Jump to content

User:Cox Marguerite/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The decriminalization of sex work is the removal of criminal penalties for sex work.[1] Sex work, the consensual provision of sexual services for money or goods,[2] is criminalized in most countries.

The decriminalization of sex work is a controversial and hotly-debated topic. Advocates of decriminalization claim that removing or lessening criminal prosecution for sex workers creates a safer environment for sex workers and allows sex work to be regulated. However, opponents of decriminalization argue that it will not prevent trafficking and could put sex workers in greater risk.

Organizations such as UNAIDS, WHO, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UNFPA, and the medical journal The Lancet have called on states to decriminalize sex work in the global effort to tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic and ensure sex workers' access to health services.[4][5][6][7]

In June 2003, New Zealand became the first country to decriminalize sex work, with the passage of the Prostitution Reform Act.[8] Since then, dozens of other countries have followed their lead.[1]

New Zealand[edit]

New Zealand became the first country to decriminalize prostitution in June 2003 with the passage of the Prostitution Reform Act.[1] The purpose of this law was to “decriminalise prostitution (while not endorsing or morally sanctioning prostitution or its use); create a framework to safeguard the human rights of sex workers and protect them from exploitation; promote the welfare and occupational health and safety of sex workers; contribute to public health; and prohibit the use of prostitution of persons under 18 years of age."[1] The PRA also established a certification regime for brothel operators”.[1]

Nevada[edit]

Nevada is the only state in America where sex work is not illegal. There was no state law on prostitution in Nevada until 1971, when a section of the Nevada Revised Statutes effectively legalized prostitution in counties with a population of under 400,000.[2]

In the mid-1970s a man named Walter Plankinton attempted to open a brothel in Nye County, Nevada. County officials initially blocked him from opening the brothel (which he planned to call “Chicken Ranch”), citing a 1948 state law that called brothels a “nuisance”. However, this law was later overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court in 1978.[2]

In 1980 the Nevada Supreme Court officially legalized prostitution in counties with a population of under 400,000. However, prostitution outside of a “licensed house of prostitution” wasn’t banned until 1987, when the Nevada Revised Statutes made it explicitly illegal.[3]

Sex work in Nevada is regulated in 10 counties and 5 cities.[2] Prostitutes are regulated by a “patchwork” of both state and local laws that address a number of different areas. Zoning laws in Nevada prohibit brothels from being located near a school, house of worship, or main road.[4] Brothels are also barred from advertising on public roads or in districts where prostitution is illegal. Other existing regulations mandate STI testing before prostitutes are hired, and weekly testing once they are employed. Sex workers with HIV are also prohibited from working. Sex workers who continue to work after testing HIV-positive can be punished with two to ten years in prison or a $10,000 fine.[2]

Germany[edit]

Germany legalized sex work in 2002.[5] The 2002 law mandated that sex workers register themselves and pay taxes. In return, their employers would have to provide benefits like health care and paid leave. In addition, customers of sex workers are not allowed to deny payment because they “aren’t satisfied”.[5] After the law was put in place, the German sex industry boomed. According to 2005 estimates by the German federal government, there are about 400,000 women working in the German sex industry, and over 1.2 million men pay for their services every day.[6][5]

The implementation of the law was flawed because of a lack of outreach and training.[5] As a result, the law was interpreted differently in different cities. In Berlin, the law was interpreted in ways that are favorable to sex workers; in Cologne, a “pleasure tax” that only applies to sex work was imposed.[5]

While this law was designed to protect the rights of individual sex workers and legitimize their occupation, it has instead resulted in massive, multi-story brothels and the invention of roadside “sex boxes”.[6]

Sweden[edit]

Sweden partially decriminalized sex work in 1999 with the passing of an abolitionist law. While selling sex is legal, buying sex is not. Since the implementation of the law, supporters of this approach have claimed the number of prostitutes has decreased. However, this may just be a result of the increased police surveillance, as many sex workers are leaving the streets and turning instead to other spaces, including the internet.[5]

Pye Jakobsson, a spokeswoman for the Rose Alliance and a representation for sex workers, believes that this reduction in numbers may not necessarily mean less prostitution. Jakobsson claims that "you can't talk about protecting sex workers as well as saying the law is good, because it's driving prostitution and trafficking underground, which reduces social services' access to victims."

The Swedish example is often cited as a form of partial criminalization, rather than decriminalization, since the purchasing of sex remains a crime. Both the Swedish government and sex workers agree that this model has increased stigma against sex workers. However, the Swedish government views this as a positive outcome, arguing that sending a message about sex work is more important.

Sex workers have reported a number of human rights violations as a direct result of these laws, including the deportation of sex workers, increased evictions, increased vulnerability to homelessness, and high rates of discrimination from authorities. This partial-decriminalization has also led to sex workers being used as witnesses by the police in cases that they did not want to be a part of.[5] In addition, because police oftentimes use used condoms as evidence in these cases, condom use has gone down among Swedish sex workers and customers.[5]


France[edit]

In 2016, the French federal government estimated that there were around 30,000 prostitutes in the country, and 93% of them were foreign.[7] In April 2016, the French National Assembly passed a law that partially decriminalized sex work.[8] While selling sex, loitering, and public soliciting by prostitutes is now legal, paying for sex carries a fine of around 1,500 euros.[9] People found guilty of paying for sex may also have to complete an “awareness-raising course on the fight against the purchase of sexual acts”.[8]

The French government also attempted to fight prostitution by providing compensation to sex workers who wanted to leave the sex industry. However, although the government hoped to help 600 prostitutes by 2018, only 55 sex workers signed up for the program.[7] Some sex workers argue that the monthly stipend, which is 330 euros, is not enough money to make ends meet.[7]

The 2016 law has also resulted in increased violence against sex workers. Because of the heightened police presence, the sex work that does happen has been pushed off the streets and into areas with limited surveillance.[5] This has created more dangerous conditions for prostitutes that continue to work. According to a survey conducted by the French NGO Médecins du Monde, 42% of percent of prostitutes in France say that they have been exposed to more violence since the law took effect in 2016.[10]

Nevada, United States[edit]

Nevada is the only state in America where sex work is not completely illegal. There was no state law on prostitution until 1973, when sex work was effectively legalized by on a local level "prohibiting the licensing of prostitution from counties with populations of over 400,000".[3] However, sex work in Nevada is still only permitted inside heavily regulated, registered brothels.[4]

[[Female Genital Mutilation ActEdit Proposal - Female genital mutilation in the United States

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I plan on editing the page “Female genital mutilation in the United States”. I will be correcting grammatical errors throughout the article, and adding additional information. I will be adding to the Introduction so that it is more substantial. Once the Introduction is more substantial, I will be removing the Overview section. I will be adding more information about the history of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) in the United States. I will be adding to the Prevalence section, and adding a substantial amount of data from the major studies conducted. I will describe the methods used to collect this data, as well as the difficulties encountered by those performing the studies. Lastly, I will be adding a section about the controversy surrounding the American Academy of Pediatricians’ discussion of the possibility of “genital nicking” as an option to avoid more drastic measures.

Sources

Kmietowkz, Zosia. "UK Colleges Criticise US Advice on Female Genital Mutilation." BMJ: British Medical Journal 340, no. 7756 (2010): 1103. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40702226.

This source explains the controversy of the American Academy of Pediatricians.

Jones, W K., J Smith, B Kieke and L Wilcox. "Female genital mutilation." Female circumcision. Who is at risk in the U.S.? Public Health Reports 112 (1997): 377.

This source has information about the statistics collected about the number of women and girls at risk in America.

Goldberg, Howard, Paul Stupp, Ekwutosi Okoroh, Ghenet Besera, David Goodman, and Isabella Danel. "Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States: Updated Estimates of Women and Girls at Risk, 2012."

This article also has information about the statistics and the methods used to gather them.

"Female Genital Mutilation Outlawed In United States." BMJ: British Medical Journal 313, no. 7065 (1996): 1103. http://www.jstor.org/stable/29733347.

This article, from 1996, provides a perspective into the initial outlaw of FGM/C in the United States.

Planned Revisions for article "Female genital mutilation in the United States"

Lead[edit]

Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision or female genital cutting, includes any procedure involving the removal or injury of part or all of external female genitalia for non medical reasons.[11] While the practice is most common in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, FGM is also widespread in immigrant communities and metropolitan areas in the United States, and was performed by doctors regularly until the 1980s.[12][13][14]

There are four main types of FGM, distinguished by the World Health Organization by their severity.[15] Clitoridectomy, type 1, describes the partial or total removal of the clitoris, and includes circumcision, removal of just the clitoral hood, and clitoridectomy, or removal of the entire clitoral glans and hood.[15][11] Type 2, excision, involves the partial or total removal of the clitoris and labia minora, with or without the additional removal of the labia majora.[11][15] Type 3, infibulation, is the most severe type of FGM. It describes the narrowing of the vaginal opening through creation of a seal, by cutting and repositioning the labia minora or labia majora.[11][15] Type 4 describes any other type of harmful non-medical procedures performed on female genitalia, including cutting, burning, and scraping.[15]

FGM was considered a standard medical procedure in America for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.[16] Physicians performed surgeries of varying invasiveness to treat a number of diagnoses, including hysteria, depression, nymphomania, and frigidity. The medicalization of FGM in the United States allowed these practices to continue until the end of the 20th century, with some procedures covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield Insurance until 1977.[17][16]

The passage of the Female Genital Mutilation Act in 1996 made FGM a felony; in addition, as of 2017, 26 states have additional laws specifically criminalizing FGM.[18][19]

Prevalence[edit]

In 1996, the first report on FGM in the United States was developed using data from the 1990 census[12]. It reported that 168,000 girls and women were at risk, with 48,000 under 18[20]. In 2004, the African Women’s Health Center at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the PRC revamped these numbers with information from recent surveys and the 2000 U.S. census[20]. They reported 227,887 girls and women at risk in United States, with 62,519 under 18. This increase can be attributed to increases in total immigration[20].

In 2016, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report compiled with data from 2010-2013. The report used information from US census reports and the American Community Survey (2012) to identify the number of immigrants from countries where FGM is most prevalent[20]. They reported a marked increase in the number of girls and women at risk of FGM in the United States. However, this can be attributed to an increase in the total number of immigrants from countries where FGM is most common, not an independent increase in the popularity of the practice[20]. The 2013 study estimated 513,000 girls and women in the United States were either victims of FGM or at risk of FGM, with ⅓ under age 18[21]. Of the women at risk, 60% are from 8 states: California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. Additionally, 40% of those reported are concentrated in 5 major metropolitan areas: New York, Washington, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Los Angeles, and Seattle. 55% of the women are from Egypt, Somalia, or Ethiopia[20]. These three “sending countries” have a high prevalence of FGM as well as high numbers of U.S. immigrants[20].

While reports on the prevalence of FGM in the United States have shown an increase in the number of girls and women at risk, these numbers reflect an increase in total immigration from countries where FGM is most prevalent, not an increase in the practice itself. Furthermore, reports show that FGM is declining in many of these countries and in immigrant communities in the United States[21]. A 2017 report published by the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) noted that that out of 16 countries with high levels of FGM, 12 had reported a decrease in FGM since reports from 2003 and 2011.[21] The PRB also reports that in ⅓ of countries with data, FGM is half as common among younger demographics, further evidence that the practice is declining.[21]

Legislative framework[edit]

Federal and state policy[edit]

As of July 2017, 26 states had passed legislation making FGM illegal.[22] Several of these states passed legislation that made it illegal to perform FGM on anyone, while federal law only protects those under 18.[13]

Performing FGM on anyone under the age of 18 became a felony in the United States with the passage of the Female Genital Mutilation Act in 1996.[23] The law was introduced by former congresswoman Patricia Schroeder in October 1993.[18][24] The Female Genital Mutilation Act includes education and community outreach programs that provide information about the physical and emotional harm caused by FGM.[23][18][25] In addition to community outreach programs, the U.S. Congress also required the Department of Health and Human services to provide information for medical students about treatment recommendations.[26] Education policy was also included in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.[27] The IIRARA mandated that visa recipients from 28 high-risk countries receive culturally appropriate information on the personal and legal repercussions of FGM in the United States at or before the time of entry.[27][19] In 2013, Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act specifically prohibited the practice of "vacation cutting".[20]

International Policy[edit]

In addition to policies within the U.S., FGM has been condemned by international organizations and bodies that the U.S. is a part of. The UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child both include statements against the practice of FGM.[28][13][29] In 1979, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) required participating State parties to work to "abolish customs and practices which constitute discrimination against women".[28][30] In 1990, CEDAW's General Recommendation 14 included many suggested actions for participating State parties to eradicate FGM, including the collection of data on the prevalence of FGM, education and outreach programs to prevent and discourage FGM, incorporating information on the eradication of FGM into public health programs, and encouraging politicians and public figures to speak out against FGM.[30] In 1999, CEDAW's General Recommendation recommended that participating State parties enact laws to prohibit FGM.[30] In 2007, the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) created a joint UN initiative with the goal of ending FGM within a generation.[13] In 2015, the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals included the end of practices that prevent gender equality, including FGM.[13]

Prosecution[edit]

The first conviction of FGM in the US occurred in 2006. Khalid Adem, an Ethiopian American, was both the first person prosecuted and first person convicted for FGM in the United States. Adem, an Ethiopian immigrant, circumcised his two-year old daughter with a pair of scissors. He was charged with aggravated battery and cruelty to children by the State of Georgia, which had no specific law on FGM at the time.[31] In 2010, Georgia successfully passed a law criminalizing FGM.[31]

In April 2017, Jumana Nagarwala, a doctor working at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, was charged with allegedly performing FGM at the Burhani Medical Clinic in Livonia, Michigan.[32][33] This was the first federal prosecution for female genital mutilation in US history.[34] Nagarwala, who denied the charges, was accused of performing FGM on two girls who had traveled from Minnesota with their mothers.[32] The owners of the clinic where it was performed, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar and his wife, Farida Attar, were also convicted and charged with FGM for conspiring with Nagarwala and letting her use their clinic.[33]

Asylum[edit]

In 1996, Fauziya Kasinga was granted political asylum by the United States Board of Immigration Appeals.[24] Kasinga, a 19-year-old member of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu tribe of Togo, was granted asylum on the grounds that she would be at risk of FGM if she returned to her arranged marriage in Togo. This set a precedent in U.S. immigration law because it was the first time FGM was accepted as a form of persecution. In addition, this was the first situation in which asylum was granted based on gender.[35]

 

Since Kasinga's landmark trial, there have been several other important cases granting asylum for FGM.

In the 2005 case Mohamed v Gonzales, Khadija Ahmed Mohamed, a Somalian woman, was seeking asylum because of FGM.[36] Mohamed had fled Somalia with her family during the civil war, and

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1987 

History[edit]

Medicalization[edit]

During the 19th century, FGM was frequently performed by doctors as a treatment for many sexual and psychological conditions. During the 19th and 20th centuries, the clitoris was considered the center of female sexuality.[14] In addition, Victorian concepts of female sexuality resulted in a widely-held belief that women were less sexual than men.[37] Female sexuality was typically thought of only within the constructs of heterosexual marriage, and behaviors that strayed from this schema, such as masturbation, were deemed symptomatic, and often resulted in operation on the clitoris.[38][14]

Depending on the symptoms and diagnosis, physicians performed four different procedures of varying invasiveness on women.[14] Doctors would either remove the smegma surrounding the clitoris, lacerate adhesions restricting the clitoris, or remove the clitoral hood altogether (female circumcision).[14] In the most extreme cases, doctors would perform a clitoridectomy, removing the clitoris entirely.[14]

Reflex neurosis was a common diagnosis in the 19th century.[14] Characterized by excessive nervous stimulation, this condition could often manifest in an overstimulation of the clitoris that women would attempt to quell with masturbation.[14] Women diagnosed with reflex neurosis were often circumcised in an effort to remove the irritant.[14]

From the 1880s to 1950s, excision was often performed to prevent and treat lesbianism, masturbation, depression, hysteria, and nymphomania.[39][40] These procedures continued well into the 1970s, and were covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance until 1977[17].

Dr. James Burt, a physician from Ohio, performed a so-called "surgery of love" on over 170 women throughout the 1960s and 1970s.[41] During the nonconsensual procedure, Burt would cut around, move, and reshape the clitoris of women who had been admitted for other operations.[41] This continued well into the 1970s, when a former coworker served witness to several of Burt's victims, and he was fired and cast out of the medical community.[41]

Controversy[edit]

American Academy of Pediatrics[edit]

In 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics came under fire for advising doctors to consider offering patients the option of "a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm" [42] The Academy stated that although harmful genital mutilation is illegal in the United States, physicians could consider this option in countries where FGM is more widely practiced. This advice appeared in a journal section entitled "Education of patients and parents". [42] After facing backlash from medical institutions worldwide, the AAP retracted their statement. The organization also subsequently clarified in a statement released in May 2010 that it "opposes all types of female genital cutting" and "counsels its members not to perform such procedures". [43]

  1. ^ a b c d "Prostitution Law Reform in New Zealand - New Zealand Parliament". www.parliament.nz. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
  2. ^ a b c d "STATE-SANCTIONED SEX: NEGOTIATING FORMAL AND INFORMAL REGULATORY PRACTICES IN NEVADA BROTHELS on JSTOR" (PDF). doi:10.1525/sop.2001.44.3.307.pdf. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  3. ^ a b Brents, Barbara G.; Hausbeck, Kathryn (2005-03). "Violence and Legalized Brothel Prostitution in Nevada". Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 20 (3): 270–295. doi:10.1177/0886260504270333. ISSN 0886-2605. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ a b N., Bingham, (1998). Nevada sex trade : a gamble for the workers. OCLC 775383056.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i SUKTHANKAR, ASHWINI. [www.jstor.org/stable/41936342 "Sex Work: European Legal Frameworks"]. International Union Rights. 12. {{cite journal}}: Check |url= value (help)
  6. ^ a b "Welcome to Paradise". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2019-03-04.
  7. ^ a b c Peltier, Elian; Bubola, Emma (2018-09-29). "A Prostitute Was Killed in France. Is a New Law Partly to Blame?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-03-04.
  8. ^ a b "Texte adopté n° 716 - Proposition de loi, adoptée, par l'Assemblée nationale, dans les conditions prévues à l'article 45, alinéa 4, de la Constitution, visant à renforcer la lutte contre le système prostitutionnel et à accompagner les personnes prostituées - XIVe législature - Assemblée nationale". www2.assemblee-nationale.fr. Retrieved 2019-03-04. {{cite web}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 16 (help)
  9. ^ CNN, Holly Yan. "France: Prostitution legal, paying for sex illegal". CNN. Retrieved 2019-03-04. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  10. ^ "Les chiffres clés de la prostitution". Secrétariat d'Etat chargé de l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes et de la lutte contre les discriminations (in French). Retrieved 2019-03-04.
  11. ^ a b c d "Female genital mutilation". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2017-11-16.
  12. ^ a b Goldberg, Howard; Stupp, Paul; Okoroh, Ekwutosi; Besera, Ghenet; Goodman, David; Danel, Isabella (2016). "Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States: Updated Estimates of Women and Girls at Risk, 2012". Public Health Reports. 131 (2): 340–347. ISSN 0033-3549. PMC 4765983. PMID 26957669.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  13. ^ a b c d e Mpinga, Emmanuel Kabengele; Macias, Aurélie; Hasselgard-Rowe, Jennifer; Kandala, Ngianga-Bakwin; Félicien, Tshimungu Kandolo; Verloo, Henk; Bukonda, Ngoyi K. Zacharie; Chastonay, Philippe (2016-12-01). "Female genital mutilation: a systematic review of research on its economic and social impacts across four decades". Global Health Action. 9 (1): 31489. doi:10.3402/gha.v9.31489. ISSN 1654-9716. PMID 28156932.
  14. ^ a b c d e f g h i Rodriguez, Sarah W. (2008-07-01). "Rethinking the History of Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy: American Medicine and Female Sexuality in the Late Nineteenth Century". Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences. 63 (3): 323–347. doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrm044. ISSN 0022-5045.
  15. ^ a b c d e Wagner, Natascha (2015-03-04). "Female Genital Cutting and Long-Term Health Consequences – Nationally Representative Estimates across 13 Countries". The Journal of Development Studies. 51 (3): 226–246. doi:10.1080/00220388.2014.976620. ISSN 0022-0388.
  16. ^ a b Webber, Sara; Schonfeld, Toby L. (2003-06-27). "Cutting History, Cutting Culture: Female Circumcision in the United States". The American Journal of Bioethics. 3 (2): 65–66. ISSN 1536-0075.
  17. ^ a b Kinnear, Karen L. (2011). Women in Developing Countries: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781598844252.
  18. ^ a b c Ann, James, Mary (2013). "Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation: The Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1993, H.R. 3247". Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice. 9 (1). doi:10.15779/z38dk2f. ISSN 1933-1045.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  19. ^ a b Female genital mutilation : a guide to laws and policies worldwide. Rahman, Anika., Toubia, Nahid., Center for Reproductive Law & Policy., RAINBO (Organization). London: Zed Books. 2000. ISBN 9781856497732. OCLC 44548936.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  20. ^ a b c d e f g h Goldberg, Howard; Stupp, Paul; Okoroh, Ekwutosi; Besera, Ghenet; Goodman, David; Danel, Isabella (2016). "Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States: Updated Estimates of Women and Girls at Risk, 2012". Public Health Reports. 131 (2): 340–347. ISSN 0033-3549. PMC 4765983. PMID 26957669.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  21. ^ a b c d "Women and Girls at Risk of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in the United States". www.prb.org. Retrieved 2017-10-20.
  22. ^ "24 US states still have no laws against female genital mutilation. Yes, you read that right". Retrieved 2017-11-23.
  23. ^ a b "18 U.S. Code § 116 - Female genital mutilation". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2017-11-16.
  24. ^ a b Leonard, Lori (2000-03-01). "Interpreting Female Genital Cutting: Moving beyond the Impasse". Annual Review of Sex Research. 11 (1): 158–190. doi:10.1080/10532528.2000.10559787. ISSN 1053-2528.
  25. ^ "Female Genital Mutilation Outlawed In United States". BMJ: British Medical Journal. 313 (7065): 1103–1103. 1996. doi:10.2307/29733347.
  26. ^ Horowitz, Carol R; Jackson, J Carey (August 1997). "Female "Circumcision"". Journal of General Internal Medicine. 12 (8): 491–499. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00088.x. ISSN 0884-8734. PMC 1497147. PMID 9276655.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
  27. ^ a b "Notice of Implementation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 Pertaining to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) [63 FR 13433] [FR 20-98] | USCIS". www.uscis.gov. Retrieved 2017-11-23.
  28. ^ a b "General recommendations made by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women". www.un.org. Retrieved 2017-11-23.
  29. ^ "The United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child: A Feminist Landmark". William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law. 3: 51.
  30. ^ a b c "Female genital mutilation (FGM) frequently asked questions | UNFPA - United Nations Population Fund". www.unfpa.org. Retrieved 2017-11-24.
  31. ^ a b "2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON :: ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY :: § 16-5-27 - Female genital mutilation". Justia Law. Retrieved 2017-11-24.
  32. ^ a b Allen, Tresa Baldas and Robert. "Another doctor, wife charged with female genital mutilation in Michigan". chicagotribune.com. Retrieved 2017-11-24.
  33. ^ a b Archive, United States Courts. "United States of America v. Nagarwala et al Docket Item 16 | United States Courts Archive". www.unitedstatescourts.org. Retrieved 2017-11-24.
  34. ^ Rubin, Rita. "Doctor Charged With Female Genital Mutilation Has Published Research, Overseen Residents". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-11-24.
  35. ^ "Global feminism at the local level: Criminal and asylum laws regarding female genital surgeries". Journal of Gender, Race and Justice. 3: 45–62. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |title= at position 71 (help)
  36. ^ "FindLaw's United States Ninth Circuit case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved 2017-11-25.
  37. ^ "Nymphomania: The Historical Construction of Female Sexuality". www.brown.uk.com. Retrieved 2017-11-25.
  38. ^ Degler, Carl N. (1974). "What Ought To Be and What Was: Women's Sexuality in the Nineteenth Century". The American Historical Review. 79 (5): 1467–1490. doi:10.2307/1851777.
  39. ^ Watson, Mary Ann (2005-01-01). "Female circumcision from Africa to the Americas: Slavery to the present". The Social Science Journal. 42 (3): 421–437. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2005.06.006.
  40. ^ Studd, John; Schwenkhagen, Anneliese (2009-06-20). "The historical response to female sexuality". Maturitas. Female sexual dysfunctions in the office. 63 (2): 107–111. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.02.015.
  41. ^ a b c Johnsdotter, Sara. "Projected Cultural Histories of the Cutting of Female Genitalia: A Poor Reflection as in a Mirror". History and Anthropology. 23 (1): 91–114. doi:10.1080/02757206.2012.649270.
  42. ^ a b Kmietowkz, Zosia (May 22 2010). "UK colleges criticise US advice on female genital mutilation". BMJ: British Medical Journal. 340: 1103. Retrieved 13 October 2017. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  43. ^ "Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors". Pediatrics. Retrieved 13 October 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cox_Marguerite/sandbox&oldid=914438893"