I'm so angry about this. I think they should loose their med license bc they chose to harm children based on religious belief. They allowed this belief to dismiss the fundamental role of the physician.
-
-
I'm not talking about culture here. I'm talking about a legal nuance. I'm trying to figure out how to stop FGM quickly as possible. The MGM poses a different legal challenge. I'm not condoning it but it is more difficult legally. It will require more opinions and weighing eviden
-
I also want to stop
#FGM ASAP but I disagree that MGM is more difficult legally. IMO, it's more difficult politically & culturally. If the US FGM ban had included MGM, it never could have withstood a legal challenge under either the 10th or 14 Amendments. That's because MGM... - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
See you are missing my point and you are acting like I disagree with you. I do not disagree that circumcision in males is wrong. I'm saying it's a WORSE act to mutilate females and bc of the facts it is an easier legal battle. Dont try to drag it into a complex battle.
-
Glad to hear you're onside, but please see my last few tweets. All nontherapeutic child genital cutting is wrong. Including MGM in the US ban on child genital cutting would actually make it easier to defend legally. The problem is US cultural blindness to the wrongfulness of MGM
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not trying to ignore or deny your cause, but lumping it into the same category with FGM is not the right thing to do. It us a DIFFERENT legal argument.
-
Both are claimed to be religious obligations. Both involve specious claims of prophylactic health benefits that couldn't justify surgery on a healthy child consistent w/cardinal principles of medical ethics even if those claims were true. How do you think they're different?
#i2 - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.