Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Federal judge finds female genital mutilation law unconstitutional [View all]jberryhill
(62,444 posts)83. Here's a quick take on that
The subsidiary definition of "sexual contact" under the various Michigan sexual assault crimes is:
----------
(q) "Sexual contact" includes the intentional touching of the victim's or actor's intimate parts or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's or actor's intimate parts, if that intentional touching can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, done for a sexual purpose, or in a sexual manner for:
(i) Revenge.
(ii) To inflict humiliation.
(iii) Out of anger.
-------------
The several offenses use that definition to make "sexual contact" under various circumstances (age, consent, position of authority, etc.) illegal.
Performing an operation on someone to damage their sexual organ is not touching "for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, done for a sexual purpose, or in a sexual manner" for any of those additional things.
They have, since this prosecution, filled that gap in Michigan, but you can't ask "Why isn't it illegal under some other law" without looking at what that law specifically says.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
131 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Federal judge finds female genital mutilation law unconstitutional [View all]
Calista241
Nov 2018
OP
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman...hope his career nosedives with this ruling
Merlot
Nov 2018
#2
Of course it isn't. But there are legal remedies that work and ones that don't.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2018
#112
That's probably a good idea. Crazy people should not be allowed to carry weapons.
lagomorph777
Nov 2018
#76
Well it is evident that he doesn't have any testicals making the operation quick easy.
olegramps
Nov 2018
#79
On the law, specifically the application of the Commerce Clause, the judge was correct.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2018
#102
Yes they do ...and people will learn they HAVE to vote or they will have more of this
Fullduplexxx
Nov 2018
#72
That is why WE NEED A VIABLE CANDIDATE - Beto for 2020 - PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION .. ..
iDOcareDoyou
Nov 2018
#84
This is against the girls' will. It is assault & battery with bodily injury.
CaptainTruth
Nov 2018
#10
Congress doesn't have the authority to pass laws against human mutilation?
sinkingfeeling
Nov 2018
#11
The absence of a federal law doesn't mean something is legal under state law
jberryhill
Nov 2018
#22
It does, but only if the statute specifies that the specific crime being prosecuted has a nexus with
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2018
#104
It is just another example of the how states rights lead to a hodgepodge of ridiculous laws.
olegramps
Nov 2018
#81
So, the recreational lobster catch limit should be the same in Florida, Maine and Nebraska?
jberryhill
Nov 2018
#87
Well, surely the laws concerning snow removal are the same in Florida and Maine
jberryhill
Nov 2018
#93
This decision MUST be appealed. These savages must not be allowed to continue this barbarism.
7962
Nov 2018
#14
The law is unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2018
#106
Reading his bio and articles from his 'admirers' he seems to be a Libertarian extremist
rpannier
Nov 2018
#19
So if a religion believed in removing a lung or a kidney in children, would that be okay?
lostnfound
Nov 2018
#17
Here's what is frustrating about press accounts and general legal ignorance here
jberryhill
Nov 2018
#41
Thanks. I've found a site that lists legislation by state and I'll post it.. n/t
pnwmom
Nov 2018
#63
"but rather engaged in a benign religious ritual..." But tell us again about what it isn't about.
DRoseDARs
Nov 2018
#35
You understand the line came from verbal arguments, right? Made in court? During proceedings?
DRoseDARs
Nov 2018
#45
I think I see what's going on here. I'm not on the judge, though I think it's the wrong decision...
DRoseDARs
Nov 2018
#57
No one has ever overturned a state anti-FGM law on religious freedom grounds.
jberryhill
Nov 2018
#58
Ok, but again, not part of any of my argument. You said religion wasn't part of this...
DRoseDARs
Nov 2018
#61
A mohel can be either a doctor, a rabbi or a cantor. It's whoever has the training. I was imprecise.
DRoseDARs
Nov 2018
#116
I think this will be overturned unless the defendants can prove they mutilate boys in the same way.
underthematrix
Nov 2018
#27
This is obviously a conservative judge who refuses to give any creedence to the
RDANGELO
Nov 2018
#59
So in the last 24 hours, torture, mutilation, and state sanctioned murder are apparently OK now.
Initech
Nov 2018
#64