The rather...sparse argument said writer makes is that by adding, “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” to the US Constitution, because male circumcision is legal, female circumcision will be too. That's patently untrue. Personally, I think it's wrong to remove part of anyone's body before they are at the age of consent. But that aside, male circumcision and female circumcision are not the same procedure and simply using the same word in the colloquial name does not make them legally equal.
To make the two the same, a male circumcision would have to:
-slice off the entire head of the penis.
-remove the scrotum but leave the testicles.
-stuff the testicles inside the body cavity & sew up what's left.
The entire goal of female circumcision is to remove any part that gives the woman pleasure.
I believe that the writer in the LV Review-Journal presented this wholly false argument in an attempt to try to scare readers into stopping Nevada from ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment, via any means necessary or any level of deception.
Btw, that same writer is convinced w/o evidence that voter fraud is rampant in NV and that the state needs to make English the official language.
= new reply since forum marked as read