Pediatricians group reverses female mutilation policy

Rick Moran
The American Academy of Pediatrics has reversed a decision made earlier this month to allow for a modified form of female genital mutilation they called a "ritual nick."

This is how they described it:

"However, 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, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. 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 outcry, as you can imagine, was intense. We covered the story here.

Now the AAP is backpedaling furiously:

Today the AAP issued a statement saying it had "retired" its statement and saying it opposes FGC and doesn't endorse the "clitoral nick." The group's president, Judith Palfrey, said the policy was retracted "because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world."

Question: If AAP is opposed to "all forms of female genital cutting both here in the US and anywhere else in the world," why did they propose the "nick" in the first place?

In their efforts to show how sensitive and diverse they are, the AAP only proved themselves to be callous louts. What's needed is not the "reitrement" of the statement but a full blown mea culpa.

H/T: David Paulin

The American Academy of Pediatrics has reversed a decision made earlier this month to allow for a modified form of female genital mutilation they called a "ritual nick."

This is how they described it:

"However, 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, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. 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 outcry, as you can imagine, was intense. We covered the story here.

Now the AAP is backpedaling furiously:

Today the AAP issued a statement saying it had "retired" its statement and saying it opposes FGC and doesn't endorse the "clitoral nick." The group's president, Judith Palfrey, said the policy was retracted "because it is important that the world health community understands the AAP is totally opposed to all forms of female genital cutting, both here in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world."

Question: If AAP is opposed to "all forms of female genital cutting both here in the US and anywhere else in the world," why did they propose the "nick" in the first place?

In their efforts to show how sensitive and diverse they are, the AAP only proved themselves to be callous louts. What's needed is not the "reitrement" of the statement but a full blown mea culpa.

H/T: David Paulin