PDA

View Full Version : Facebookers: AAP Eyeing FGM


Joseph
April 28th, 2010, 02:30
Apparently the AAP wants to change terminology for FGM to "accommodate for cultural sensitivity."

Facebook user Aubrey Taylor argues the real reason is another attempt to defend MGM on "cultural grounds."

I cut and paste from her note:

RIGHT NOW go to http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/ and search for the new policy statement on Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors.

Some notes:
- They have new language Female Genital Mutilation is now being called CUTTING. They say this is to be more culturally sensitive, but they could recommend the terminology to Drs. for when they MIGHT have to deal with the situation without adopting it themselves and affecting everyone's perspective.

-They state that some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision done here in the West. (True, but does that mean that we should stop MGC, since ALL forms of FGC are illegal? or, are they saying it's really not that bad, since they condone MGC? We shall see...)

-They fail to mention in their description of motivations for FGC ANY belief of medical benefit.
(Is this to avoid recognition of the obvious similarity between attempted medical justification of FGC and MGC?)

-You have to read it to understand, but they practically make an argument in FAVOR of a ritual 'nick' (currently illegal) because it's not as bad as male circumcision, and mention that they think it's ok for culture and parental desire to decide for male circumcision. They even say that the integrity of our law should be compromised to allow this.
(Where exactly are they trying to go here!? Are they going to completely ignore the fact that it's painful AND unjustifiable!?)

If we are going to have EQUAL rights and integrity, one of two things MUST happen:
-Female genital alteration will become accepted, or
-Male genital alteration will become condemned.

The more obvious it becomes that there's a hypocrisy to be dealt with, the more we're going to see FGC sympathizers who, likely, are just MGC promoters trying to change our current non tolerance of FGC.

Take a look at the names people, and remember them.

NOW, write the AAP BEFORE THEY COME OUT WITH A FAVORABLE STATEMENT ON MGM!!!
Let them know how you feel about cutting the genitals of a non consenting PERSON regardless of their SEX.

Feel free to completely plagiarize my letter, or use it as an example: http://www.youtube.com/user/whatUneverknew#p/u/5/A55WvSDKsdc youtube
Or
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1555178794&v=app_2347471856&ref=profile#!/notes/aubrey-taylor/my-letter-to-the-aap-circumcision-task-force/291017867123 here on FB

Find a committee list and addresses at www.circumcisionandhiv.com

Don't allow the AAP to get away with belittling FGM to cover their pending hypocrisy! Send a letter today!!!!!

Read responses here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=380693492123&comments

Joseph
April 28th, 2010, 12:31
Letter sent by Matthew Hess to his media and gov't contacts.

Those who can should write similar letters...

Dear Friends,

I’m writing to alert you to a breaking news story. As you know, intactivists have long compared male circumcision to female circumcision, arguing that some types of female circumcision are less damaging than male circumcision. Well, guess what – the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) now agrees!

However, there is a catch. Instead of suggesting that forced male circumcision not be performed, the AAP now says that certain types of forced female circumcision (a nick or piercing of the genitals) are okay!

Here are some excerpts from their updated Female Genital “Cutting” Policy Statement (they aren’t calling it “mutilation” anymore), which was issued on Monday:

“… the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities…”

and:

“pricking or incising the clitoral skin…is no more of an alteration than ear piercing.”

Wait, there’s more.

The AAP is also calling for current FGM laws to be weakened to allow for some types of genital cutting on girls:

“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.”

If you are in disbelief, you are not alone. Here are links to the old and new AAP policies so you can see the changes for yourself (I have also enclosed PDF copies):

Old Policy: http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;102/1/153

New Policy (issued on Monday): http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2010-0187v1

Bottom line: Until Monday, the AAP opposed all forms of FGM. Now they only oppose some forms of FGM. The updated policy was authored by the AAP Bioethics Committee (Chair: Douglas S. Diekema, MD, MPH, at diek@u.washington.edu).

If this is how the AAP treats our girls, what will their new updated Male Circumcision Policy Statement say when it’s published later this year?

Sincerely,

Matthew Hess
MGMbill.org
San Diego, California
www.mgmbill.org

Dasher
April 28th, 2010, 18:53
What this all means is that the AAP is selling out the girls in order to pave the way for a desperate rescue of male genital mutilation. Oops, I mean cutting.

universitylad
April 28th, 2010, 20:32
I have not heard anything about it on the news. When AAP suggested it was even considering updating its male circumcision policy, it was all over the news. Why is this not being reported?

Joseph
April 28th, 2010, 20:43
Shh!!! Because then people would object, and then they couldn't say later on that they're being "fair and balanced" when they recommend circumcision.

Joseph
April 29th, 2010, 06:21
You can compare AAP recommendations side-by-side here:

http://circumstitions.com/news/news37.html#FGC-AAP

universitylad
April 30th, 2010, 19:27
I wonder if the media has been mum about the issue so far since the publish date is May 1st. Maybe there is an embargo on reporting it until it's official publication date? Hopefully some media outlets will pick it up. I have heard nothing.

deadhand31
May 3rd, 2010, 11:51
I sent the link of the new policy to both NOW and ifeminists.com . I suggest that we start bombarding local outlets that would have a problem with this. Maybe if enough people take notice, something will get done.

Joseph
May 4th, 2010, 02:58
What is strange is that what the AAP is deliberately endorsing goes against a federal FGM ban.

http://mgmbill.org/usfgmlaw.htm

Is the AAP now suggesting that pediatricians go against the law?

jninja
May 5th, 2010, 00:08
I kind of thought that the wording of the new policy was clearly against the law but wasn't sure since no one had brought it up yet. Now that you have I'm sure I'm/we're right that it is.

Mister.Barbecue
June 14th, 2010, 00:34
I think a comment that not enough people are taking notice of is the following from the AAP's statement:

"These physicians emphasize the significance of a ceremonial ritual in the initiation of the girl or adolescent as acommunity member and advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements. This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing."

This seems contradictory to me. For one, the AAP has not done any consultation with community members or any studies as to what would "satisfy cultural requirements". There is also a difference between "incising the clitoral skin" and "making a tiny nick". In practice, what they are marketing as simply an invisible nick, but it may in reality end up being a non-trivial incision of clitoral skin.