For a widow of a marriage lasting more than 40 years, Cindy McCain looks good and appears to be engaging life again. Their children are incredible and I am sure they are a great solace to her. She must know how much her husband is missed. I feel his absence strongly shows in the US Senate.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Female Genital Mutilation is child abuse. I defy anyone to say differently.
It is a crime to use the USA Constitution to justify child abuse. After the Michigan ruling, there will be children of Jehovah Witnesses dying for lack of medical treatment. The reason the Michigan child abuse statutes would apply to this case is because 722.634 shows the will of society to protect children from harmful religious practices. This statute of the Michigan Child Protection laws has proven to save lives and provided much needed medical treatment, it also ends any guessing by medical personnel in the ER when seconds in treatment makes a difference. The judge could have ruled to protect the girls in proving the will of society in the protection of children from harmful religious practice.
The Free Exercise Clause does not provide for the practice of child abuse. It also blurs the line with pedophilia.
Female Genital Manipulation occurs with female children from birth to the age of fifteen years old. All these procedures are performed without the benefit of anesthisia. If that isn't cruel I don't know what is. The procedure which is practiced in some obscure religions can remove the clitoris, the inner labia and stitching the outer labia closed to only leave a tiny opening for the passage of urine. This is not only a painful surgery but, scars the women for life and creates medical problems as adults.
722.634 Religious beliefs. (click here)
History: 1975, Act 238, Eff. Oct. 1, 1975
Michigan's child abuse provisions for the practice of religion narrowly applies to Jehovah Witness that do not believe in medical intervention, including blood transfusions. This does not address the child abuse of severely mutilating a girls genitals.
The decision by this federal judge in Michigan openly allows female genital mutilation. What does anyone think pedophilia is about?
The impacts of this decision were not weighted by the realization this procedure puts an undue burden on society and blurs the line with pedophilia which we know for a fact seeks religion as a place to hide.
This practice is child abuse and causes PERMANENT damage to the child while imposing psychological abuse as well. There is no reason why a child has to be submitted to this practice when it can be deferred to adulthood and the age of majority. This is the most outrageous decision I have ever witnessed favoring child abuse for some obscure religious practice. This falls directly in line with the impact of Jehovah Witness in that it causes permanent damage and hence a liability to the society in which it is practiced. This judge's head is full of boxes that put people as victims of faith according to the USA Constitution, instead of putting child welfare first.
November 21, 2018
By Camila Domonoske
A federal judge in Michigan (click here) has dropped most of the charges against a Detroit doctor accused of female genital mutilation, concluding that Congress "overstepped its bounds" when it passed a law banning the practice.
That 1996 law violates the Constitution and is unenforceable, the judge concluded, because in general, criminal law is left to the states — and female genital mutilation should be no exception.
As a result, he dropped six federal charges against Jumana Nagarwala, who was accused of mutilating the genitals of multiple girls when they were about 7. Other defendants charged with assisting in the procedures have also had charges dropped.
Two charges against Nagarwala, for "conspiracy to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct" and obstruction, remain pending....
...The relationship between (click here) the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses varies with the expansiveness of interpretation of the two clauses. In a general sense both clauses proscribe governmental involvement with and interference in religious matters, but there is possible tension between a requirement of governmental neutrality derived from the Establishment Clause and a Free-Exercise-derived requirement that government accommodate some religious practices. So far, the Court has harmonized interpretation by denying that free- exercise-mandated accommodations create establishment violations, and also by upholding some legislative accommodations not mandated by free exercise requirements. ''This Court has long recognized that government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause.'' In holding that a state could not deny unemployment benefits to Sabbatarians who refused Saturday work, for example, the Court denied that it was ''fostering an 'establishment' of the Seventh-Day Adventist religion, for the extension of unemployment benefits to Sabbatarians in common with Sunday worshippers reflects nothing more than the governmental obligation of neutrality in the face of religious differences, and does not represent that involvement of religious with secular institutions which it is the object of the Establishment Clause to forestall.'' Legislation granting religious exemptions not held to have been required by the Free Exercise Clause has also been upheld against Establishment Clause challenge, although it is also possible for legislation to go too far in promoting free exercise....
...One point of contention (click here) regarding the Establishment Clause is how to frame government actions that implicate religion. Framing questions often arise in the context of permanent religious monuments on public land. Although it is reasonably clear that cities cannot install new religious monuments, there is fierce debate over whether existing monuments should be removed. When the Supreme Court recently considered this issue in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), and McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), it did not articulate a clear general standard for deciding these types of cases. The Court revisited this issue in Salazar v. Buono (08-472), a case which considered the constitutionality of a large white Christian cross erected by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on federal land in the Mojave Desert. While five justices concluded that a federal judge erred in barring a congressionally ordered land transfer which would place the memorial on private land, there was no majority reasoning as to why. Three Justices held that the goal of avoiding governmental endorsement of religion does not require the destruction of religious symbols in the private realm, while Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this complaint.
continued...
The Free Exercise Clause does not provide for the practice of child abuse. It also blurs the line with pedophilia.
Female Genital Manipulation occurs with female children from birth to the age of fifteen years old. All these procedures are performed without the benefit of anesthisia. If that isn't cruel I don't know what is. The procedure which is practiced in some obscure religions can remove the clitoris, the inner labia and stitching the outer labia closed to only leave a tiny opening for the passage of urine. This is not only a painful surgery but, scars the women for life and creates medical problems as adults.
722.634 Religious beliefs. (click here)
Sec. 14.
A parent or guardian legitimately practicing his religious beliefs who thereby does not provide specified medical treatment for a child, for that reason alone shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian. This section shall not preclude a court from ordering the provision of medical services or nonmedical remedial services recognized by state law to a child where the child's health requires it nor does it abrogate the responsibility of a person required to report child abuse or neglect.
History: 1975, Act 238, Eff. Oct. 1, 1975
Michigan's child abuse provisions for the practice of religion narrowly applies to Jehovah Witness that do not believe in medical intervention, including blood transfusions. This does not address the child abuse of severely mutilating a girls genitals.
The decision by this federal judge in Michigan openly allows female genital mutilation. What does anyone think pedophilia is about?
The impacts of this decision were not weighted by the realization this procedure puts an undue burden on society and blurs the line with pedophilia which we know for a fact seeks religion as a place to hide.
This practice is child abuse and causes PERMANENT damage to the child while imposing psychological abuse as well. There is no reason why a child has to be submitted to this practice when it can be deferred to adulthood and the age of majority. This is the most outrageous decision I have ever witnessed favoring child abuse for some obscure religious practice. This falls directly in line with the impact of Jehovah Witness in that it causes permanent damage and hence a liability to the society in which it is practiced. This judge's head is full of boxes that put people as victims of faith according to the USA Constitution, instead of putting child welfare first.
November 21, 2018
By Camila Domonoske
A federal judge in Michigan (click here) has dropped most of the charges against a Detroit doctor accused of female genital mutilation, concluding that Congress "overstepped its bounds" when it passed a law banning the practice.
That 1996 law violates the Constitution and is unenforceable, the judge concluded, because in general, criminal law is left to the states — and female genital mutilation should be no exception.
As a result, he dropped six federal charges against Jumana Nagarwala, who was accused of mutilating the genitals of multiple girls when they were about 7. Other defendants charged with assisting in the procedures have also had charges dropped.
Two charges against Nagarwala, for "conspiracy to travel with intent to engage in illicit sexual conduct" and obstruction, remain pending....
...The relationship between (click here) the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses varies with the expansiveness of interpretation of the two clauses. In a general sense both clauses proscribe governmental involvement with and interference in religious matters, but there is possible tension between a requirement of governmental neutrality derived from the Establishment Clause and a Free-Exercise-derived requirement that government accommodate some religious practices. So far, the Court has harmonized interpretation by denying that free- exercise-mandated accommodations create establishment violations, and also by upholding some legislative accommodations not mandated by free exercise requirements. ''This Court has long recognized that government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices and that it may do so without violating the Establishment Clause.'' In holding that a state could not deny unemployment benefits to Sabbatarians who refused Saturday work, for example, the Court denied that it was ''fostering an 'establishment' of the Seventh-Day Adventist religion, for the extension of unemployment benefits to Sabbatarians in common with Sunday worshippers reflects nothing more than the governmental obligation of neutrality in the face of religious differences, and does not represent that involvement of religious with secular institutions which it is the object of the Establishment Clause to forestall.'' Legislation granting religious exemptions not held to have been required by the Free Exercise Clause has also been upheld against Establishment Clause challenge, although it is also possible for legislation to go too far in promoting free exercise....
...One point of contention (click here) regarding the Establishment Clause is how to frame government actions that implicate religion. Framing questions often arise in the context of permanent religious monuments on public land. Although it is reasonably clear that cities cannot install new religious monuments, there is fierce debate over whether existing monuments should be removed. When the Supreme Court recently considered this issue in Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005), and McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), it did not articulate a clear general standard for deciding these types of cases. The Court revisited this issue in Salazar v. Buono (08-472), a case which considered the constitutionality of a large white Christian cross erected by members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on federal land in the Mojave Desert. While five justices concluded that a federal judge erred in barring a congressionally ordered land transfer which would place the memorial on private land, there was no majority reasoning as to why. Three Justices held that the goal of avoiding governmental endorsement of religion does not require the destruction of religious symbols in the private realm, while Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this complaint.
continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)