U.S. DOCTORS GIVE CONSENT TO MUSLIM PERVERSION

CONCESSION TO GROWING ISLAMIC POPULATION

U.S. MEDS MANIFEST MUSLIM SENSITIVITY

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS SANCTIONS FEMALE CIRCUMCISION

thelastcrusade.org

Realizing that the Islamic population in the U.S. has soared to ten million, the American Academy of Pediatrics wants American doctors receive legal permission to perform a ceremonial pinprick or “nick” on the genitalia of Muslim baby girls.

The academy’s committee on bioethics, in a policy statement last week, said some pediatricians had suggested that current federal law, which “makes criminal any non-medical procedure performed on the genitals” of a girl in the United States, has had the unintended consequence of driving some families to take their daughters to other countries to undergo circumcision.

“It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm,” the group said.

Opponents of female genital mutilation, or F.G.M., have decried the Academy’s stance.

“I am sure the academy had only good intentions, but what their recommendation has done is only create confusion about whether F.G.M. is acceptable in any form, and it is the wrong step forward on how best to protect young women and girls,” said Representative Joseph Crowley, Democrat of New York, who recently introduced a bill to toughen federal law by making it a crime to take a girl overseas to be circumcised. “F.G.M. serves no medical purpose, and it is rightfully banned in the U.S.”

Georganne Chapin, executive director of an advocacy group called Intact America, said she was “astonished that a group of intelligent people did not see the utter slippery slope that we put physicians on” with the new policy statement. “How much blood will parents be satisfied with?”

Ms. Chapin added: “There are countries in the world that allow wife beating, slavery and child abuse, but we don’t allow people to practice those customs in this country. We don’t let people have slavery a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway, or beat their wives a little bit because they’re going to do it anyway.”

A member of the academy’s bioethics committee, Dr. Lainie Friedman Ross, associate director of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics at the University of Chicago, said the panel’s intent was to issue a “statement on safety in a culturally sensitive context.”

Dr. Friedman Ross said that the committee members “oppose all types of female genital cutting that impose risks or physical or psychological harm,” and consider the ritual nick “a last resort,” but that the nick is “supposed to be as benign as getting a girl’s ears pierced. It’s taking a pin and creating a drop of blood.”

She said the panel had only heard hackneyed anecdotes from worried doctors.

“If we just told parents, ‘No, this is wrong,’ our concern is they may take their daughters back to their home countries, where the procedure may be more extensive cutting and may even be done without anesthesia, with unsterilized knives or even glass,” she said. “A just-say-no policy may end up alienating these families, who are going to then find an alternative that will do more harm than good.”

More than 130 million women and girls worldwide have undergone female genital cutting, according to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It is mostly performed on girls younger than 15 in countries including Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia. Consequences can include severe complications with pregnancy, childbirth and sexual dysfunction.

The academy’s statement acknowledged that opponents of the procedure, “including women from African countries, strongly oppose any compromise that would legitimize even the most minimal procedure.”

Dr. Friedman Ross said, “If you medicalize it and say it’s permissible, is there a possibility that some people will misunderstand it and go beyond a nick? Yes.”

But she added the risk that people denied the ceremonial procedure, usually on the clitoris, would opt for the more harmful one was much more dangerous.

And the statement said that, “in some countries where FGC is common, some progress toward eradication or amelioration has been made by substituting ritual ‘nicks’ for more severe forms.” The Last Crusade can find no reported accounts or other evidence to support the statement regarding “ritual nicks”.

Dr. Friedman Ross’s  “pin prick”  can be seen here:

WARNING! GRAPHIC PHOTO

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Islam in America and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to U.S. DOCTORS GIVE CONSENT TO MUSLIM PERVERSION

  1. Pingback: Great Idea: Let’s Do Clit-Cutting Over Here so They Don’t Have to Do it Over There….. — Winds Of Jihad By SheikYerMami

  2. Therese says:

    Isnt this why they have the chain of 7/11 storesbmostly run by Pakistanis. It is a trubute to the female genital mutilation. It has to be open 24 hours a day and 7 day a week.

  3. Hussein says:

    This practise is not in accordance with Islamic practise as far as I know.

  4. Scott says:

    Wow Therese I never looked at it that way, but now that you mention it….

  5. Moonshadow says:

    its a tragic cultural practice that predates islam

  6. That this proposed genital mutilation is even being considered permissible by a bioethics committee here in the United States is an abomination!

    And whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath.

  7. trock says:

    From the classic manual of islamic law, Umdat al-Salik by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, e4.3:

    “Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female)
    by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male,but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris(this is called HufaaD).”

  8. Ejaz says:

    AN EXPOSE OF THE QURAN (summary)

    The Bible explained that Satan is a super-intelligent deceiver.
    It warned that “Satan transforms himself into an angel of light”.
    It warned against “an angel from heaven” who preaches another
    gospel. And it gave instructions on how to test angels to see if
    they are from God or Satan! It also warned about false prophets.

    600 years later, an angel who called himself “Gabriel” appeared
    to Mohammed. He was NOT tested for any kind of authenticity,
    and much of what he said is opposed to what the Bible says.
    The obvious conclusion: this false angel deceived Mohammed.

    The Quran has dozens of contradictions and inconsistencies.
    Example: Allah claims he sent the biblical prophets and had the
    Bible written. But, after reading about God in the Bible and Allah
    in the Quran, it’s obvious that Allah is NOT the God of the Bible.
    Example: Quran praises the Bible and says it came to confirm it,
    but it preaches against the Bible’s major important doctrines.

    Incredibly … The Quran says it has no contradictions, etc …
    It says if there are contradictions, then it’s NOT from Allah …
    It says it’s impossible to change Allah’s words, but Uthman
    (during 644-656) combined four rival Quran versions into one.
    You are invited to contact dr.ejaz.ahmed@live.com for proofs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s