If the FGM laws were ruled to be discriminatory... - Mothering Forums

View Poll Results: Which do you think is more likely if the FGM laws are struck down?
Congress extends protection to males 1 14.29%
Congress makes FGM legal again 6 85.71%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-02-2011, 10:49 AM - Thread Starter
 
K703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

If the U.S. Supreme Court in the future were to take up a case challenging that the existing FGM law is unconstitutional because it doesn't protect the sexes equally and declare it such, I was wondering how would Congress likely react? Would they be more likely to extend protection to males, or would they go backwards and re-legalize FGM? WDYT?


Kelly, a man who is proud to be intact!
K703 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-02-2011, 11:43 AM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm not American, and the culture around circ is different here. But, from what I've seen online, in terms of people's views on this topic, I'd bet that they'll re-legalize FGM, before they'll extend protection to males. I do think intactivism is gaining ground, and things may shift over the next few years, but if it happened right now, I think FGM would be legal again.


Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Old 11-02-2011, 01:10 PM
 
Arduinna's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 31,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This country is just not going to outlaw MGM anytime soon, as much as I wish that we would. In fact I think they would just sacrifice girls rather than make a law giving equal protection. 

Arduinna is offline  
Old 11-03-2011, 04:45 AM
 
Dan Bollinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Congress only passed one FGM law. I don't think Congress would do anything if the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. They'd just leave the FGM law in place, even though it was now moot, rather than bring it up for a vote. 

Dan Bollinger is offline  
Old 11-03-2011, 08:52 AM
 
LonelyPageTurnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

They're not going to ban RIC.  Besides, culturally, Americans aren't ready for that.  They'd still get it done anyway.  Rather than a ban, or a SC decision, we need to shift cultural attitudes about circumcision.  I think the best way to do that is be honest (For instance, don't quote false stats...the circumcision rate is around 55-65%, not 39%), try to be calm and not dramatic (I found using the word mutilation does so much more to turn people off than to get them to listen) and accept that you can't change everyone's mind.  I think if intactivists didn't have such a poor reputation with the general population, the message would be exponentially more effective.


nocirc.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfambedsingle2.gifhomebirth.jpgdiaper.gif No Circ/EBF/Babywearing/Co-sleeping/Homebirthing/CDing Dr. mama to 4 boys and 4 girls.

LonelyPageTurnr is offline  
Old 11-09-2011, 11:31 AM
 
Adaline'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonelyPageTurnr View Post

They're not going to ban RIC.  Besides, culturally, Americans aren't ready for that.  They'd still get it done anyway.  Rather than a ban, or a SC decision, we need to shift cultural attitudes about circumcision.  I think the best way to do that is be honest (For instance, don't quote false stats...the circumcision rate is around 55-65%, not 39%), try to be calm and not dramatic (I found using the word mutilation does so much more to turn people off than to get them to listen) and accept that you can't change everyone's mind.  I think if intactivists didn't have such a poor reputation with the general population, the message would be exponentially more effective.



Where, exactly, are you getting these stats from?

I think there are different ways to be an activist, and if you want to choose to be nice and calm and quote the highest rate you can find, that is your way of going about it. I choose to use the word mutilation because that is exactly what it is, and that is exactly what it would be called if it were happening to a female. I pick and choose who I say what to, based on how I think they will respond and how I can best convey the message. However, it isnt up to anyone how other people should act regarding talking to people about circ.

This NYT article sites the CDC as saying that in 2009 the circ rate was 32.5%, down from 56% in 2003. Im not sure where you are getting your stats from, but IMO, if the NYT can quote 32.5% as the current circ rate for infant US babies, so can I.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/u-s-circumcision-rates-on-the-decline/

ETA: the article link

Holly and David partners.gif

Adaline love.gif (3/20/10), and Charlie brokenheart.gif (1/26/12- 4/10/12) and our identical  rainbow1284.gif  twins Callie and Wendy (01/04/13)

SIDS happens. 

Adaline'sMama is offline  
Old 11-09-2011, 11:43 AM
 
philomom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 9,263
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonelyPageTurnr View Post

They're not going to ban RIC.  Besides, culturally, Americans aren't ready for that.  They'd still get it done anyway.  Rather than a ban, or a SC decision, we need to shift cultural attitudes about circumcision.  I think the best way to do that is be honest (For instance, don't quote false stats...the circumcision rate is around 55-65%, not 39%), try to be calm and not dramatic (I found using the word mutilation does so much more to turn people off than to get them to listen) and accept that you can't change everyone's mind.  I think if intactivists didn't have such a poor reputation with the general population, the message would be exponentially more effective.

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?

I agree with a previous poster that it seems likely America would put girls back on the chopping block rather than try to discourage routine circ. But, I don't agree with you about the stats. Most of the families I meet nowadays have left their sons alone.
philomom is online now  
Old 11-09-2011, 11:59 AM
 
LiLStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 3,367
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)

I think its true that the rates are higher than the 30-something% rate often quoted. Those numbers I think are coming from hospital reporting the circ rate of newborns prior to discharge. Most people I know who have circed in recent years did so as an outpatient procedure a week or 2 after birth. Around where I live (Seattle) I don't think its even offered at birth in the hospital, and parents must make an appt. We do have a lower circ rate out here though. 30something% might just be a good accurate number for the region. But I don't think thats the nationwide average, unfortunately


dd (7) ds (5), ds (2) &3rdtri.gif hbac.gif and the furbabies cat.gifZeus, Dobby, Luna, & Ravenclaw
LiLStar is online now  
Old 11-09-2011, 05:37 PM
 
LonelyPageTurnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Why would I need to come here to 'gather intell' for some other site?  This website is public, anyone who wanted to could come on here.  That's rather paranoid.  I don't have a problem with holding a view against RIC, but I've been attacked many times with intactivists for not following 'the party line'.  My question to you is...how's the party line working out for you?  The people who aren't circumcising (35-45% of the population in the US) are people that are already inclined in that direction.  It's the people who aren't inclined that you have to convince, and using false statistics, dicey information and scare tactics (along with being very very pushy) are.not.working.  Think of how you approached me, because I'm not saying what everyone else is?

I don't circumcise my kids, but I don't spread the message the way you like, and so I'm to be viewed with distrust and suspicion.  Why on earth should I support quoting lies and misrepresenting information to 'win' a debate or attempt to sway someone to my opinion?  It doesn't work and it makes intactivists look bad.  I don't know if you're unaware with intactivists reputation among the general public, but it's not good.  Instead of shooting the messenger, maybe you should examine the message.  Just a thought.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philomom View Post


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?
I agree with a previous poster that it seems likely America would put girls back on the chopping block rather than try to discourage routine circ. But, I don't agree with you about the stats. Most of the families I meet nowadays have left their sons alone.


 


nocirc.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfambedsingle2.gifhomebirth.jpgdiaper.gif No Circ/EBF/Babywearing/Co-sleeping/Homebirthing/CDing Dr. mama to 4 boys and 4 girls.

LonelyPageTurnr is offline  
Old 11-09-2011, 05:45 PM
 
LonelyPageTurnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Here, philomom.  I found this right here, on this forum.

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1326620/circumcision-rates-in-the-u-s


nocirc.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfambedsingle2.gifhomebirth.jpgdiaper.gif No Circ/EBF/Babywearing/Co-sleeping/Homebirthing/CDing Dr. mama to 4 boys and 4 girls.

LonelyPageTurnr is offline  
Old 11-09-2011, 05:50 PM
 
LonelyPageTurnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I'm not telling anyone how to talk to others.  I'm simply speaking on what I've seen dissuade others from listening to them.  Culturally, FGM and RIC are not the same to Americans, no matter how comparable the anatomy and procedure are (sometimes it's comparable, other times, not really).  So when you call something that's acceptable and normal 'mutilation', all I've ever seen it accomplish is for parents who were considering it to go on the defensive.   I linked in a prior post where I got the rates from, and if you want to continue posting false statistics to bolster your argument, it seems pretty obvious that your argument is weak.  Circumcising parents are still very much in the majority.  I'm not attacking you, personally, I'm saying that because your desire to see circumcision disappear, you're not looking at the information objectively, or trying to find the best information possible. 

 

I'm very against RIC.  That doesn't mean that I'm going to present any information that 'supports' my side.  When people figure out that it's inaccurate, it completely destroys my credibility.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post


Where, exactly, are you getting these stats from?
I think there are different ways to be an activist, and if you want to choose to be nice and calm and quote the highest rate you can find, that is your way of going about it. I choose to use the word mutilation because that is exactly what it is, and that is exactly what it would be called if it were happening to a female. I pick and choose who I say what to, based on how I think they will respond and how I can best convey the message. However, it isnt up to anyone how other people should act regarding talking to people about circ.
This NYT article sites the CDC as saying that in 2009 the circ rate was 32.5%, down from 56% in 2003. Im not sure where you are getting your stats from, but IMO, if the NYT can quote 32.5% as the current circ rate for infant US babies, so can I.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/u-s-circumcision-rates-on-the-decline/
ETA: the article link


 


nocirc.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfambedsingle2.gifhomebirth.jpgdiaper.gif No Circ/EBF/Babywearing/Co-sleeping/Homebirthing/CDing Dr. mama to 4 boys and 4 girls.

LonelyPageTurnr is offline  
Old 11-09-2011, 07:44 PM
 
Adaline'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,757
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Can you post your very own link to the stats you quoted right here in this thread? You say you linked in a prior post. Are you referring to the post right above the one where you responded to me? The MDC post, where one poster calculated the rates herself?

Holly and David partners.gif

Adaline love.gif (3/20/10), and Charlie brokenheart.gif (1/26/12- 4/10/12) and our identical  rainbow1284.gif  twins Callie and Wendy (01/04/13)

SIDS happens. 

Adaline'sMama is offline  
Old 11-09-2011, 07:47 PM
 
LonelyPageTurnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

You can do the math yourself.  Take the birth rate in 2009, divide it in half and check the numbers.

http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb118.jsp

Table 3. Most common all-listed procedures received by children in U.S. hospitals, 2009*
All-listed procedure Number of procedures Rate of discharges per 10,000 population†
1. Prophylactic vaccinations 1,329,600 1,783.5
2. Circumcision 1,147,700 1,539.5
3. Respiratory intubation and mechanical ventilation 226,700 304.1
4. Enteral and parenteral nutrition 165,100 221.5
5. Blood transfusion 109,400 146.8
6. Appendectomy 89,800 120.5
7. Repair of obstetric laceration 54,600 73.2
8. Cancer chemotherapy 47,900 64.3
9. Artificial rupture of membranes to assist in delivery 35,700 47.9
10. Incision and drainage of skin and subcutaneous tissue 35,600 47.8
* Excludes diagnostic testing.
† Calculated using resident population for July 2009 from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, accessed on February 28, 2011. From: http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2009-sa.html.
Source: AHRQ, Center for Delivery, Organization, and Markets, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Kids' Inpatient Database (KID), 2009

 

 

Even the MGMbill.org (which is very anti-RIC) does not support a circumcision rate of 32%.  It's inaccurate. 
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adaline'sMama View Post

Can you post your very own link to the stats you quoted right here in this thread? You say you linked in a prior post. Are you referring to the post right above the one where you responded to me? The MDC post, where one poster calculated the rates herself?


 


nocirc.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfambedsingle2.gifhomebirth.jpgdiaper.gif No Circ/EBF/Babywearing/Co-sleeping/Homebirthing/CDing Dr. mama to 4 boys and 4 girls.

LonelyPageTurnr is offline  
Old 11-09-2011, 07:57 PM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by LonelyPageTurnr View Post

You can do the math yourself.  Take the birth rate in 2009, divide it in half and check the numbers.

http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb118.jsp

Table 3. Most common all-listed procedures received by children in U.S. hospitals, 2009*
All-listed procedure Number of procedures Rate of discharges per 10,000 population†
1. Prophylactic vaccinations 1,329,600 1,783.5
2. Circumcision 1,147,700 1,539.5
3. Respiratory intubation and mechanical ventilation 226,700 304.1
4. Enteral and parenteral nutrition 165,100 221.5
5. Blood transfusion 109,400 146.8
6. Appendectomy 89,800 120.5
7. Repair of obstetric laceration 54,600 73.2
8. Cancer chemotherapy 47,900 64.3
9. Artificial rupture of membranes to assist in delivery 35,700 47.9
10. Incision and drainage of skin and subcutaneous tissue 35,600 47.8
* Excludes diagnostic testing.
† Calculated using resident population for July 2009 from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, accessed on February 28, 2011. From: http://www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2009-sa.html.
Source: AHRQ, Center for Delivery, Organization, and Markets, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Kids' Inpatient Database (KID), 2009

 

 

Even the MGMbill.org (which is very anti-RIC) does not support a circumcision rate of 32%.  It's inaccurate. 
 



 



That table shows a circumcision rate of right over 30% assuming 50/50 gender.  It shows 1540/10,000 which would be 1540/5000 males which is 154/500 which is 30.8/100, or 30.8%.

 

What "math" are you seeing to support your assertion?

 


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
Old 11-09-2011, 08:07 PM
 
LonelyPageTurnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

No.  The number of procedures is 1,147,700.  The birth rate in 2009 in the US was 4,136,000.  Divide that in half. 2,068,000.  Divide 1,147,700 by 2,068,000.  That is 55.5% circumcision rate.  That's not counting circumcisions done in an office or ritual setting. 
Edited to add further link, with percentages hanging around the 55% point:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w

 

For the period 1999--2010, the weighted analysis yielded 11,789,000 (59.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 59.1%--59.2%) of 19,933,000 and 12,347,096 (57.8%; CI = 57.8%--57.8%) of 21,359,690 newborn males circumcised in the United States from NHDS and NIS, respectively. Of 2,339,760 newborn males recorded in CDM, 1,306,466 (55.8%; CI = 55.7%--55.9%) were circumcised.
 

Incidence of NMC decreased from 62.5% in 1999 to 56.9% in 2008 in NHDS (AAPC = -1.4%; p<0.001), from 63.5% in 1999 to 56.3% in 2008 in NIS (AAPC = -1.2%; p<0.001), and from 58.4% in 2001 to 54.7% in 2010 in CDM (AAPC = -0.75%; p<0.001) (Figure).


When compared using the trends homogeneity test, the decreases in incidence were statistically different (p<0.01) for the 8 years of commonly available data (2001--2008); however, the maximum difference in absolute incidence did not exceed 5.9 percentage points for any given year.

 

 

 


nocirc.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfambedsingle2.gifhomebirth.jpgdiaper.gif No Circ/EBF/Babywearing/Co-sleeping/Homebirthing/CDing Dr. mama to 4 boys and 4 girls.

LonelyPageTurnr is offline  
Old 11-09-2011, 08:08 PM
 
LonelyPageTurnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Besides, even the NYT article stated those were only insurance-covered circumcisions done before discharge in the hospital.  That's leaving out quite a few circumcisions, regardless.  Even if the math were somehow flawed from the numbers presented, there's no chance at all that a 32% circumcision rate is even remotely close to accurate, as another member posted previously in this thread.


nocirc.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfambedsingle2.gifhomebirth.jpgdiaper.gif No Circ/EBF/Babywearing/Co-sleeping/Homebirthing/CDing Dr. mama to 4 boys and 4 girls.

LonelyPageTurnr is offline  
Old 11-10-2011, 10:11 AM
 
TiredX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 20,029
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by LonelyPageTurnr View Post

No.  The number of procedures is 1,147,700.  The birth rate in 2009 in the US was 4,136,000.  Divide that in half. 2,068,000.  Divide 1,147,700 by 2,068,000.  That is 55.5% circumcision rate.  That's not counting circumcisions done in an office or ritual setting. 

 


Then there is something wrong with the table's calculation of x/10,000.  Because I totally understand how you are coming to your number, but the I am also calculating it correctly (that I see) based on the informaton in the table.  Where is the disconnect?
 

 


 

 

TiredX2 is offline  
Old 11-10-2011, 01:27 PM
 
LonelyPageTurnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

You're calculations are based on the discharges, mine are based on the procedures :)
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiredX2 View Post




Then there is something wrong with the table's calculation of x/10,000.  Because I totally understand how you are coming to your number, but the I am also calculating it correctly (that I see) based on the informaton in the table.  Where is the disconnect?
 

 



 

 


nocirc.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfambedsingle2.gifhomebirth.jpgdiaper.gif No Circ/EBF/Babywearing/Co-sleeping/Homebirthing/CDing Dr. mama to 4 boys and 4 girls.

LonelyPageTurnr is offline  
Old 11-10-2011, 04:48 PM
 
Dan Bollinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Ahem, if accurate statistics are the issue, then these estimates should be using the proper sex ratio. The sex ratio for the U.S. in the past few decades has been 51.15% male according to the U.S. Census.

 

Also, the sample size for the AHRQ should be reported. It is not uncommon for such reports to only sample a small number of hospitals, a few from each state. I've seen rates from 5% to 30%, but never more than that.

 

 

Dan Bollinger is offline  
Old 11-11-2011, 07:18 AM
 
LonelyPageTurnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

You're right, it should be 51.5%, which does nothing statistically relevant to the %.

Further, the 'sample size' is the number of procedures performed, which is given as a hard number.  If that is only 5-30%, then presumably there's even more circumcisions, which would increase the % of parents circumcising, not decrease it.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Bollinger View Post

Ahem, if accurate statistics are the issue, then these estimates should be using the proper sex ratio. The sex ratio for the U.S. in the past few decades has been 51.15% male according to the U.S. Census.

 

Also, the sample size for the AHRQ should be reported. It is not uncommon for such reports to only sample a small number of hospitals, a few from each state. I've seen rates from 5% to 30%, but never more than that.

 

 



 


nocirc.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfambedsingle2.gifhomebirth.jpgdiaper.gif No Circ/EBF/Babywearing/Co-sleeping/Homebirthing/CDing Dr. mama to 4 boys and 4 girls.

LonelyPageTurnr is offline  
Old 11-11-2011, 07:29 AM
 
LonelyPageTurnr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 59
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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.


nocirc.gif winner.jpg femalesling.GIFfambedsingle2.gifhomebirth.jpgdiaper.gif No Circ/EBF/Babywearing/Co-sleeping/Homebirthing/CDing Dr. mama to 4 boys and 4 girls.

LonelyPageTurnr is offline  
Old 11-20-2011, 02:10 PM
 
JenRave's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

.

JenRave is offline  
Old 11-20-2011, 05:59 PM - Thread Starter
 
K703's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by JenRave View Post



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.


Kelly, a man who is proud to be intact!
K703 is online now  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off