Changes

On April 26, 2010, the AAP changed its long-held stance of female genital cutting.<refname="Luscombe">{{REFnews

}}</ref> In their report, chiefly authored by Dena Davis, a professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at {{UNI|Cleveland State University|CSUOhio}},<ref>{{REFnews |lastname="Luscombe |first=Belinda |url=http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html |title=Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting? |publisher=Time |quote=...the report's lead author, Dena Davis, a professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at {{UNI|Cleveland State University|CSUOhio}}... |date=2010-05-11 |accessdate=}}<"/ref> the AAP advised doctors to inform families that the procedure is medically unnecessary and even dangerous.<ref>{{REFnews |lastname="Luscombe |first=Belinda |url=http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html |title=Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting? |publisher=Time |quote=In its new report, the AAP advises doctors to inform families... |date=2010-05-11 |accessdate=}}<"/ref> The AAP raised the idea of legalizing a less-severe ritual cutting, which they compared to an ear piercing,<ref>{{REFnews |lastname="Luscombe |first=Belinda |url=http:"//www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html |title=Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting? |publisher=Time |quote=...the AAP raises the idea of legalizing a less-severe ritual cutting... |date=2010-05-11 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}</ref><ref>{{REFjournal |lastname="MacReady |first=Norra |init=N |title=AAP retracts statement on controversial procedure |journal=The Lancet |volume=376 |issue=9734 |pages=15 |url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext |quote=The authors suggested that a “ritual nick,” in which the clitoral [[skin]] is pricked or incised, might satisfy these symbolic requirements, and “is no more of an alteration than ear piercing”. |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2 |date=2010-07-03 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}</ref> the reasoning being that female circumcision had symbolic or ceremonial aspects for many parents,<ref">{{REFjournal

}}</ref> the reasoning being that female circumcision had symbolic or ceremonial aspects for many parents,<ref name="MacReady"/> and offering a "ritual nick" might dissuade parents that were resolute, from sending their daughters to their home countries,<ref>{{REFnews |lastname="Luscombe |first=Belinda |url=http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html |title=Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting? |publisher= |quote=...to dissuade parents from sending their daughters to be circumcised in their home country... |date=2010-05-11 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}<"/ref> thereby avoiding greater harm.<ref>{{REFnews |lastname="Luscombe |first=Belinda |url=http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html |title=Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting? |publisher= |quote=...a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm... |date=2010-05-11 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}<"/ref> The AAP had deviated from a much more forceful statement published in 1998, which unequivocally condemned [[FGC]] in any form.<ref>{{REFjournal |lastname="MacReady |first=Norra |init=N |title=AAP retracts statement on controversial procedure |journal=The Lancet |volume=376 |issue=9734 |pages=15 |url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article"/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext |quote=...the AAP revised a much more forceful statement published in 1998, which unequivocally condemned [[FGC]] in any form. |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2 |date=2010-07-03 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}</ref>

The Girls Protection Act, which would make it illegal to take a minor outside the U.S. to seek female circumcision, was introduced in Congress on the same day the AAP published its new recommendation.<ref>{{REFnews |lastname="Luscombe |first=Belinda |url=http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html |title=Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting? |publisher= |quote=On the same day the AAP published its new recommendation... |date=2010-05-11 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}<"/ref> New York Representative Joseph Crowley, one of the bill's sponsors, condemned the AAP's move as "the wrong step forward on how best to protect young women and girls" by creating confusion about the acceptability of FGM in any form.<ref>{{REFnews |lastname="Luscombe |first=Belinda |url=http:"//www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html |title=Has > Davis of the AAP countered that such a Ulaw would be difficult to enforce.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting? |publisher<ref name="Luscombe"/>

|quote=I am sure the academy had only good intentions... |date=2010-05-11 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}</ref> Davis of the AAP countered that such a law would be difficult to enforce.<ref>{{REFnews |last=Luscombe |first=Belinda |url=http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html |title=Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting? |publisher= |quote=Davis counters that such a law would be extremely difficult to enforce. |date=2010-05-11 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}</ref> The AAP's endorsement of a "ritual nick" sparked a backlash<ref>{{REFjournal |lastname="MacReady |first=Norra |init=N |title=AAP retracts statement on controversial procedure |journal=The Lancet |volume=376 |issue=9734 |pages=15 |url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals"/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext |quote=The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) sparked a backlash... |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2 |date=2010-07-03 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}</ref> which was swift and universally negative. The AAP's recommendation had been perceived by many as a tacit endorsement of the "ritual nick," and an effort to appease parents who threatened to subject their daughters to worse procedures.<ref>{{REFjournal |lastname="MacReady |first=Norra |init=N |title=AAP retracts statement on controversial procedure |journal=The Lancet |volume=376 |issue=9734 |pages=15 |url=http:/"/www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext |quote=...was interpreted by many as a tacit endorsement of the ritual nick... |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2 |date=2010-07-03 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}</ref> In short, the AAP was forced to retract its endorsement, and on May 1, Judith Palfrey, President of the AAP, released a statement that read in part, “the AAP does not endorse the practice of offering a ‘clitoral nick’. This minimal pinprick is forbidden under federal law and the AAP does not recommend it to its members”members.”<ref>{{REFjournal |lastname="MacReady |first=Norra |init=N |title=AAP retracts statement on controversial procedure |journal=The Lancet |volume=376 |issue=9734 |pages=15 |url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext |quote=On May 1, Judith Palfrey, President of the AAP, released a statement... |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1016"/S0140-6736(10)61042-2 |date=2010-07-03 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}</ref> Palfrey reiterated this stance in an interview with ''The Lancet'', saying “we want to make it clear to the international community we are opposed to any form of female genital cutting, and that includes the ritual nick.” <ref>{{REFjournal |lastname="MacReady |first=Norra |init=N |title=AAP retracts statement on controversial procedure |journal=The Lancet |volume=376 |issue=9734 |pages=15 |url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals"/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext |quote=we want to make it clear to the international community we are opposed to any form of female genital cutting, and that includes the ritual nick. |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2 |date=2010-07-03 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}</ref> The AAP has since withdrawn the committee's report and has rewritten it completely.<ref>{{REFjournal |lastname="MacReady |first=Norra |init=N |title=AAP retracts statement on controversial procedure |journal=The Lancet |volume=376 |issue=9734 |pages=15 |url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article"/PIIS0140-6736(10)61042-2/fulltext |quote=The AAP has since withdrawn the committee's report and has rewritten it completely. |pubmedID= |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61042-2 |date=2010-07-03 |accessdate=2011-09-27}}</ref>

The WHO defines Type I FGM as the partial or total removal of the [[clitoris]] ([[clitoridectomy]]) and/or the prepuce ([[clitoral hood]]); see ''Diagram 1B''. When it is important to distinguish between the variations of Type I cutting, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only; Type Ib, removal of the [[clitoris]] with the prepuce.<ref name="WHO - Terminology"/> ===Type II === The WHO's definition of Type II FGM is "partial or total removal of the [[clitoris]] and the [[labia minora]], with or without [[excision]] of the [[labia majora]]. When it is important to distinguish between the major variations that have been documented, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type IIa, removal of the [[labia minora]] only; Type IIb, partial or total removal of the [[clitoris]] and the [[labia minora]]; Type IIc, partial or total removal of the [[clitoris]], the [[labia minora]] and the [[labia majora]].<ref name="WHO - Terminology">{{REFdocument