Female genital mutilation ban ruled unconstitutional by federal judge

[Achilles]

November 21, 2018

Female genital mutilation ban ruled unconstitutional by federal judge

By Rick Moran

A federal judge has determined that a law banning the cultural practice of femal genital mutilation is unconstitutional.

FGM is a crime against women, a crime against humanity, and a crime against civilization. But one federal judge believes it's legal in the United States.

The judge, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman, made the ruling in a case involving several Michigan doctors who had mutilated the genitals of at least 9 little girls. The doctors were charged with conspiracy and obstruction, as well as violating the FGM statutue.
Detroit Free Press:

The opinion by U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman comes two weeks after defense lawyers mounted the first challenge to a 22-year-old genital mutilation law that went unused until April 2017.
That's when Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of Northville was arrested and accused of heading a conspiracy that lasted 12 years, involved seven other people and led to mutilating the genitalia of nine girls as part of a religious procedure practiced by some members of the Dawoodi Bohra, a Muslim sect from India that has a small community in Metro Detroit.
Friedman delivered a significant, but not fatal, blow to a novel criminal prosecution because the judge left intact conspiracy and obstruction charges that could send Nagarwala and three others to federal prison for decades.
The case is being closely followed by members of the sect and international human-rights groups opposed to female genital mutilation and has raised awareness in the U.S. of a controversial procedure and prompted Michigan to enact new state laws criminalizing female genital mutilation.

Friedman removed four defendants from the case — including three mothers accused of subjecting their daughters to female genital mutilation — while concluding Congress had no authority to enact a law criminalizing female genital mutilation, known as FGM.

“There is nothing commercial or economic about FGM,” Friedman wrote in a 28-page opinion. (Female genital mutilation) is not part of a larger market and it has no demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause does not permit Congress to regulate a crime of this nature.”

"No demonstrated effect on interstate commerce..." FGM is torture. There's no effect on commerce when you torture someone, so I guess that makes it legal.
The judge ignored the argument of the prosecution:

Prosecutors countered, arguing the crime does involve interstate commerce. Christian Levesque, a trial attorney with the Justice Department's Human Rights and Special Prosecutions section, noted the procedure involves parents using cellphones to arrange the procedure and transport children across state lines who undergo surgeries utilizing medical tools in state-licensed clinics.

It sounds reasonable enough that just about any judge would accept the argument in order to make a statement about what we, as a society, should allow.
As outrageous as the judge's decision to drop charges against the doctors, the judge also dismissed cases against 3 mothers who forced their own children to endure the torture. Couldn't prosecutors charge the mothers with child abuse? Why didn't they?

The judge may be technically correct in his ruling. But the law should be about more than legal points. There is a moral underpinning to our system of laws and this abominable practice that condemns little girls to a life devoid of the god-given gift of sexual pleasure violates every moral principle we hold dear.
But, in the US, it is apparently legal.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ral_judge.html

[Pastor Guest]

Actually, according to what the framers of the Constitution intended, the Federal government has no authority to make this a crime. The overreach of Congress and the courts in applying the commerce clause has resulted in innumerable unconstitutional laws being implemented.

However, I see no prohibition on states arresting and prosecuting those involved. Those who do these terrible things should spend many years in prison.

[Oscar Wilde]

What's good for the goose ....

O.W.

[Bear]

What's good for the goose ....

O.W.

[Petedtom]

So it is ok to mutilate girls just as we mutilate boys for an arcane and outdated religious ritual.

[PatDaly]

Actually, according to what the framers of the Constitution intended, the Federal government has no authority to make this a crime. The overreach of Congress and the courts in applying the commerce clause has resulted in innumerable unconstitutional laws being implemented.

However, I see no prohibition on states arresting and prosecuting those involved. Those who do these terrible things should spend many years in prison.

Then there is no case for the Federal Government to make Drugs illegal?

I agree with you BTW, just pointing out the obvious.

[bw]

The judge is not saying FGM is legal or good. Congress framed the law as being part of regulating interstate commerce. THAT's what makes the law invalid. FGM is not part of interstate commerce. If Congress passes a law making FGM illegal, casting it as sexual abuse, it would stand the court test. This was a valid ruling, because Congress really did blow it in writing the law. When the defendants raised the obvious objection, the judge had virtually no choice.

That being said, the courts have found some cases to fall under the Commerce clause that clearly should not have. When a farmer deals in a product within a state, the courts have found that the Commerce clause covers him because his participation in a market that covers multiple states makes him a part of interstate commerce even though he never sold in another state. So there are Commerce clause rulings that make no sense.

So the holding in this case is valid, but much worse holdings have been allowed to stand which should not have.