More on Georgia piercing bill

[kengr]

Someone on the list I got the info off of did more searching. is best guess is that it's Senate bill 418

The relevant portion of the language on the website is:

(a) Any person:
(1) Who knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates, in whole or in part,
the labia majora, labia minora, or clitoris of a female;
(2) Who is a parent, guardian, or has immediate custody or control of a
female under the age of 18 years and knowingly consents or permits to the
circumcision, excision, or infibulation, in whole or in part, of the labia
majora, labia minora, or clitoris of such female; or
(3) Who knowingly removes or causes or permits the removal of a female under
the age of 18 years from this state for the purpose of circumcising,
excising, or infibulating, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia
minora, or clitoris of such female shall be guilty of female genital
mutilation.
(b) A person convicted of female genital mutilation shall be punished by
imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
(c) This Code section shall not apply to procedures performed by or under
the direction of a physician, a registered professional nurse, a certified
nurse midwife, or a licensed practical nurse licensed pursuant to Chapter 34
or 26, respectively, of Title 43 when necessary to preserve the physical
health of the female or during or after labor or childbirth for medical
reasons connected with the labor or childbirth.
(d) Consent of the female under the age of 18 years or the parent, guardian,
or custodian of the female under the age of 18 years shall not be a defense
to the offense of female genital mutilation. Neither ritual, custom, nor
standard practice shall be a defense to the offense of female genital
mutilation.

I suspect that the House amendment included "piercing" or changed "infibulation" to "piercing".

In any case, the infibulation bit *alone* arguably applies to piercings. I suspect that the minimum acceptable change to this will require restricting the law to things done to minors, and to thing *non-consensually* done to adults.

I also expect that at some point any such law will get gigged for applying only to females, and result in problems with circumcising male babies. (And yes, I know there's a *lot* of difference between what this law is *trying* to deal with and circumcision of male babies.

Comments

Part A(1)

[walkingbear.livejournal.com]

The offensive line in the bill above, which is House Bill 1477 is line A(1):

(1) Who knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates, in whole or in part, the labia majora, labia minora, or clitoris of a female;

This line, unlike the totality of the Senate Bill, makes no differentiation between a minor or someone otherwise not legally able to make informed decisions about their body, and a 35 year old woman getting a labia ring installed by a professional piercer.

It criminalizes the decorative modifications of the bodies of consenting adults.

I strongly suspect this will not stand when it goes back to Senate committee for reconciliation with the Senate bill.

However, some of the comments from the floor of the House during and afer this bill was voted (160-0 btw) on is where the real problem lies.

One Congressman was quoted as saying something along the lines of "It just aint proper for someone to do that to themselves. "

It is *Not* congress's place to decide what is and is not proper for a consenting adult woman to do with their own bodies.

I'm doing some more research on this and will post more extensivel in my journal when I'm done.

Re: Part A(1)

[kengr]

Actually, that line (according to the person I was quoting) is from Senate bill 418. So it's in the original, not just the House amendments.

Also, you refer to "Congress". It's thje Georgia state legislature, not Congress. So it's "representative" not "congressman", and "legislature" not "congress".