If the FGM laws were ruled to be discriminatory... - Page 2

[LonelyPageTurnr]

Accuracy is very important.  However, the difference between being slightly off (doing the math at 50% instead of 51.5%) and using data that is totally incomplete (The NYT 32%, because it states specifically that it is only insurance covered hospital circumcisions done immediately after delivery, which leaves out a very large number of circumcisions.  No self-pays, no office circs, no circs done after the hospital stay, no ritual circumcisions) is huge.

I am NOT arguing that circumcision should be acceptable or done a lot or anything.  I'm saying to argue with the most accurate data you can provide.  When it comes to circumcision, a lot of that data is kinda shakey, like the number of deaths because of circumcision or the number of children actually circumcised.  If you want to nitpick, Dan, because I'm not participating in circumcision discussion the way you think I should, you're welcome to it.  I'm trying to argue for a more effective, more accurate circumcision debate.  Because I am more worried about little boys not being needlessly operated on than I am about trying to make everyone who thinks differently feel bad.  Yes, there are some people who are swayed by being told that circumcision is mutilation, but it's SUCH a small number that the number of people turned off by that tactic make it worthless.  Circumcision won't be stopped with legislation or bans.  It will stop when insurance quits covering it, physicians are more educated about the intact penis and it's care, and the population is made more aware that their cultural bias against leaving a child whole are based in fiction.  It's not going to stop when you get in someones face and tell them they're mutilating or victimizing their children. 

So, again, if it makes you uncomfortable that I don't argue circumcision the way you think I should, maybe you should think about that instead of trying to attack everything I say.  This (Your posts seem subtly discouraging to our message of "no routine infant circumcision". I've noticed this several times. Are you sure you aren't here gathering intell for some other site?) is still bothering me...'if you're not 100% lockstep with us, then you're against us', I suppose.

[JenRave]

.

Edited by JenRave - 5/21/12 at 9:47am

[K703]

Originally Posted by JenRave 

There is nothing in the constitution guaranteeing equal protection for the sexes, nor in any preceding court decision that I am aware of is anything in the Constitution presumed by default to offer equal protection.  This is why feminists tried to pass the ERA and were strongly resisted - actually a majority voted for it but you need about 2 more states to vote for it than we got, in the end.  So while some US states have an ERA in their state constitution, it is perfectly alright to have some laws that are blatantly discriminatory on the basis of sex.

ETA:  In other words I am saying the US Supreme Court would be highly unlikely to throw out any such law based on this reasoning, since there is no Constitutional basis for it.

I'm no legal expert nor a lawyer, but if I understand correctly cases involving discrimination by the federal (using the 5th amendment) or state/local (using the 14th amendment) governments (not necessarily private individuals or establishments) against "suspect classes" (with sex being one of them) are held to one of three levels of scrutiny (as shown at this Wikipedia article). In the case of sex, "Intermediate Scrutiny" applies which means that the government needs to find a way that it is "substantially related" to an "important" government interest (quoting what that Wikipedia article said) to be upheld. Protecting genital integrity could very well be regarded to be a government interest, but can it find a legally acceptable reason to apply it only to one sex? (On the other hand an example of sex-based classification that I frequently use as an example that was upheld is the male-only Selective Service, which was upheld on the basis that only males can serve in combat.)

I don't know much about the ERA, but if I understand correctly it would essentially make sex a "strict" rather than "intermediate" scrutiny classification.