The American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a revised policy statement on Female Genital Mutilation (also called Female Genital Circumcision or Cutting). The new statement reads as follows:
The traditional custom of ritual cutting and alteration of the genitalia of female infants, children, and adolescents, referred to as female genital mutilation or female genital cutting (FGC), persists primarily in Africa and among certain communities in the Middle East and Asia. Immigrants in the United States from areas in which FGC is common may have daughters who have undergone a ritual genital procedure or may request that such a procedure be performed by a physician. The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that pediatricians and pediatric surgical specialists should be aware that this practice has life-threatening health risks for children and women. The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters.
The highlighted language is new, and represents a step back from the AAP’s previous position, which opposed FGM under all circumstances.
Since the landmark Kasinga case, women and girls have been able to qualify for asylum in the United States based on a fear of FGM. Whether the AAP’s watered-down position will impact such asylum seekers remains to be seen.
There are different types of FGM, so maybe they are trying to say that the most mild forms of FGM do not cause physical and psychological harm, so they do not oppose it as a cultural practice. If that is their point, I think it is debatable (opponents of FGM would certain disagree). I do see how this could make it more difficult for people seeking asylum. They may now need to submit more evidence to prove that the feared harm rises to the level of persecution.
I am appaulled at the change in language because all one has to do is to negate that FGM causes physical or psychological damage and the practice would not be opposed. What is it with our organizations? Are we playing the political correctness game? FGM is a horrible, cruel, and unnecessary practice that should be prohibited in our country and in the rest of the world. I will oppose this form of abuse even if it offends muslims or other groups around the world. I wonder if the Academy would oppose the removal of penuses and testicles of males?