:22

A 'ritual nick' is not going to be where it ends.

Assume for one second that most people in America, if not just about everyone, believes for example that marijuana use is wrong. Just assume that that is the case and that not only that, most are very, very much against it. Now imagine that there are folks who come to the US who are in favor of smoking dope, and if they can't do so, they will leave the country to do it (dunno, maybe sneak over to Canada to light up). So to stop them from leaving the country to smoke dope, we consider allowing them to do so, provided they inhale only twice from a joint, just once a month.

So now, possessing a small amt. of dope has to be made legal. However law enforcement will not be ransacking houses looking for dope knowing it can now be possessed, even though in small amts. A cop smells dope? Could be a person's once-a-month 2-puffs. OK, no big deal. Can't do anything.

That's the analogy. See what I mean? A "ritual nick" is how it would start, until it would become, say, OK to remove less than 10% of the labia minor, then, 20%, then.... it's the thin edge of the wedge.

It has to be illegal or not, period. If people go overseas to mutilate their girls, we can't stop that. They'll do it anyway, but we can't legally condone it or allow it in any way. Does the AAP, you, or anyone else really think people who believe that FGM is a good thing will be stopped from going someplace else to do it if they are not allowed to do it the way they want to here? Do you think they will be changed in their actions or ideas if allowed a "ritual nick", and assuming it is allowed, will it stay a "ritual nick" for long, even if that is all the law allows?

No, this is a throw-in-the-towel move. The AAP should not be going in the direction of allowing even the smallest genital mutilation of infants of either sex for anything but clear medical reasons (possibly-anticipated, maybe-it-could-be ones are not in that category). It should instead stick with its categorical ban on FGM and also stop MGM, too. That's what they ought to be doing but if what IA is saying is true, they are back-peddling. Bad move, bad all around.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2010-05-08 23:53