Georgia to female genital piercings?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-03-25 12:54am

ATLANTA (AP) -- Genital piercings for women were banned by the Georgia House Wednesday as lawmakers considered a bill outlining punishments for female genital mutilation.
The bill would make such mutilation punishable by two to 20 years in prison. It makes no exception for people who give consent to have the procedure performed on their daughters out of religious or cultural custom.
An amendment adopted without objection added "piercing" to the list of things that may not be done to female genitals. Even adult women would not be allowed to get the procedure. The bill eventually passed 160-0, with no debate.
Amendment sponsor Rep. Bill Heath, R-Bremen, was slack-jawed when told after the vote that some adults seek the piercings.
"What? I've never seen such a thing," Heath said"I, uh, I wouldn't approve of anyone of anyone doing it. I don't think that's an appropriate thing to be doing."
The ban applies only to women, not men. The bill has already been approved by the Senate but now must return to that chamber because of the piercing amendment. Both chambers of the Legislature must agree on a single version of a bill before it can go to the governor for final approval.

Source

This gets a big "WTF" from me.

Alferd Packer · Post by **Alferd Packer** » 2004-03-25 01:00am

I don't think there's much else to say than WTF.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2004-03-25 01:08am

Only in the heart of fundie land.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-25 01:08am

Well, I won't be losing any sleep over this, though I do think it's bizarre.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2004-03-25 01:15am

Besides, it should not be any of their business what someone does to their own body as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Of course this has been stated before...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-03-25 01:16am

The bill has noble intentions--unless I miss my guess, it's targeted at immigrants from parts of the world that still perform clitorectomies. The practice has been growing in the United States in areas that draw a lot of immigrants from the Muslim areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Georgia, if I recall correctly, is one of thsoe states. So, you hire some witch doctor to mutilate your daughter, you go to jail for 20 years.

The problem is, legislatures being legislatures, that there's no distinction between voluntary and involuntary or minor and adult. Hopefully this will be corrected in conference. It would be a shame for this law to get thrown out because not allowing 20 year olds to get their labias pierced is a privacy violation.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-25 02:03am

Don't hold your breath waiting for Georgian fundies to get their noses out of other peoples' private business. Georgia has also outlawed sex toys of all kinds.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-03-25 02:12am

I agree with RedImperator here. The bill seems to be designed to prevent FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), but, in a retarded sort of way. Maybe they wanted to leave no potential loopholes to be exploited, or maybe they never heard of voluntary genital piercings (they are fundies, after all). Also, in some of these cultures, women are brainwashed into willingly accepting FGM.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-03-25 02:16am

The fact that it passed 160-0 strikes me as a little odd. Despite the generally conservative character of the state there are certainly some very liberal politicians from Atlanta and some of the surrounding areas, who I would think would object to outlawing voluntary piercings.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-25 02:17am

RedImperator wrote:The bill has noble intentions--unless I miss my guess, it's targeted at immigrants from parts of the world that still perform clitorectomies. The practice has been growing in the United States in areas that draw a lot of immigrants from the Muslim areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Georgia, if I recall correctly, is one of thsoe states. So, you hire some witch doctor to mutilate your daughter, you go to jail for 20 years.

The problem is, legislatures being legislatures, that there's no distinction between voluntary and involuntary or minor and adult. Hopefully this will be corrected in conference. It would be a shame for this law to get thrown out because not allowing 20 year olds to get their labias pierced is a privacy violation.

If that was true, don't you think they would have specified Clitorectomies? It's not like anyone would complain that religious practices were getting singled out as this is one of the most barbaric practices in existence.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-03-25 02:47am

EmperorMing wrote:Only in the heart of fundie land.

You are aware that genital mutilation is most often inflicted upon children and is one of the most monstrous cultural barbarisms still perpetrated today, right? This bill didn't take voluntary piercings into account because they didn't even think of that, not because of any malicious intent on the part of the bill's framers, as evidenced by the fact that Representative Heath didn't even know what the reporter was talking about when asked about it. It is poor research on the part of the legislative committees, but when you're facing something like forced genital mutilation inflicted on children, the instinct to stop it tends to push you to do something now. I know that were I in their place and had to put a stop to such practice, I'd want it done last week and would not want to beat around the bush on it.

It [the bill] makes no exception for people who give consent to have the procedure performed on their daughters out of religious or cultural custom.

No shit Sherlock, that's what the bill was designed to put a stop to.

That reporter really needs to work on his/her reading comprehension.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-03-25 02:54am

Maybe we're not giving them enough credit; perhaps this isn't an either/or senario for why they passed the Bill, but rather they saw it as an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-03-25 03:00am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Maybe we're not giving them enough credit; perhaps this isn't an either/or senario for why they passed the Bill, but rather they saw it as an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

Then Representative Heath does a very good job of bluffing, something that most fundies are seriously bad at.

Sporkzen · Post by **Sporkzen** » 2004-03-25 08:47am

Only in the bible belt... oi

Its not really that unusual of a law around these parts. Hell oral sex is *or was at one time* illegal in Alabama. I'm such a crimial and so is my wife

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-03-25 09:20am

The Kernel wrote:
RedImperator wrote:The bill has noble intentions--unless I miss my guess, it's targeted at immigrants from parts of the world that still perform clitorectomies. The practice has been growing in the United States in areas that draw a lot of immigrants from the Muslim areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Georgia, if I recall correctly, is one of thsoe states. So, you hire some witch doctor to mutilate your daughter, you go to jail for 20 years.

The problem is, legislatures being legislatures, that there's no distinction between voluntary and involuntary or minor and adult. Hopefully this will be corrected in conference. It would be a shame for this law to get thrown out because not allowing 20 year olds to get their labias pierced is a privacy violation.
If that was true, don't you think they would have specified Clitorectomies? It's not like anyone would complain that religious practices were getting singled out as this is one of the most barbaric practices in existence.

They may have, in the language of the actual bill. Clitorectomies aren't the only form of FGM, though, so broader language would be required. The fact that it passed unanimously makes me doubt it was intended to outlaw piercing specifically--there are liberals in the Georgia legislature, though not many. Remember, a state legislature will be comprised primarily of rich, white, old men--not exactly a demographic that will be aware of things like labia piercings.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-03-25 12:10pm

Info on FGM

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-03-25 01:47pm

The Kernel wrote: If that was true, don't you think they would have specified Clitorectomies? It's not like anyone would complain that religious practices were getting singled out as this is one of the most barbaric practices in existence.

that would require a fundie to speak, utter or write the word clit... which they likely outlawed already.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-03-25 04:49pm

Well, at least men can still get penis bisections...

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2004-03-25 09:43pm

How many of you actually read the little article? It said that the bill was intended to outlaw mutilation, and piercing was added by amendment, and that there was no debate on the bill. Many bills are huge documents with lots and lots of minutiae, so the legislators often don't really pay close attention to all the amendments. Quite likely some fundie tacked on the amendment after the bill was introduced, and many representatives just weren't aware of it or thought that such a seemingly trivial ban was not bad enough to vote down the whole bill.

Tom_Aurum · Post by **Tom_Aurum** » 2004-03-25 10:44pm

aerius wrote:Well, at least men can still get penis bisections...

I've seen that. Not in person, mind you, but I've seen pictures. Eeeeew. Made me immune to any form of seduction for the next... month?

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2004-03-25 11:06pm

It's politics, All sorts of stupid crap can get passed by accident.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-03-25 11:14pm

Andrew J. wrote:It's politics, All sorts of stupid crap can get passed by accident.

Now this question: Is it worth having genital piercing taken out if the gain is the elimination of the genital mutilation of children? Especially if, in fact, said mutilation actually occurs in Georgia? I'd say yes, though I might be in the minority on that, at least on this board. *Isn't sure*

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-03-25 11:32pm

Well i think they should remove the whoel genital peircing thing from this otherwise noble bill .

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-03-26 12:38am

Rogue 9 wrote:
Andrew J. wrote:It's politics, All sorts of stupid crap can get passed by accident.
Now this question: Is it worth having genital piercing taken out if the gain is the elimination of the genital mutilation of children? Especially if, in fact, said mutilation actually occurs in Georgia? I'd say yes, though I might be in the minority on that, at least on this board. *Isn't sure*

Why is this an either-or question? It would be trivial to make an exception for consenting adults to get their genitals pierced if they wanted.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-03-26 12:42am

I wonder under that vague law, would a Historectomy be considered mutilating the female genetiles?