Description
The recent court case of U.S. v. Nagarwala saw multiple doctors and parents accused of facilitating female genital mutilation (FGM) on up to nine young girls in Michigan acquitted of their crimes in the court of law. Judge Bernard Friedman ruled in favor of the defendants on the basis of the Commerce Clause, a condition of the U.S. Constitution relatively unrelated to fundamental human rights. This ruling has potential for profound consequences on the battlegrounds of body politics issues, and how legal rhetoric can be used to justify human rights violations. This ruling is symbolic of the larger ideology of neoliberalism, and the courts’ reliance on using market metrics to litigate fundamentally noneconomic human rights issues. This study raises implications about the rhetorical nature of universal human rights, and how human rights advocacy can be approached and understood from a more contextualized perspective. Keywords: female genital mutilation, legal rhetoric, body politics, neoliberalism, human rights, Commerce Clause
