Lawyer: Doctor was doing religious procedure, not harm

[rug]

Robert Snell , The Detroit News
Published 11:55 a.m. ET April 17, 2017 | Updated 13 hours ago

Detroit — A Detroit emergency room physician charged with mutilating the genitalia of two 7-year-olds from Minnesota denied cutting the girls, saying she merely performed a religious procedure that involved removing and then burying skin in the ground.

Dr. Jumana Nagarwala’s lawyer offered the explanation Monday during a dramatic 90-minute court hearing in front of a standing-room-only crowd. The hearing ended with a federal magistrate judge ordering the Northville doctor jailed without bond while awaiting trial, the first of its kind in federal courts nationwide.

“There is clear and convincing evidence that (Nagarwala) poses a danger to the community,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub said Monday.

The court hearing shed light on a controversial medical procedure and pierced a veil of secrecy surrounding the case when it was revealed Nagarwala belongs to a small, insular group of Shia Muslims that has been linked to an mutilation scandal in Australia two years ago.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2017/04/17/female-genital-mutilation-doctor/100563870/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra#Dawoodi_Bohras_and_the_world

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mother-midwife-and-sheikh-guilty-in-australias-first-genital-mutilation-trial-20151112-gkx0b3.html

This is one that will test juridical boundaries. I wonder if we can discuss it without the usual reflexive bullshit.

[Cartoonist]

1. By all means

Let those in favor of genital mutilation step forward. Because it's religion, we will respect your opinion.

[safeinOhio]

2. I don't think it is religious as much as

a culture issue. Can't find anything in the Koran and not a practice in all Islamic countries.

[rug]

4. Yes, the wiki link on Dawoodi Bohra goes into that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. So you think she's guilty, then, and lying about it being religious? (nt)

[safeinOhio]

15. I don't think her argument

will hold water. I think she is a victim of culture not so much Islam. I'll leave it to a jury as I don't have much information other than this one article.

Perhaps you can show me the part of the Koran that requires it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Not everything in a religion has to be written down in a founding book

Some religions don't have important books. Others add things on top of what their most important books say (eg the Trinity in Christianity). But they're still religious ideas, not "culture".

That's odd - you talk about 'her argument', and then say "she is a victim of culture". Are you saying that the doctor is a "victim"?

[rug]

3. With your first use of "we" the bullshit commences.

With your call for a plebiscite on genital mutilation the torrent gushes.

The implications of this story eludes you.

[HockeyMom]

5. If this can be banned,

then male circumcision can be also. Done by Rabbis mostly and not doctors. Maybe Jewish DU'ers can comment on that?

It was a custom among Italian and Hispanic cultures to pierce baby girls' ears. Family members did it. Is the difference only that an ear is not a sexual organ and it wasn't done for religious reasons?

[rug]

6. That was the first thing to come to mind.

Although my understanding is that FGM is far more harmful.

[Mariana]

9. It can be far more harmful.

The term FGM is very general. FGM can range from a little nick on the clitoral hood to draw a drop of blood all the way to total removal of the clitoris and virtual destruction of the vulva. The Detroit News article linked in the OP is very vague about what exactly is supposed to have been done to the girls.

[Orrex]

10. Yes

Attempts to equate male circumcision to female genital mutilation are pure propaganda driven by emotion, and such attempts are a great disservice to the cause of eradicating female genital mutilation. A circumcised male can look at himself and say "It's no great trauma," and thereby mistakenly conclude that female genital mutilation is no great trauma either.

[Mariana]

11. Male circumcison means one thing only.

Removal of the foreskin. The term FGM doesn't have a specific meaning like that, and it does lead to confusion. I think it's important to describe clearly exactly what has been done to the victims. Then there can't be any false equivalencies. In this case, we have no idea what the doctor did, or how badly the girls were hurt, because the article is so vague.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. I think it's fair to assume a principle of; leave children's genitals alone.

I consider both versions ghoulish vandalism. Usually meant to dampen or eliminate sex drive by way of destroying any pleasure it might hold.

Even male circumcision, which is less invasive than the various forms of FGM, severs tens of thousands of nerves.


My parents got very agitated for some reason when I asked why they had me circumcised, instead of letting me decide as an adult.

[Orrex]

14. Well...

Usually meant to dampen or eliminate sex drive by way of destroying any pleasure it might hold.

That's one of the historical reasons for it, but the main reason today is hygiene. And if it's intended as a masturbatory deterrent, then I will offer anecdotally that it doesn't seem a very successful strategy.

My parents got very agitated for some reason when I asked why they had me circumcised, instead of letting me decide as an adult.

If, as an adult, I could be assured that I'd suffer the same trauma of circumcision as I remember myself to have endured as an infant (i.e., none whatsoever), then I'd be fine with it. I've heard many claims about the transcendent pleasure that I'm missing out on, but the actual evidence for it is inconsistent and much disputed.

You and I have differed on this before and will likely continue to do so (which, by the way, is another reason why it's cruel, broad-brush bigotry when someone lumps us non-believers together in a hateful, unconscious whole), but I like the more general objection you articulated in your subject line.

I will continue to resist any likening of male circumcision to female genital mutilation, and your subject line nicely avoids that direct comparison.

[Jim__]

7. Why would this test juridical boundaries?

From wikipedia:

Female genital mutilation in the United States occurs across the country. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is defined as "all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons."[1]

…

Performing FGM on anyone under the age of 18 became illegal in the U.S. in 1997 with the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act.[11] As of 2015, 24 US states have specific laws against FGM.[5][12] States that do not have such laws may use other general statutes, such as assault, battery or child abuse.[13] Supported by Equality Now, the Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act was passed in January 2013, and prohibits knowingly transporting a girl out of the U.S. for the purpose of undergoing FGM.[14]

Do you think it doesn’t fit the definition of FGM?

[rug]

19. I think this is the statute she's charged under:

18 U.S. Code § 116 - Female genital mutilation

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is—

(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner; or

(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or midwife.

(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.

(d) Whoever knowingly transports from the United States and its territories a person in foreign commerce for the purpose of conduct with regard to that person that would be a violation of subsection (a) if the conduct occurred within the United States, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(Added Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, § 645(b)(1), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–709; amended Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title X, § 1088, Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1970.)

This is what an ealier report alleges the doctor did:

The FBI investigation alleges Nagarwala removed clitoral skin from two girls who were brought to Detroit earlier this year, activity that violates both federal and state law regarding female genital mutilation.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2017/04/13/doctor-charged-genital-mutilation/100416734/

Factually, a judge must determine if those actions constitute infibulation per the statute before the case even goes to a jury.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infibulation

Legally, the judge must determine if the statute as written is unconstitutionally vague, again before the case goes to a jury.

Finally, the judge must determine if subdivision (c) of the statute violates either the sixth or first amendment rights of the defendant.

I don't like opining without the actual facts but I'd bet the actions committed fall within subdivision (a) and the preemptive barring of the defense her lawyer is making will be deemed a valid exrcise of lcongressional power.

Whatever the outcome, it will surely be legislated vigorously and precednts set. I believe this is the first prosecution attempted under this statute.

[Jim__]

22. Ah, thanks.

[ExciteBike66]

8. Reflexive BS incoming:

My knee-jerk atheistic reaction is that cutting off parts of your child for no good reason is bad.

And no, I do not believe that "because an old book told me to" is a good reason.

[rug]

20. Thanks for the warning.

[HockeyMom]

17. As a woman, I find this no less different than male circumcison

for religious reasons. Why should one be less "horrific" than the other, except that one religion is "preferred" in this country over another?

If whatever religion is preferred by parents, so be it. In America ALL religions are equal and entitled to be protected; Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

Edit: I screamed at my own Mom for bucking our culture and not having my ears pierced as a baby. A male coworker did the same at his parents for not circumcising him as a baby when he had to have it done in his 30's for medical reasons.

[Mariana]

18. It depends on what she did.

Some forms of FGM are much, much worse than male circumcision. That's just a fact.

We don't know what exactly was done to these girls. It may be horrific, or it may be nothing (IOW, the doctor may not be guilty of FGM at all) or anything in between.

[rug]

21. That's one reasn I think this case will be hotly contested.

It has all sorts of implications and pushes at least a half dozen social hot buttons.