![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
And I already got a reply from one of them!!!! so i included that response as well...
anyway, for those of you who don't read the letters, Jill Chambers' interpretation of the amendment is that it only applies to minors under the age of 18, and not all women. she said that's why no one objected to it. i was impressed that she wrote back to me, and so quickly. she gets major points from me on that. and she has a sense of humor, too!
Dear Madams: [i emailed both of them at the same time]
I would like to express my dismay at adding a ban on piercing to the the otherwise
excellent bill regarding female genital mutilation (SB418). Genital piercing is
not at all the same thing as genital mutilation, and is performed at the request
of the woman receiving the piercing. The ban on female genital piercing is both
discriminatory and a violation of freedom of expression. No ban on male genital
piercing is mentioned, nor will one be introduced into legislation.
According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Representative Heath added in the
ban on piercing because he does not think women should get such piercings. I do
not believe the state of Georgia should have any say regarding my sexual expression.
I myself may not ever receive a genital piercing, but I would like to think that
I would be able to get one in my own state if I so desired. This addition of a
ban on piercing feels to me like either a sexist, puritanical addition, or worse,
an attempt to make the orginial bill fail passage. Having such an addition to a
bill while there is also legislation addressing the end of discrimination against
women (HR351) seems at cross purposes, since denying women the right to enhance
their sexuality is a bit 19th century.
I will be following the votes on this bill, and must say that as a constituent,
I would be loath to vote for a woman who wants to deny self-expression to other
women, be they in the counter culture. I would like to see the bill passed in its
original form, since female genital mutilation is a serious crime.
Thank you,
(my name and address here)
my understanding of that amendment is that it only applies to minors under the age
of 18 - after that, they can adorn themselves however they desire. That is why
no one from either Party objected to the amendment. I'm not sure if the author
of the amendment knows that men can and will get piercings, too!
thanks for your email,
Jill
anyway, for those of you who don't read the letters, Jill Chambers' interpretation of the amendment is that it only applies to minors under the age of 18, and not all women. she said that's why no one objected to it. i was impressed that she wrote back to me, and so quickly. she gets major points from me on that. and she has a sense of humor, too!
Dear Madams: [i emailed both of them at the same time]
I would like to express my dismay at adding a ban on piercing to the the otherwise
excellent bill regarding female genital mutilation (SB418). Genital piercing is
not at all the same thing as genital mutilation, and is performed at the request
of the woman receiving the piercing. The ban on female genital piercing is both
discriminatory and a violation of freedom of expression. No ban on male genital
piercing is mentioned, nor will one be introduced into legislation.
According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Representative Heath added in the
ban on piercing because he does not think women should get such piercings. I do
not believe the state of Georgia should have any say regarding my sexual expression.
I myself may not ever receive a genital piercing, but I would like to think that
I would be able to get one in my own state if I so desired. This addition of a
ban on piercing feels to me like either a sexist, puritanical addition, or worse,
an attempt to make the orginial bill fail passage. Having such an addition to a
bill while there is also legislation addressing the end of discrimination against
women (HR351) seems at cross purposes, since denying women the right to enhance
their sexuality is a bit 19th century.
I will be following the votes on this bill, and must say that as a constituent,
I would be loath to vote for a woman who wants to deny self-expression to other
women, be they in the counter culture. I would like to see the bill passed in its
original form, since female genital mutilation is a serious crime.
Thank you,
(my name and address here)
my understanding of that amendment is that it only applies to minors under the age
of 18 - after that, they can adorn themselves however they desire. That is why
no one from either Party objected to the amendment. I'm not sure if the author
of the amendment knows that men can and will get piercings, too!
thanks for your email,
Jill
