To Hillary Clinton, herself:
I would like you to read and respond publicly to arguments you'll find in my blog:
http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/...
http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/...
... and other articles there.
I do not believe that a pro-genital-cutting woman should ever be elected to the presidency because to be pro-circumcision is to be opposed to protecting children from an obvious malum in se crime against their bodily integrity. I can not imagine any mother, that once fully informed, would ever advocate doing this to her own child. The women who had it done must have either (a) believed it was truly in her son's best interest for health reasons, or (b) that someone dangerous would do something to them if they did not submit to it. Double-think is not a good political strategy. People always know, by your actions, what you really are. Is there a cylon with a gun commanding your votes? Even cyclons believe in good... Is hurting babies good?
I bet that if you search the statutes of any state for the words "Ram Truck", "Volkswagon", "Buick", or "Cheverolet", you'll find no laws mentioning these or other brands of automobile. Can you thereby conclude that it's not illegal to steal an automobile? Obviously there are general purpose laws that prohibit the theft of anyone's high value property. Lawmakers can not list every possible item that could get stolen. Likewise, the laws that prohibit assault, battery, or mayhem -- defined as deliberate infliction of injury causing permanent disfigurement or permanent loss of normal function -- could not possibly list every part of the body that could be injured, nor every possible weapon or mode of injury that might cause mayhem. A general purpose law is in place that covers it. There are also general purpose laws that prohibit any kind of fraud; and ones that are supposed to protect people against deprivation of rights.
By this reasoning, I think that the federal FGM law should be repealed. It actually weakens the penalty that would apply under laws that preexisted it's entry onto the statutes. In every state there are laws against sexual battery. The penalty that applies under those laws is more severe, rightfully and properly -- don't change them -- than the penalty prescribed by the federal FGM law. I also believe that the principle of "strict liability" must be applied to these crimes; that is, it is not necessary to prove intent or mens rea, but only that the perpetrator committed the primary features of the actus reus. Sex crime laws often end with something like "for the purpose of sexual gratification", but also there are strict liability clauses that apply, to avoid the difficulty of proving mens rea. Torturing children and inflicting permanent harm is clearly unlawful and rightfully so. Who can argue with that? No judge has any legitimate authority to order that such a thing be done to a child, even if there really is a cylon with a gun telling her how to decide. Law is law; fiat justicia ruat caelum.
I also suspect that this is the real reason why the AMA does not want any new laws passed to "outlaw circumcision". It's already illegal under existing laws and it's not righteous to weaken the penalty that applies under those existing laws by passing new laws that more specifically address circumcision. Nor is it acceptible to provide past perpetrators with an ex post facto defense strategy. They deserve to go to prison for what they did to us. Passing a "law" that explicitly legalizes that specific form of mayhem would, clearly, create a conflict with... a gross derogation, nearly an abrogation of... common law. Obviously enough, the right to bodily integrity is so fundamental that the drafters of the constitution did not think it had to be written down, or enumerated. It's a fundamental and inalienable right. No "due process of law" can licitly deprive anyone of it; no law made by congress that alleges to "legalize" it may be suffered to stand as a masque for the fraud it would attempt to perpetrate.
So a search of the statutes for the word "circumcision" will probably not lead to a specific or private law that prohibits that particular `form of mayhem caused by surgical battery upon the genitals'. But certainly there must be at least one general purpose law in the statutes that can be applied to prosecute perpetrators of infant genital mutilation surgery... I think that Intact America and other "intactivism" advocacy groups need to stop giving the impression that it's not a crime to amputate the prepuce from male children. There should be no congressional debates concerning whether or not to fund it because clearly state medical cost-coverage programs must not fund illegal malum in se mutilations of childrens' genitals. For "the government", or any NGO for that matter, to look the other way and allow it to continue to happen implicates the responsible government officers for crimes against humanity, by command responsibility, duty as representatives of the people and of the rule of common law, as accessories after the fact, for misprision of felony... But how is it your fault when your hands are not the ones cutting the babies? It's your fault if you don't command that the perpetraitors be prosecuted for their crimes, since that's your responsibility sort of like. (I can not pretend to fully understand government organization; but that's your job, right?)
The word "circumcision" is a deprecated euphemism for the atrocity that is more accurately referred to as "genital mutilation." It is, at this time, still a "widespread and systematic practice" which deprives the victims of the fundamental and inalienable right to bodily integrity. It violates international treaties prohibitting torture. It violates the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It rudely offends most people's sense of common decency. There comes a time when we must look around us and observe societal norms, and learn to conform with them. Most people in most nations do not mutilate the genitals of other people--not those of infants, nor those of adults. The PEPFAR program is also committing a crime against humanity wherever circumcisions are being used to allegedly prevent HIV infections. (Amputating part of the body's integumentary system clearly does not prevent disease. The cells that the malevolent wolves-in-sheeps-clothing claim to be the entry point of the virus are actually immune cells that more likely destroy it. Those wolves are probably just trying to make HIV spread faster. It is genocidal malthusean catastrophy.)
When I first moved out to Oregon, years ago, Barbara Roberts was the governor. For some reason, I kept thinking that a female governor would be sort of like the "state's mom"... I mean, that must be sort of like how she would think of the citizens, right? She had a specific set of responsibilities; to look out for the best interests of the citizens of the state. I know that no mother, in her right mind, given true and complete information regarding the anatomy and function of the "foreskin", would ever let anyone cut that off of her son. The only way women ever submitted their sons to it was by fraud---somebody managed their perceptions of what it was, and convinced them that it was in their son's best interest to have it amputated. They got lied to. How does that make women feel? Will they still support you if you are in favor of allowing that fraud to continue?
Title 18 USC Sections 241 & 242 address rights deprivation. It is a federal crime to deprive someone of their rights, or to take part in a conspiracy (or engage in "common purpose" perhaps) to deprive anyone of their rights... Certainly few but devil's advocates will seriously argue against their being an inalienable right to bodily integrity. It's the basis of "malum in se" crimes such as battery, surely. The conspiracy (or plausibly deniable (?) "members" of the set of those with a common purpose) to "manage our perceptions" of the foreskin and of "circumcision" has actually censored anatomy textbooks used to teach college! Those textbooks don't make sense anymore in light of knowlege now possessed by many victims and their families. Those "doctors" must be "trussed" and put on trial.
We are not paper tigers.