Suit to Ask for Equal Protection

The Bismark Tribune, 2 May 1996.

Rebecca Lentz

The group of people who urged passage of a bill outlawing female genital mutilation plans to file a lawsuit in federal court claiming that the law violates the Constitution.

Jody McLaughlin of Minot said she believes the Female Genital Mutilation Law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it only applies to females, not males. McLaughlin will be one of the plaintiffs. Specifically, McLaughlin and the others want routine infant circumcision outlawed. The laws suit will name the State of North Dakota as the defendant, McLaughlin said.

(The law) does not go far enough to protect babies of both sexes, said McLaughlin, who asked a Fargo senator to introduce the bill. The law makes it a Class C felony to knowingly separate or surgically alter normal, healthy, functioning genital tissue of a female minor. McLaughlin said they wanted the bill to include male and females, but they couldn't find enough sponsors.

But Dr. Ray Hippchen, a pediatrician at Mid Dakota Clinic, said male circumcision and clitoridectomies and other mutilations of young girls' genitalia are vastly different procedures. I think there are valid objections to male circumcisions that can be made, Hippchen said, adding male circumcision is controversial with cultural and religious implications. But I don't think you can link the two in the same bit of legislation. That appeals to emotionalism. It sounds very radical to me.

Minnesota attorney Zenas Baer, who is handling the plaintiff's case, confirmed he plans to file the case within the next two weeks but declined to comment further. He would only say the general theory is equal protection.

Shelley Barker, a spokeswoman in the attorney general's office, said they weren't aware of the lawsuit.

McLaughlin said the lawsuit developed because of the difficulty to get agencies-including the North Dakota Medical Association and the North Dakota Board of Medical Examiners - to address routine infant circumcision.

Cathy Rydell, executive vice president of the North Dakota Medical Association, said the association hasn't taken a stand on routine infant circumcision. The committee on legislative issues met Wednesday in Minot, and circumcision was on the agenda, Rydell said. If they were to take a stand, it wouldn't be a

My opinion is it is a society issue, Rydell said.

The North Dakota Board of Medical Examiners won't prosecute physicians who perform routine male infant circumcisions, said Rolf Sletten, executive secretary of the board.

What we have said is if people like Jody McLaughlin want to prohibit those procedures, they ought to go to the Legislature and have it debated there, Sletten said. The board told the state Medical Association they might want to discuss it.

McLaughlin said she filed a complaint with the Board of Medical Examiners about a doctor who was performing female genital mutilation. Sletten said state law specifies he can't comment on any complaint that might have been filed.

Routine infant circumcision serves no health purpose, McLaughlin said. In fact, she said, it's medically unnecessary and has short-term complications, including hemorrhaging, infection and death. McLaughlin said she didn't know how many infants die each year from circumcision but said the estimates are around 200. Most people don't know it's not only contraindicated but also harmful, McLaughlin said.

One of the long-term problems that I'm being told about is the inabilityto achieve and sustain an adequate erection, McLaughlin said.

She said she hasn't met a physician who will say routine infant circumcision is medically necessary. Physicians tell her it's done for social, cultural or philosophical reasons, McLaughlin said. she asked.

The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. IntactiWiki hosts this website but is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.