An article published in the Duke Law Journal, 47 Duke L.J. 717 (February 1999). The article discusses the attempt by a Seattle, Washington, hospital to perform a symbolic sunna (female circumcision) on the daughters of Somali immigrants. The Somalis threatened to have a traditional circumcision performed on the girls if the hospital did not do something.

Obstetrician to Pregnant Woman: "If it's a boy, do you want him circumcised?"

Pregnant Woman: "Yes, and also if it's a girl."

"Dr. Miller's patients have told her that they are confused that Americans encourage the circumcision of their sons, but refuse a less invasive symbolic sunna for their daughters."

The aticle concludes that opponents of FGM are wrong because "they continued to ignore the deficiencies of the comparison between that traditional practice and male circumcision, and as a result, failed to protect any children, female or male, from medically or religiously unnecessary genital cutting. Saying that they had to avoid the male circumcision issue to assure political support for their cause is no response. . . . Avoiding the obvious applicability of the equal protection doctrine under the facts of the Harborview proposal is intellectually dishonest. "