Here’s Why the Religious Freedom Clause Doesn’t Protect Female Genital Mutilation

A Michigan grand jury recently indicted two Michigan doctors and a medical office manager for allegedly removing part of young girls’ clitorises. Shannon Smith, an attorney for Dr. Jumana Nagarwala argued that her client was being persecuted for her religion and that the procedure was part of a “religious practice” for the community.

The head of a Christian legal organization explained to The Daily Caller News Foundation why the religious freedom clause does not apply in the case of female genital mutilation, and will likely fail to provide legal cover in these cases.

“It’s not an absolute right that just because someone has a religious belief, they’re protected to do it. And it’s subject to when there’s a compelling state interest to the contrary,” Brad Dacus, head of the Pacific Justice Institute, explained to The DCNF.

The court usually allows religious accommodations in medical situations, Dacus went on, but not if the medical procedure permanently harms a person or causes death . . .

Female genital mutilation performers usually try to justify their practice by comparing it to male circumcision. There are, however, no similarities between the two procedures, Dacus said. (Read more from “Here’s Why the Religious Freedom Clause Doesn’t Protect Female Genital Mutilation” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.