What's the Compromise on Female Circumcision?

Many of us are familiar with the mutilation of female genitals in African and Asian countries. From removal of the clitoris to keeping virginity in tact, many of this horrifying traditions being outlawed in the US are "forcing families to have it down overseas." Now, this is outlawed for a reason, right? I mean, you watch Tyra or Oprah or some other self-titled talk show and they have women who have undergone these procedures speak about their past and I will admit a few tears have fallen because I personally cannot understand what that is like. To be sewn up in an unsanitary shack? No, thank you.

Now because genital mutilation is illegal, I guess some families go out of their way and send their daughters overseas to have this tradition followed through? So according to the NY Times, the American Academy of Pediatricians is coming up with a compromise allowing pediatricians to be able to perform a ritual "nick" to keep parents from sending their daughters overseas. One member said that the committee is opposed to "all types of female genital cutting that impose risks or physical or psychological harm." They refer to the nick as a "last resort," and state that the nick is “supposed to be as benign as getting a girl’s ears pierced. It’s taking a pin and creating a drop of blood.” Um, isn't female genital mutilation of no health benefit? I don't know if I'd consider a cosmetic piercing on par with mutilation.

So this committee has gone the opposite direction of banning overseas mutilation, they are negotiating ways for their daughters to refrain from pleasure. While maybe they think they are doing the right thing in coming up with a less severe compromise, some things (in my opinion) are a non-negotiable. Actually, not just my opinion, as the mutilation has been considered, internationally, a violation of the human rights of girls and women since 1984.