Again, I hate FGM with the force of a thousand suns. I personally can appreciate what genital mutilation entails and the devastating impact it can have on one's life. It's a horrible thing and should not be forced on anyone.

But we are a nation of laws

I personally think extreme human rights violations should still fall under a blanket federal protection.

But then again, I'm only shitposting about bad stuff, I'm not the jackass that's actually going around doing it.

Michigan, where the events took place, has already made it a felony

I am not aware of the posture of FGM in any treaty to which we are signatory @JustTom
the recent FGM ruling was on the limitations of the Interstate Commerce Clause
and honestly, after Raich v Gonzales, it's nice to see some limit enforced

We need to make a list of people going!

I expect most states to follow the same path with this ruling.

Michigan only recently made it a felony - the instant events predated MI law

Ideally once this gets appealed the ruling will be overturned.

ideally, this ruling will expand

for reasons having nothing to do with FGM

That is true, Paradigm. It's because of this case that MI passed a law.

The state law was more strict and carried higher penalties than the federal one. 15 years instead of just 5.

Damn right, we need this ruling to expand and fast. I wanna gas those damn jews and the fuckin' federal government wouldn't approve.

So, will any of this cover male circumcision?

Again, murder, menacing, rape, assault, and battery are likely already illegal in your state

Yes, it does. It makes it more legal to cut off a man's dick.

Ah.

So only female genital mutilation will be illegal?

no no no

opposite

Well what did you expect? They just said it's LEGAL to FGM.

Oh.

It's 100% legal now, from the federal government.

Well, that's messed up.

no, they didn't @JustTom
they said ICC does not cover non-commercial events

No, I think the laws are being written to address any surgery that is not medically necessary except the removal of the foreskin of a male baby.

I mean that is kind of the issue once you can harm others with religious freedom as your defence it is scary.
Because genital mutilation is not nice regardless of gender.

which is a massive step in the right direction after Raich

The ruling says:
Federal government: "Not our problem, go cut her up all you want jackasses."
States: "OH FUCK, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? FUCK FUCK FUCK, PASS LAWS TO STOP THIS ASAP!"

That still seems to be inconsistent between genders.

Again, the point isn't that it should be legal. The point is that it is the states and not the federal gov't that has the authority to do it

You are not allowed to cut away any sort of skin if the infant is female.

With male infants it's still okay, apparently.

if you want FGM regulated at the federal level,
you need either a Constitutional Amendment or a treaty to stamp it out

damn I can actually go for all 3 days this year

I'm actually against male circumcision but it's up to each state to decide what they should consider acceptable

My son is not circumcised

Rip That is what happened to me

@Undead Mockingbird The point of the ruling was simply this: the federal government doesn't give a shit how badly you mutilate someone's pussy or dick, they threw their hands up and are now saying "Not our problem. You states gotta regulate it yourselves. PEACE OUT, WE'RE GOING TO SPACE-VEGAS AND GETTIN' US SOME HOOKERS!"

What was their exact reasoning?