Cited by 21Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting IssuesEthics and bioethics in healthcareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare

Zero Tolerance for Genital Mutilation: a Review of Moral Justifications

Earp, Brian D.·2020·Current Sexual Health Reports

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11930-020-00286-0

Cites

138 of 138 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Earp, B. D.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Earp, Brian D.
Venue
Current Sexual Health Reports
Published
2020-12
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
276-288
ISSN
  • 1548-3584 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-3592
OpenAlex
W3113368437
Cited by
21
References
138
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4
FWCI
2.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Current Sexual Health Reports (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
Keywords
female genital mutilation, zero tolerance laws, moral justification, bodily integrity, cosmetic genital surgery, male circumcision, individual rights, individual autonomy, sexual boundaries, equality before the law, medical ethics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review