Corrigendum to “Why was the U.S. ban on female genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional, and what does this have to do with male circumcision?” [Ethics Med. Public Health. 15 (2020) 100533] (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health (2020) 15, (S2352552520300712), (10.1016/j.jemep.2020.100533))

The author would like to apologize for a slight imprecision at the end of their article: Why was the U.S. ban on female genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional, and what does this have to do with male circumcision? Ethics, Medicine and Public Health 15 (2020) 100533. The last sentence should be: In other words, instead of saying “what's good for the goose is what's good for the gander,” perhaps we should be saying, “what's good for the gander is what's good for the goose.”. [Figure presented] In the final version, the figure 1 has been removed. The online version has been updated. For the author, Dr Brian D Earp. The author declares that he has no competing interest.