May 20, 2017, "Religious defense planned in landmark Detroit genital mutilation case," Detroit Free Press, Tresa Baldas
"Millions of little girls and young women have been subjected to a
painful rite of passage that involves cutting their genitals — often
without anesthesia — for centuries in parts of Asia, Africa and the
Middle East.
Lawyers plan to claim genital cutting is allowed as a
religious right. But legal experts say the First Amendment doesn't bend
that far.
On paper, the law seems clear: Cutting any part of a young girl's
genitalia is illegal — and no custom or ritual can be used to justify
it. The law has been on the books for 21 years, unchallenged.
But
in a federal courtroom in Detroit, a landmark case involving the
centuries-old taboo ritual is about to put that law to the test for the
first time.
And perhaps more historic, a question will be raised
in the American legal system that has never been raised before: Does the
U.S. Constitution allow for genital cutting, even if it's just a minor
nick or scraping, in the name of religion?
Defense lawyers plan to argue that religious freedom is at the core of
the case in which two physicians and one of their wives are charged with
subjecting young girls to genital cutting. All three are members of the
Dawoodi Bohra, a small Indian-Muslim sect that has a mosque in
Farmington Hills....
Prosecutors have argued that the federal genital mutilation law is
clear: It prohibits "knowingly circumcis(ing), excis(ing) or
infibulat(ing) the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora
or clitoris of any other person who has not attained the age of 18
years."
Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Woodward has argued
repeatedly in court that the defendants knew what they were doing was
illegal, but did it anyway. She has called their crimes "heinous" and
argues the harm was severe.
According to court documents, in
interviews with authorities, the two Minnesota victims described the
genital cutting procedures as painful.
One girl said that she got a
shot, screamed, and "could barely walk after the procedure, and that
she felt pain all the way down to her ankle." The other said she was
"laid on an examining table with her knees near her chest and legs
spread apart," that she was "pinched" in the genital area, that it
"hurted a lot" and that there was "pain and burning."
Both girls were told to keep the procedures a secret, court records show. One said "the doctor made her (friend) cry."
"According
to some members of the community who have spoken out against the
practice, the purpose of this cutting is to suppress female sexuality in
an attempt to reduce sexual pleasure and promiscuity," a Homeland
Security Investigations special agent wrote in an April 20 court filing.
Especially
egregious, authorities have argued, is that this procedure was carried
out by a doctor who took an oath to do no harm.
"She knew that
this was illegal but did it anyway," Woodward has said of Nagarwala,
stressing: "As a medical doctor, she is aware that female genital
mutilation has no medical purpose.""
.............
No comments:
Post a Comment