Maine Democrat Sara Gideon Killed Bills Outlawing Female Genital Mutilation
- Status
S
StudentMI
Guest
Disgusting.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
If I understand the arguments referenced in the article correctly, they say that such mutilation is already covered by the medical laws of the state and can be prosecuted under those laws. What change would the bill have affected that isn’t covered by the current laws?
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
Legislators need something to do to prove they are doing something so they try to pass laws that either already exist or pass stupid laws.
Last year here, they passed a law making it illegal to drive in the left lane except to pass. Tell that to commuters during rush hours where traffic is bumper to bumper in all lanes. No exception written into the law for rush hours.
Last year here, they passed a law making it illegal to drive in the left lane except to pass. Tell that to commuters during rush hours where traffic is bumper to bumper in all lanes. No exception written into the law for rush hours.
Last edited:
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
I have no knowledge of the law in Maine, and I suspect that unless there is anyone on the forum who is a lawyer in Maine, a member of the state legislature, etc, it is likely that none of us have the expertise to understand this fully. As has been stated already, the practice is apparently already illegal in Maine and reportedly does not occur there anyway. My suspicion is that if we were to look into this in depth we would find that there were good reasons for not supporting the bill. It is unlikely that any member of the state legislature actually supports FGM. I would assume that it is a question of how best to draft a law or implement policies.
To give an example from the UK: FGM has been a specific crime in the UK since 1985. before that date, it presumably could have been prosecuted under existing laws, e.g. the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s. 18 (assault occasioning grievous bodily harm with intent).
The first prosecution for FGM did not take place until 2015. The defendants were acquitted following a trial during which it was apparent that they should never have been prosecuted in the first place. The man accused of committing FGM was a gynaecologist. He had just delivered the baby of a woman who had been a victim of FGM. As a result of her FGM, she began to bleed heavily following the birth and the only way in which the doctor was able to stop the bleeding and thus prevent her death was to put a stitch her in genitals where she had been mutilated. It was claimed that he could have stopped the bleeding in some other way, but it is impossible to know whether he could actually have done anything different unless (a) you are a gynaecologist and (b) you were actually there at the time treating that patient under those circumstances. The first conviction was in 2019. To date, I believe it is the only conviction for FGM in the UK. Earlier this year, two people were arrested, but I believe they are still released on bail.
Clearly the law in the UK must be deeply flawed if, after 35 years, we have achieved one conviction, despite the likelihood that thousands of women and girls have been mutilated over that period.
A useful case to use as comparison is the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill, a private member’s bill presented to the UK House of Commons in 2018. The bill intended to make upskirting a specific offence in England and Wales. Sir Christopher Chope drew widespread criticism for objecting to the bill at its second reading (as the bill was a private member’s bill, the objection of just one MP is sufficient to prevent its progress). However, Chope immediately made it clear that he did not in any way disagree with the principle of making upskirting an offence. Rather, he objected to the manner in which the bill was being presented to Parliament. Chope objected to the second reading of the bill on 15 June 2018, and the bill passed its second reading without a vote on 3 July 2018. Chope continues to be known as the MP who objected to a law against upskirting, despite the fact that he merely delayed the progress of the bill by two and a half weeks because he wanted the House of Commons to have the opportunity to make it a better bill.
To give an example from the UK: FGM has been a specific crime in the UK since 1985. before that date, it presumably could have been prosecuted under existing laws, e.g. the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s. 18 (assault occasioning grievous bodily harm with intent).
The first prosecution for FGM did not take place until 2015. The defendants were acquitted following a trial during which it was apparent that they should never have been prosecuted in the first place. The man accused of committing FGM was a gynaecologist. He had just delivered the baby of a woman who had been a victim of FGM. As a result of her FGM, she began to bleed heavily following the birth and the only way in which the doctor was able to stop the bleeding and thus prevent her death was to put a stitch her in genitals where she had been mutilated. It was claimed that he could have stopped the bleeding in some other way, but it is impossible to know whether he could actually have done anything different unless (a) you are a gynaecologist and (b) you were actually there at the time treating that patient under those circumstances. The first conviction was in 2019. To date, I believe it is the only conviction for FGM in the UK. Earlier this year, two people were arrested, but I believe they are still released on bail.
Clearly the law in the UK must be deeply flawed if, after 35 years, we have achieved one conviction, despite the likelihood that thousands of women and girls have been mutilated over that period.
A useful case to use as comparison is the Voyeurism (Offences) Bill, a private member’s bill presented to the UK House of Commons in 2018. The bill intended to make upskirting a specific offence in England and Wales. Sir Christopher Chope drew widespread criticism for objecting to the bill at its second reading (as the bill was a private member’s bill, the objection of just one MP is sufficient to prevent its progress). However, Chope immediately made it clear that he did not in any way disagree with the principle of making upskirting an offence. Rather, he objected to the manner in which the bill was being presented to Parliament. Chope objected to the second reading of the bill on 15 June 2018, and the bill passed its second reading without a vote on 3 July 2018. Chope continues to be known as the MP who objected to a law against upskirting, despite the fact that he merely delayed the progress of the bill by two and a half weeks because he wanted the House of Commons to have the opportunity to make it a better bill.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
It isn’t unusual for Bill’s in the USA to also contain unrelated items. Ex: let’s say someone made a bill to make it illegal to club baby seals. But that same bill also has a line giving the governor a raide.
Or, sometimes the name by which a bill is known understates what the bill does. The North Carolina “Bathroom Bill” is such a thing. Many people thought that it just kept transgender people out of the “wrong” bathroom. But it also removed discrimination protections (not just for being transgender) and put up obstacles to having such cases heard in court.
When I hear that someone voted against a bill that supported a specific cause I’ve learned to not draw conclusions immediately since there may be other matters entangled within it.
V
Victoria33
Guest
Experts say FGM though is more painful, more, has more far-reaching consequences. I guess I could look up references if one is curious.
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/...sion-not-comparable-female-genital-mutilation
https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/...sion-not-comparable-female-genital-mutilation
Circumcision in boys and girls: why the double standard?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I don’t quite understand why both procedures are sometimes called “Circumcision” For boys, the equivalent morphological alteration would be to remove the penis. At least for the less extreme version of the procedure.
There are occasional movements that pop up to end male circumcision, labeling it as male genital mutilation. San Francisco was putting an item on the ballot one year until the State of California reminded them that regulation of medical procedures is something done by the state and not allowed at the city level.
R
RidgeSprinter
Guest
You might as well be asking why the double standard in the bible concerning Adultery.
There are laws allowing a Man to accuse a woman of Adultery, but not the other way around.
There are laws allowing a Man to accuse a woman of Adultery, but not the other way around.
1
1cthlctrth
Guest
But then why vote against such a bill? There’s no excuse.
Suudy
Active member
Holy Bunions, Batman! Agreeing twice in the last month with @ThinkingSapien?
Absolutely. Just as there is talk of more gun control laws, those of us 2nd amendment supporters rightly say “Just enforce the laws on the books! We don’t need more laws!” Same thing here. If already illegal based on federal and local laws, why have new laws?
- Status