No Circular Firing Squads This Time, Republicans
The Relevancy of Drudge Is Over
Joy to the World
Pete Hegseth Is the Best Choice to Reform the Pentagon
Conservatives Disagree On Yellowstone’s ‘Woke’ Ending
To Reform Congress, Enact Term Limits
How the Left VIciously Creates Fake White Male Guilt
Israel Is Not Interested In Victory With Gaza
The Expanding Culture Of Death And How To Stop It
Report: Biden's Nap Delayed Meeting With Gold Star Families Following Chaotic Afghanistan...
Scranton Officials Demand for Biden’s Name to Be Removed from Landmark
Why Hasn’t NASA Told Us About This?
Biden Staffers Pressure President to Dole Out Millions to Defund the Police
What's Next for Lara Trump?
Biden Admin Funded $4 Million Program to Pull Kids Out of School and...
Tipsheet

Doctors Accused of Female Genital Mutliation To Claim "Religious Freedom" Defense

Two doctors who have been arrested on charges they performed female genital mutilation surgeries on young girls plan to use "religious freedom" as their defense. They also argue that the procedures were not severe and did not harm the girls.

Advertisement

Lawyers for the doctors argue that the procedure was a "minor nick" and will not cause damage. Because of this, they say that it is protected under the First Amendment.

All three defendants are members of the Dawoodi Bohra sect, which is known for practicing female circumcision on girls for religious reasons. The defendants are accused of secretly subjecting girls to the procedure, and then trying to cover up the acts when they were discovered and encouraging others in their religious community not to cooperate with authorities — or to lie to them — if questioned about genital mutilation.

Chartier said while multiple constitutional arguments will be made — freedom of religion being just one of them — one of the most significant points the defense will make is "what the procedure actually is."

"We know there is female genital mutilation. No one is saying it doesn't exist. But what we're saying is this procedure does not qualify as FGM," Chartier said.

<>"And even if it did, it would be exempt because it would violate their First Amendment rights. They believe that if they do not engage in this then they are not actively practicing their religion."

Chartier said the 1996 law that is being used to prosecute this case is "unconstitutionally vague and overly broad." She believes parental rights are being violated, arguing parents have the right to raise their children as they deem fit.

Advertisement

But, according to Assistant U.S. Attorney Sara Woodward, what actually happened to at least two girls went far beyond a "ritual nick." The girls described the procedure as "painful" and said that they were barely able to walk afterwards.

According to court documents, in interviews with authorities, the two Minnesota victims described the genital cutting procedures as painful.

One girl said that she got a shot, screamed, and "could barely walk after the procedure, and that she felt pain all the way down to her ankle." The other said she was "laid on an examining table with her knees near her chest and legs spread apart," that she was "pinched" in the genital area, that it "hurted a lot" and that there was "pain and burning."

While the First Amendment is an important thing, it does not grant the right to physically harm or mutilate children in the name of religion. There are no health benefits to FGM. It is not beneficial to the child. This is not religious freedom, it's barbaric.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement