Saturday, February 21, 2015

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to Defund Circumcision Heard - Dissenters Included Planned Parenthood and a Rabbi

A bill that would prohibit Medicaid from funding the non-therapeutic circumcision of infants was heard by a house committee in New Hampshire very recently. Predictable dissent ensued.

18 states have cut Medicaid funding for the elective, non-therapeutic procedure, and Republican Keith Murphy sponsored the bill, asserting that New Hampshire should join them.

As with many politicians, Murphy's heart is in the right place, but his stated reasons as to why New Hampshire should cut Medicaid funding, have made the bill easy to shoot down by dissenters.

According to a recent news article, Murphy "firmly believes circumcision is dangerous – potentially, very dangerous."

Distraction from the issue
Murphy is quoted saying "One hundred and seventeen children a year, on average, die from circumcision complications. In fact it’s one of the leading causes of neonatal male deaths."

It must be said that, although intactivists know that circumcision is responsible for infant deaths, we also know that, because hospitals are not required to release information regarding infant deaths related to infant circumcision, and because doctors do their best to hide deaths due to circumcision by deliberately misattributing them to other causes, we can't know for sure, and any figure given is an estimate at best.

It is really sad that Murphy isn't anything in the way of a medical doctor who is well-versed in the risks and complications of circumcision, for someone who is could attest to the fact that the risks of male infant circumcision include infection, hemorrhaging, partial or full ablation, and yes, even death, are very real.

It is a real shame that attention from the fact circumcision is medically unnecessary in healthy, non-consenting newborns, and that Medicaid funds could be put to better use, has to be diverted to disputing the validity of one particular figure which is at best, a modest estimate, given reality.

Same old rationale
In opposition to the proposed bill, Planned Parenthood was ready to fire back that "[C]ircumcision carries public health benefits, including lowered risk of urinary tract infections and some sexually transmitted diseases." (This response isn't too surprising, given that they've already been trying to pass the lack of a foreskin as "normal," and they're busy pushing circumcision on Africans...)

This despite the fact that not a single respected medical organization in the world recommends the circumcision of infants based on the current body of medical literature.

Our very own AAP stated in their latest policy statement in 2012 that the so-called "benefits" of circumcision were "not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns."

Even the CDC shies away from an actual recommendation in their latest release, dumping the onus of responsibility, as the AAP did 2 years prior, on parents.

It  needs to be asked, if the so-called "benefits" of circumcision are "not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns," how is it something that should be funded by Medicaid?

What do respected medical organizations in other industrialized nations have to say?

Circumcision fails to prevent disease transmission. So ineffective is circumcision at preventing sexually transmitted disease, that circumcised men must still be urged to wear condoms. This is a fact that no doctor, or "researcher" can deny.

How is circumcision even a consideration, where urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted disease are better thwarted by antibiotics and condoms respectively?

The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

One Jay Smith, a retired family physician, speaking on behalf of the New Hampshire Public Health Association defended: "Basically, I think we just feel that it’s bad public policy to remove a procedure from Medicaid that is still approved for other insurance," said Smith.

Really doc? You don't think it's bad public policy for public funding to cover non-medical, non-therapeutic elective procedures, especially on healthy, non-consenting minors?

Even a rabbi weighs in, saying that cutting Medicaid funding for male infant circumcision would discriminate against low-income Jews. (Right, because the proposed bill would deny only Jewish parents of male children a Medicaid handout.)

Staying on topic
Murphy brings up a very good reason why circumcising infants should be a concern, but the risk of death and the rate of infant deaths related to circumcision are a distraction from the conversation that should be happening, and a diversion from the questions that need to be asked.

1. What is the purpose of Medicaid?

2. Why should Medicaid give handouts to doctors who perform elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals?

3. Shouldn't public coffers cover only treatment and procedures for which there is clear medical indication?

4. Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals? Let alone be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents? Let alone expect to be reimbursed by public monies?

5. What other elective, non-medical, non-therapeutic procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals, should Medicaid be expected to cover?

The bottom line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents, and much less expect to be reimbursed.

Medicaid money could be better spent on medical treatment that is actually needed, instead of controversial elective surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

New Hampshire, and eventually all 50 states should cut Medicaid funding for elective, non-medical, non-therapeutic circumcision, especially in healthy, non-consenting minors, and put it to better use.

Related Posts:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

USA: Centers for Disease Control to Mirror American Academy of Pediatrics

Saturday, January 31, 2015


Well, it's been a while since I thought about starting this series on logical fallacies used to defend and promote the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting individuals, and I thought it was time to add another installation to it. The last time I wrote on this series, I talked about the appeal to age and tradition, otherwise known as "ad antiquitam." This time, I'll be talking about its polar opposite, "ad novitam." These are ironically often used in conjunction with each other, the latter often used as a fallback to the former.

AKA: "Because It's New"
If "ad antiquitam" is appeal to age, culture and old tradition, "ad novitam" appeals to novelty and modernity. While "ad antiquitam" capitalizes on the security of the traditional, "ad novitam" appeals to the sense of wanting to be "fashionable," "progressive" and "up-to-date." These fallacies share a common trait in that people try to use them to support claims that should stand or fall on their own merits; both of them introduce the irrelevant fact of age as a means of influencing acceptance. It is a mistake to think that the newness of something is a factor contributing to its soundness.

Keeping It "New"

Male circumcision is no "new" and "innovative" discovery. In fact, historical records trace it back some 6,000 years. So circumcision advocates have a careful balancing act to perform; they have to convince their audience that circumcision is both this "ancient tradition that has been practiced for thousands of years," and, at the same time, that it is this "innovative technology that is going to save lives."

Although male circumcision has been practiced for millennia (as has female circumcision), "research" in attempt to medicalize it began relatively recently. The quest to make circumcision relevant to modern medicine has been going on for over 170 years, and it continues to this day.

In the latest attempt to repackage male circumcision as prophylaxis, male circumcision proponents have called it a "game changer." A "paradigm shift." To quote Ronald Gray, the head author of one of the three "trials" being used to promote male circumcision in Africa and the United States alike:

"We've never used surgery to prevent an infectious disease. It's a completely new concept, a new paradigm."

(Really, doc?)

One can read about a whole list of "brand new circumcision devices" that will "revolutionize" the world. (See PrePex and AccuCirc) One doctor markets his "technique" as "new" and "innovative." Actually, it's nothing more than the Mogen (invented in 1954) clamp glorified.

In short, circumcision advocates have found refuge in "ad novitam." They have discovered that by keeping male circumcision "fresh" and "new" with a steady flow "studies" and "research," and inventing "new" devices and procedures to do it, it is possible to preserve age-old tradition.

I'm sure trepanning was "new" and "innovative" for its time. Somehow, I think it would be dismissed as pseudo-scientific madness today, no matter how much research was published on the matter, now matter what device were used...

In other words:
Brand new "studies" and "research," same old bullshit.
The fact that an act may be newly proposed does not automatically make it correct. As I said in my last installation of this series; progress is defined by replacing the older with the better.  It is not "progress" to want to take humanity back 6,000 years. The current efforts to peg circumcision as "phrophylaxis" under the guise of "scientific research," "medicine" and "public health" are nothing more than ironic attempts clothing male circumcision as "modern" and "innovative" ad novitam.

In the case of circumcision, ad novitam is used in conjunction with the fallacy of appealing to certain respected authorities, namely science and medicine. The reason circumcision can be argued to be "new" and "innovative" is because "studies say..." (Without even appealing to novelty, "newness" and being "up to date" is implicit.) I hope to make this the next topic in this blog series, if I can ever get to it... (Though I have touched this subject before.)

Note the red letters in all-caps:
"NOW" as opposed to "BEFORE" or "YESTERDAY."

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

PEPFAR To Blow Millions on PrePex

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

2014 Year-End Blurb

It's been a while since I've put up a meaningful post. You know? One to which I actually devoted time and passion. Well, for the past few weeks it's been rather hard for your author come up with something. So much has been going on in my life, that it has been extremely difficult for me to sit down, think, and type out my thoughts, I must apologize.

Hopefully it should all pass soon, and I will find some time to sit and post my thoughts more regularly once again.

For now, my last post for 2014 will be about a discussion I had recently with my co-workers.

It happened one afternoon, on one of those days where we were all done for the day, and our remaining time was spent preparing materials for work the next day. It is during this time when discussions about life, the universe and everything take place, at least at my current workplace. I had hoped the subject of male infant circumcision would never come up.

Don't get me wrong, I'm passionate, and it's one thing to go all out online, but at the workplace, it's different. These are the people whom you will work with every day, and you don't want to sour relationships at work.

I had hoped the subject of male infant circumcision would never come up, because if it did, I would would be determined to state how I felt about it, I would not relent, and shit would hit the fan.

Well, that afternoon, shit hit he fan.

But you know, it wasn't all that bad; the workers present were all able to get in how they felt, we agreed to simply state those feelings, give closing remarks, and promise that the subject would never be broached again.

I'm not sure I was able to get through to any of my co-workers, but what I can be sure about is that they got an earful of what I had to say.

That day, I came to find out that one of my co-workers is actually intact, and so is his son.

This put my fear that I would be the only intact worker in the room, and that it would be everyone in there against me to rest.

Sadly, it was me and that other worker against the other guys, who are sadly, owners of iatrogenically deficient genitalia, and were all in favor of circumcision.

One of them, currently the father of two girls, vowed that if he were ever to have a son, that he would most definitely have him circumcised.

We talked about all the rationale for it, medical, religious and what not.

To this man, circumcising his son would not have anything to do with all the medical mumbo-jumbo currently being pumped out by the American medical establishment, but had more of a "spiritual significance" for him, even though he is Christian, where circumcision profits Christians nothing (Galatians 5).

Another co-worker said that he was a "halfie," meaning he was circumcised, but loosely. According to him, he felt that he was able to experience what life would be like either way.

He was also the proud owner of tattoos.

"But why would you force this on your child? At least you might have a semblance of what it's like to have anatomically correct genitals..." I asked him.

"Well, I might consider it," he said, "but my wife is Indonesian and Muslim so... it's kind of a given."

"Well, is your wife circumcised?"

I asked him.

"No, but that's totally different."

I took it upon myself to explain to him that in Indonesia, Malaysia and other South East Asian countries, girls are circumcised as boys are, and some may even describe it as "less severe."

"Yeah... she's not even a serious Muslim..."

"So there you go," I told him.

This second co-worker was more receptive to my message, and, at least for that afternoon, lent me an ear.

"You seem so passionately against this, and I'm curious to know why."

"To me," I said, "It all boils down to basic human rights. If we do not own our bodies, what in this world do we own?" I asked...

He admitted that I had a point.

Of course he asked the usual questions.

"Well what about surgery and vaccinations?" He asked.

"What about them? Usually surgery requires clear medical indication. And vaccines actually prevent disease and are recommended by every respected medical organization, unlike male infant circumcision," I told him.

The other co-worker with two daughters chimed in and asked me "Well what's wrong with circumcision? What's wrong with having a circumcised penis?"

"What's wrong with circumcision? What's wrong with having a circumcised penis?"

"There is nothing wrong with having a circumcised penis," I said.

"There is nothing wrong with having tattoos," I said, to try and resonate with something familiar to at least one co-worker.

"But I'm against it when forcibly performed on healthy, non-consenting minors."

That question stuck in my mind.

What IS wrong with having a circumcised penis?

But that perspective is wrong.

You do not ask what's wrong with a forced, artificial phenomenon.

What's wrong with tattoos?

What's wrong with body piercings?

What's wrong with prosthetic limbs?

Synthetic eye-balls?

If that is how a person wants to be, or if it is a result of something inevitable, that is one thing.

The bigger question should be, what is wrong with having anatomically correct genitals?

What's wrong with the penis, whole and intact, as nature, or the Creator, if you believe in one, made it?

I didn't think to ask this question then, but I wish I had...

When you have these conversations with people, short of getting on your knees and begging, there is nothing you can really do, so I ended on this note.

"I will not ever bring this subject up again. I only talked about this because it was brought up. I prefer to preserve peace. But please, if I could at least get you to do this, please please PLEASE look this subject up and research it more. Don't take it from me."

And so our conversation ended there. Hopefully the subject will not be brought up again.

I surely hope I do not live to see the day my co-workers bear male children.

Or if I do, I hope they do not tell me about their sons' circumcisions.

Or better yet, I hope I've planted a seed in their minds, and they'll come 'round...

When all is said and done, that conversation couldn't have had a better outcome.

We each had our say, we're still talking, and we're not at each other's throats.

Even though the conversation didn't exactly end how I wanted, it is my hope that I would at least have given them something to think about.

Well, that's all I've got to say for the remainder of this year.

As for the AAP and CDC?

What more can be said?

Get back to me when one of them actually goes through with a recommendation.

A happy and prosperous new year to all.

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

USA: Centers for Disease Control to Mirror American Academy of Pediatrics

Just the other day, I had finished giving my predictions as to what the Canadian Paediatric Society may be planning to do on their next position statement on circumcision, and just today I read that a release of a statement from the Center for Disease Control, with "guidelines" on circumcision, is eminent.

I'm not going to say much on this post, as it's pretty much the same thing I think of the CPS.

It looks like the CDC is getting ready to do exactly what the AAP did, and that's go on forever about HIV and other "benefits." I predict that, as the AAP did in 2012, the CDC will short of a recommendation, because they know that this would be taking an unfounded position against modern medicine.

The fact is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical organization recommends infant circumcision based on the current body of medical literature.

The reason the 2012 AAP statement didn't culminate in a recommendation is because they knew full well that doing so would result in a loss of respect and credibility. The CDC will more or less fall along those lines. Of course they will overblow the dubious HIV/circumcision claims, but like the AAP, will continue to say "the parents should decide."

Get ready for more of the same rehashed BS.

UPDATE: A Preview
The latest on the CDC webpage (note the highlights...):

Status of CDC Male Circumcision Recommendations

Some recent reports have speculated about the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) upcoming public health recommendations on male circumcision for HIV prevention in the United States.

It is important to note that the recommendations are still in development and CDC has made no determination at this time about the final content. CDC is employing a deliberative, evidence-based process for developing the circumcision recommendations, which allows for both external and internal CDC experts to provide input. CDC will also publish draft recommendations for public comment before the content will be finalized.

With respect to infant circumcision, it is important to recognize that many options are still being considered in this process, including simply recommending that health-care providers educate parents about the potential benefits and risks to ensure that parents have the information they need to make an informed decision.

In developing its recommendations, CDC is also considering whether circumcision should be recommended for heterosexual adults at high risk for HIV infection in the United States, as well as whether there is sufficient scientific evidence to make any recommendations for men who have sex with men.

Whatever the content may include, CDC's final circumcision recommendations will be completely voluntary. While CDC has not yet determined if male circumcision should be recommended for any population, ultimately the decision will rest with individuals and parents. CDC's public health imperative is to provide the best possible information on the risks and benefits to help inform those decisions.

 "Voluntary..." (Chuckle...)

Related Posts:
CANADA: Canadian Paediatric Society - Monkey See, Monkey Do?

AAP: New Statement Over-Hyped by US Media?

AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere
OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

External Links:
To Cut or Not to Cut: CDC Poised to Offer Circumcision Guidance

Saturday, November 29, 2014

CANADA: Canadian Paediatric Society - Monkey See, Monkey Do?

Hopefully not...

In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a conflicting, wishy-washy policy statement, claiming, of all things, that "the benefits of infant circumcision outweigh the risks."

Despite this sound-bite, which I can only assume its creators hoped would become a mantra instilled in the minds of those who heard or read it (...the AAP 2012 report was nothing more than a poor attempt at infant circumcision PR, really...), the policy statement did not culminate in the recommendation that circumcision proponents, such as one Australian professor Brian Morris (...who does not have a single medical credential to his name, mind you...) were hoping for.

For circumcision advocates, the "benefits outweigh the risks" bit was sufficient enough for satisfaction, but for introspective professionals who actually read it, the 2012 AAP policy statement left more questions than it did answers.

In fact, so out-of-whack was the latest AAP report, that 38 pediatricians, urologists, epidemiologists, and professors, representing 20 medical organizations and 15 universities and hospitals in 17 countries formally rejected it.

One can read the catchy "benefits outweigh the risks" line throughout the report, but this conflicts with the admission that "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision are unknown," found in the very same report, not to mention the fact that, after much ado, the authors of the policy statement fell short of a recommendation.

Even after admitting there is insufficient data to support the statement that "the benefits outweigh the risks," even after failing to issue a recommendation for infant circumcision based on the current body of medical literature, the AAP authors still have the audacity to say that parents should still consider the benefits (...which were not "great enough" for a recommendation, in their own words...), doctors were within reason to comply with a parent's wishes to circumcise a healthy newborn, and public coffers ought to pay for it.

*Note: Under any other circumstance, reaping profit from performing non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

In short, the 2012 AAP Policy Statement can be summarized as thus:

1. "The benefits outweigh the risks."
2. These same "benefits" are "not great enough" to issue a recommendation.
3. The risks are "unknown."
4. Based on the self-same insufficient data that couldn't move us to make a recommendation, parents ought to make the call.
5. Doctors can comply with a parent's "decision" to have their son circumcised without diagnosis of medical or clinical indication, guilt-free. And...
6. Public coffers should have to pay for this "decision."

 What will the Canadian Paediatric Society do?

I see one of two things happening:

1. The CPS will issue a true and honest statement based on genuine analysis of current medical literature. It may still take a hands-off, pass-the-buck approach in the end, but it will not be as ready to publish canned sound-bites to the effect that "the benefits outweigh the risks."

2. The CPS may have been hijacked by circumcision proponents who are in lockstep with pro-circumcision AAP members, and are getting ready to issue a carbon-copy of the 2012 AAP Policy Statement. As the AAP did, the CPS may overstate the so-called "benefits" of circumcision, minimize the risks, and may even admit that they don't know what these are, but will stop short of a recommendation, unless they wish to damage their credibility in Western medicine.

The fact is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world, not even the AAP, recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant this endorsement.

In the end, whatever route the CPS takes, the result will be the same; they will not issue any sort of recommendation for circumcision, disappointing many, and the statement that there is not a single respected medical organization that recommends male infant circumcision, will nonetheless continue to be true.

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

Related Posts:
AAP: New Statement Over-Hyped by US Media?

AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

External Link:
CPS Policy Media Fund

Friday, October 31, 2014

LEGISLATION: A Possible Solution?

A landmark achievement that intactivists grope for is legislation that would give male minors equal protection under the law. That is, that forced male genital mutilation, particularly the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, be banned and made illegal. As of 1996, a federal ban on female genital mutilation prohibits any and every genital cut performed on girls for any reason, and there is no exempt for religions or cultures where female circumcision is considered an important tradition.

I've already mentioned it in past blog posts, but the way things stand now, I think this country has a long way to go before it acknowledges that male minors ought to be given the same protection as female minors. It was easy to enact legislation that bans female circumcision because it is not a custom in this country for girls to be circumcised. It's always easy to ban something that people already consider barbaric. Much groundwork has to be laid before this country is ready to ban the forced genital mutilation of male minors. It's not going to happen overnight. "Baby steps," as some put it.

Recently I was giving the issue of legality some thought, and I got to thinking about a hypothetical situation; what if, instead of a ban, circumcision were allowed to legally continue, but we somehow made it so that men that grow up to resent the fact that they were circumcised could take their circumcisers to court?

That's right. Doctors could keep right on circumcising, and mohels and imams could go right on circumcising, with the acknowledgment that they could one day be legally taken to court by any of the boys they circumcise?

It is often said that most, if not all circumcised men, are happy and content with their lot, but I wonder, how much of this is true? How many would seek legal redress if they possibly could? How many circumcisers would stop if they knew they could face legal consequences one day?

This is a big part of the problem; doctors and religious circumcisers don't have to face any consequences for their actions. If any of the boys they circumcised grow up to resent having been so, they could sleep at night knowing that short of huffing and puffing and gnashing their teeth, there is nothing they can do.

Well, what if instead of a direct ban, intactivists worked to make it possible for angry men to take their circumisers to court? Lift statutes of limitation? Make it legally required for each circumcision to be documented with the name of the circumciser and child, so that that person has legal access to this information as an adult, in case there is something he'd like to do about it?

The law could start requiring doctors to keep a record of an illness or medical condition that necessitates surgery, what methods of treatment were tried over time before circumcision was considered as a last resort, to ensure that only doctors who performed medically necessary procedures have a legit defense. (A legit medical reason is usually required for any other medical surgery performed on a non-consenting minor!!!) This would ensure that only medically necessary circumcisions were being performed.

A ban is a long way off. I think intactivists ought to start considering smaller victories that could achieve the end result they want, which is to stop the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting minors.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

JEWISH JOURNAL: Religious Agenda Creeps Into Natural Birth Movement

By golly, it's been a while.

I wish I had more time to sit down and tackle this issue, but life keeps me busy. I commend all my fellow intactivists who sacrifice their time and money for this cause. My current situation is one such that I can't.

Sometimes, however, I'll come across something that lights a fire in me too great to contain, that it has to spill onto this blog.

Now is one of those times.

It really bothers me when someone with a clear agenda, tries to pretend not to have one, while at the same time, accusing others of that very thing.

In English, we call this type of behavior "projection."

Or in layman's terms, the pot calling the kettle black.

I recently came across an opinion piece on the Jewish Journal, where one Wendy Kenin tries to argue that intactivists are "anti-Semites," and that they're "creeping into" the natural birth movement. (While, of course, she herself is trying to sneak in her own personal religious convictions.)

Reads the headline:
"Anti-Semitism creeps into ‘Natural Childbirth’ movement"
 ... as it must. This is an article that attempts to decry those within the natural childbirth movement who condemn infant circumcision as being "unnatural," which it is. And, naturally, if you say anything negative about circumcision, you must automatically be an anti-Semite. It's just the way the formula works.

As if infant circumcision were an exclusively Jewish practice. As if circumcision were a universal practice among Jews. As if only Jewish mothers were being targeted by intactivsts.

Kenin is either incredibly dense and ignorant, or she is betting that her readers are. Seeing as this is a post on the Jewish Journal, she is more than likely just preaching to the choir.

The article begins:

"It’s the special treatment reserved for Jews that earns the anti-circumcision “intact-ivism” movement the label 'anti-Jew.'"

It's the special treatment of reproach reserved for those who oppose male circumcision, but not who oppose female circumcision, in the so-called name of "religious freedom" and "parental choice," that earns Jewish advocates of male infant circumcision the label "self-serving special pleaders."

Intactivists do not reserve "special treatment" for Jews; we oppose the forced genital mutilation of ALL healthy, non-consenting individuals, regardless of race, religion, creed, culture or sex, no exceptions.

1.2 million babies boys are circumcised in this country; only 0.6% of these babies or less are circumcised at Jewish religious ceremonies.

Intactivists counsel ALL parents against circumcising their boys.

That we "reserve special treatment for Jews" is a categorically false accusation.

"And it’s the large space created for intactivist representation within the natural childbirth movement which unfortunately poisons this otherwise effective and necessary maternal health community."

Says Kenin, as she tries to poison the maternal health community herself.

I find it quite ironic that people like Kenin would like others to believe that intactivists "enjoy a large space" within the natural birth movement, while circumcision advocates, particularly Jewish advocates of infant circumcision, are exiled, on the outside looking in.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. Advocates of male infant circumcision, Jewish and non, have enjoyed a large space within medicine and natural childbirth, and it is they which, unfortunately poison the conversation. Of the six members of the American Academy of Pediatrics' "Taskforce on Circumcision," no less than 2 were Jewish, one of whom openly talked about having circumcised his own son on his kitchen table. While circumcision advocates, both Jewish and non, have enjoyed lofty positions within the AAP, and lay parenting forums on baby websites and Facebook, intactivists struggle to be heard, often being dismissed as, you guessed it, "anti-Semites" and "parent bashers."

That intactivists are starting to make the scene is only quite a recent development. Even today, circumcision advocates within birthing and medicine communities like Kenin, do their best to ascertain that anyone who has anything negative to say about infant genital mutilation is kept out.

It is despicable that circumcision advocates, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, are laying claim to the natural birth movement, calling for anyone who opposes the unnatural act of mutilating a healthy child's genitals to be expelled, as if they were entitled to make such demands.

Can you imagine those who advocate for caesarian birth trying to kick out vaginal birth advocates out of the natural birth movement? Can you imagine Nestle trying to muscle their way into the natural birth movement, saying that those who advocate in favor of breastfeeding ought to be kicked out? Well, it's kind of like that.

"As a childbirth doula (labor coach) in the San Francisco Bay Area, I am honored to support women of diverse ethnicities and backgrounds and to work on the cutting edge of patient rights and women’s health along with a growing movement of informed practitioners who are advocating for birth options and evidence-based practices."

I wonder how far she supports women "of diverse ethnicities and and backgrounds." Does she support women intent on circumcising their daughters? Or is this only about Jewish women who want to fulfill their religious convictions?

It's interesting she says she works on the "cutting edge of patient rights..." What she means is cutting patients in spite of their rights, of course...

It must be asked, why is someone involved in women's health interested in cutting healthy MALE children?

How and why has cutting the genitals of a healthy MALE child become a "birth option" for women?

Kenin talks about "evidence-based practices." Is there any amount of "evidence" that would convince her to "support" female circumcision as a "birthing option" women from Malaysia, Indonesia, Sudan, etc.?

Seriously, what self-serving crap.

"I am privileged to serve clients of all backgrounds along with the other Jewish women health practitioners in the “Imeinu Doulas and Birth Collective” which I founded in 2008. Just as “Shalom Bayit” a 22-year old Jewish domestic violence organization in the Bay Area is a model of a culturally-based women’s rights initiative who works locally but is internationally known and networked, Imeinu is a younger, established and growing culturally-based women’s health and advocacy model but in the field of childbirth with service providers networked internationally."

End self-promotion plug...

"As a Jewish woman who literally wears my Jewish heritage as I ally with other natural birth professionals, I become a quick target for anti-circumcision rationale, a quick opportunity for intactivists practicing talking points that are developed especially for Jews."

As she should.

Imagine, if you will, a Japanese person "wearing his/her heritage," trying to both advocate for Japanese whaling practices in the name of "cultural diversity," AND trying ally him/herself with animal rights groups.

Now imagine that Japanese person claiming s/he is a "quick target for animal rights rationale, a quick opportunity for animal rights activists practicing talking points that are developed especially for Japanese," and that animal rights groups ought to expel activists who oppose whaling from their movement, claiming they have "scientific research" on their side.

Circumcision advocacy is to "natural birth" as what whaling advocacy is to animal welfare, even environmental welfare, as certain whale species are in danger of becoming extinct.

If you advocate for infant genital mutilation, and wear the reasons why you do it on your sleeve, you should expect people who approach you to address those reasons directly.

This is why, when people advocate for female genital mutilation in the name of Islam, the Quran is brought up.

This is why when people who advocate for male infant circumcision claiming it is a Christian practice, we show them what the New Testament has to say.

To proudly "wear" your rationale for infant genital mutilation, and then complain that others are targeting you directly addressing that rationale, is rather asinine.

"Let’s back up here and understand the difference between the way birth workers usually provide information and how intactivists, whose work is primarily carried out through layers of public relations campaigns, promote their cause."

Yes. Let's.

And while we're at it, let's understand the difference between someone who has a genuine interest in natural child birth and public health, and someone who has religious convictions, and an agenda to defend said religious convictions, whose work is primarily carried out through accusing those who oppose their cause as "anti-" what have you.

The next heading reads:

"Birth Workers are different from Intactivists"

Should read:

"Jewish circumcision advocates are different from Birth Workers"


"When we birth professionals..."

Who's "we?"

Notice the self-inclusion there...

"...are educating new parents about procedures like epidurals, delayed umbilical chord clamping, skin-to-skin, or breastfeeding - all of which can have life-changing impact on the vitality of the child, we do not aggressively assert that parents are hurting their child or putting themselves at risk if they go along with what are the medical trends."

But if you are a natural birth worker, you are expected to talk about the risks of going along with what are medical trends, and the benefits of birth without epidurals, the benefits of delayed umbilical cord clamping, skin-to-skin contact and/or breastfeeding. You wouldn't be a "natural birth worker" otherwise.

Of course here, Kenin would like her readers to assume that circumcision is a "medical trend" necessarily essential to childbirth, comparable to umbilical cord clamping, birth pain management and/or child feeding practices. While umbilical cord clamping, birth pain and how the child will feed are inevitably part of childbirth, circumcision is not.

Cutting off the foreskin of a healthy child is unlike clamping and cutting the umbilical cord, which dries up and falls off on its own. Neither is it like choosing to have skin-to-skin contact or breastfeeding.

The fact is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world, not even the AAP, recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant this endorsement, much to the chagrin of circumcision advocates.

Is this something we can trust a self-proclaimed "natural birth worker" like Wendy Kenin to inform parents about?

We encourage parents to do their own research and inform themselves about the approaches of their care providers so that they can be aware of risks and options and exercise their rights as patients and human beings."

One should hope so.

One should hope that birth workers, especially those that label themselves "natural birth," would guide parents to "natural birth" practices and not intentionally give them wishy-washy "advice" which has nothing to do with natural birth, and more to do with the birth worker's own personal religious convictions she says she wears so proudly.

One should hope that, concerning circumcision, birth workers, especially "natural birth workers" would encourage parents to "do their own research," so that they would arrive at the same conclusion as the most respected medical organizations on earth, and that is that "the benefits are not great enough to recommend infant circumcision."

"Birth workers partly get our work done by staying up-to-date and providing information, and the impact of natural birth advocacy is seen in the statistics. Examples of the successes of birth workers can be seen in the emerging government-funded doula programs in several countries, bringing more trained labor coaches to provide continuous care to mothers in labor because of the improved health outcomes associated with the presence of a doula. Birth workers’ objections to inducing pre-term labor or pre-term elective cesareans helped focus research on these issues which eventually led to policy changes in hospitals across the United States, so we know our approach works."

By "we," she means to say "birth workers" who share her view. By "our approach" she means to say the approach of genuine birth workers. In essence, she is admitting that people like herself, who advocate for male infant genital mutilation, find the natural birth movement alluring to piggyback because the approach could be effective in brainwashing others that circumcision is a "natural birth" practice.

It must be noted here that it is perfectly fine for birth workers to have "objections" to "medical trends." Just as long as that "medical trend" isn't the wholesale genital mutilation of male, and only male newborns.

"More hospitals are instituting new protocols for delayed umbilical chord clamping, and skin-to-skin contact between mother and baby immediately following delivery - two campaigns that the natural birth movement has been conducting through its attention to evidence-based research in the field and in published studies."

Now don't go hogging all the credit...

"Intactivism is carried out through public relations campaigns that range from reaching expectant parents through tabling at childbirth fairs to pushing for legislation to outlaw circumcision."

Natural birth workers engage in the same tactics. Do they not?

"Books, websites, blogs and social media sites share science, stories, and resources on why circumcision is wrong. These venues commonly devote a portion of their pages to cultural circumcision which inevitably focuses on mostly misunderstood and inaccurately framed summaries on Jewish culture."

Would Kenin be able to provide an example of where intactivists misrepresent Jewish culture?

"And for those of us who have inherited circumcision in our religious practice, there are even some Jewish-run groups who offer guidance to holding alternative ceremonies sans the cut, and support groups. But it doesn’t stop there."

 Kenin makes it sound like a bad thing.

...and here is the kicker:

Special Treatment for Jews

... reads the next heading.


Here it is being suggested that circumcision is exclusively Jewish, and that Jewish parents are the only parents targeted by intactivists.

"Enter a conversation with intactivists and let them know you are a Jew, almost every time the conversation topic will change from the focus of circumcision being medically unnecessary to, “Did you know another baby died in New York from herpes after the mohel sucked…” No matter whether you appear religiously observant, no consideration or interest in whether you circumcised your own son at 8 days, just because they learn you are Jewish intactivists will bombard you with talking points that range from new information about your ancestral tradition, to Jewish celebrities’ involvement with intactivism, to films about Jewish men and their decisions about circumcision for their sons, to names of organizations that can help you. If you’re lucky, the intactivist will remember to compliment your people, 'Well Jews wait till 8 days so the Jewish boys getting circumcised are the lucky ones if you’re going to have it done…'"

And this is surprising because... ?

When a person who advocates for circumcision tells us s/he is Christian, we point him/her to verses in the New Testament.

When a person tells us s/he is Muslim, we highlight the fact that circumcision is not once mentioned in the Qur'an.

When a person is intent on circumcising his/her premie son, we give that person information on circumcision and NICU babies.

If the parents are planning on having a C-section, you make sure they know the dangers of a caesarian and the benefits of natural birth.

If the parents are planning on nixing breastfeeding in lieu of baby formula, you make sure they know what their child would be missing out on if they deny that child his/her breast milk.

Etc. etc.

As a birth worker, Kenin ought to know that parents must be given information that is pertinent to them.

There are risks and complications that apply only to Jews. Gentiles, for example, are not the most likely to have their child circumcised by a mohel, who most likely to use a mogen clamp, and who, by the way, may or may not place his herpes-infested mouth on their children's penises.

In New York, Jewish organizations are fighting for the "right" of mohels to refuse to inform Jewish parents about this now-undeniable fact. Apparently, having to make sure parents know they will place their mouths on their children's bloody penises is a violation of "religious freedom."

Mohels have faced lawsuits for circumcision mishaps, including partial or full ablation of the glans in newborn babies circumcised on the 8th day.

There is important information that particularly Jewish parents of boys ought to become aware of.

Can we trust self-proclaimed "natural birth worker" Wendy Kenin to give Jewish parents this information?

SOMEBODY has got to.

And you can't label those with the courage to do it "anti-Semites."

"Intactivists are blind to the fact that the same arguments they are promoting outside the Jewish community, based on research to advocate their cause, would be the only ones appropriate to share with Jews."

Wendy Kenin is blind to the fact that Jews and non-Jews circumcise for different reasons. She is blind to the fact that Jews have a conviction to defend what they see as a sacred tradition they have been defending since Greco-Roman rule. She is blind to the fact that circumcision practices are different in hospital/secular settings than they are in Jewish settings.

That, or she hopes her readers are.

"Intactivists treat Jews different from other people and within their culture have developed an entirely separate agenda for Jewish ears."

Again. This is because they have to.

But we have separate information for "Jewish ears," as we do for "gentile ears," as well as "Muslim ears," and "Filipino ears," and "Indonesian ears," and "African ears." We want to stop ALL forced genital cutting on healthy, non-consenting minors. In order to reach parents, we must approach parents with information that is relevant to them, as parents want to have their children circumcised for different reasons.

"Even though less than 2% of the American population is Jewish while majority of Americans circumcise, much of the intactivist propaganda - from memes to comic books to films - involves imagery of and alludes to Jewish men. So intactivism is involved with targeting Jews in personal interactions, and representing Jews as child-abusers in the public sphere."

This is simply false.

Intactivists are well aware that the great majority of Americans circumcise, and we have not forgotten them.

In fact, contrary to Kenin's allegations, our main focus is on circumcision as it occurs in hospitals, hence our involvement with natural birth.

The problem here for Kenin, and other Jewish advocates of circumcision who share her plight, is that  circumcision is being addressed at all.

More so than just "leaving Jewish parents alone," "birth workers" like Kenin would rather silence intactivists and not have us sharing information about the risks and complications of circumcision, or information about normal, natural, anatomically correct genitals with any parent, let alone Jewish ones, in the so-called named of "cultural sensitivity" and "parental choice."

"Intactivists have failed in the cultural sensitivity arena."

Gee, I wonder what she thinks of workers in Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia etc. trying to end FGM...

"In the Bay Area and other parts of the world, the Jewish and Muslim communities have come together to defend their religious practice from proposed anti-circumcision legislation..."

And this, I believe, is what "birth workers" like Wendy Kenin are all about.

" I believe we can all thank the intactivists for catalyzing some unity."

 Yes. And ISIS should thank the United States, right?

The next heading in this article reads:

"Birth Workers Need to Realign with Dignified Advocacy Practice"

But let's try and decipher what Kenin means by it.

"Speaking as a birth worker, cultural sensitivity is part of our job. We serve families who speak all languages, in all circumstances, with all sorts of beliefs during this sacred time as they welcome new life into the world. Many of us natural birth doulas serve parents in homes, birth centers, and hospital settings. Regardless of our personal choices and opinions, our purpose is to support our clients whatever their decisions may be while upholding the utmost respect and cooperative relationships with the medical professionals who are responsible for the childbirth procedures and outcomes."

So does Kenin encourage birth workers to practice "cultural sensitivity" when discussing female infant circumcision with their clients? Does she encourage natural birth doulas, as Kenin calls herself, to "support" clients that want to circumcise their baby daughters in their "decision?"

It has got to be asked, as a birth worker, what business does Kenin have in discussing genital surgery in healthy, non-consenting babies, male or female? Aren't cultural or religious practices that parents may want to realize on their children, outside the jurisdiction of birth?

Or does Kenin believe the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting male children (but not female children?) to be a special exception?

But more to the point, what business does a "natural" birth worker have discussing with parents the UN-natural act of cutting off a normal, natural, healthy part of a newborn child's body?

Circumcision is about as "natural" as a c-section or choosing formula in lieu of breast milk; it's about as far away from "natural" as you can get.

"The natural birth movement’s imperative is to handle circumcision with the same professionalism as they do all other debated procedures related to maternity, childbirth, and babies."

Yes, and would "natural birth worker" Wendy Kenin handle female circumcision with the same "professionalism" as she insists male circumcision should be handled?

No, the natural birth movement's imperative is to, as much as possible, encourage parents to opt for natural birth options, something which male infant circumcision is not.

In essence, male infant circumcision, as female infant circumcision, has absolutely nothing to do with child birth, let alone natural birth, which brings us to asking why any birth worker is discussing infant circumcision with parents in the first place.

The answer is that Wendy Kenin is Jewish, and she has an agenda to defend a cherished religious practice in the name of "medicine," and, quite ironically, and paradoxically, in the name of "natural birth."

"We cannot allow the intactivist movement’s impassioned bigotry which condemns and even criminalizes our clients who choose circumcision while also targeting Jews, to run us off course from our successful movement to improve maternity care."

Again, here, Kenin tries to pretend like circumcision advocates like herself, can lay claim to the natural birth movement, and can even make calls to include or expel any given group. She acts like she is speaking on behalf of all "clients" who "choose" to have their sons circumcised, when she admits to "wear[ing] her Jewish heritage."

Kenin tries to defend and protect her own convictions for infant genital mutilation, by clothing them with a thinly veiled interest in medicine, natural child birth, and "research," not to mention making the confusing claims that we are "condemning and criminalizing clients who choose circumcision" and, at the same time "targeting Jews."

Does she decry activists who "condemn and criminalize clients who choose circumcision" for their daughters, and, at the same time, "target Muslims" or other groups where female circumcision is seen as an acceptable parenting decision?


What is happening here is that Kenin and others are trying to hijack the successful natural birth movement and run it off course, not to improve maternity care, but to protect and sanction their own religious convictions in the name of "natural child birth."

Again, the pot is calling the kettle black.

AND speaking of calling the kettle black:

"In fact, natural birth professionals are already anti-racism activists. We have to take into account that horrendous disparities are at play when we support our mothers in labor. For example, a black woman is five times more likely to die during childbirth than other women in the United States, regardless of her economic or other status. Similarly, racism is evident in our professional field as the vast majority of birth and maternity care workers as well as the natural birth events are light-skinned women."

There are so many things wrong with the inclusion of this paragraph in this opinion piece, I don't know where to begin.

What, if anything, does discrimination by skin color have to do with any of what is being talked about in this opinion piece? Are, in fact, a mother's determination to have her male child circumcised, something that shows? Like black pigmentation on a person's skin? And, again, is male infant circumcision exclusively Jewish?

The extreme to which Kenin goes to try and pin intactivists as outright racists gets to be quite ridiculous here. Is her comparison of her false claim that intactivists target Jewish, and only Jewish parents, with the real discrimination black people face in this country even appropriate?

"Reproductive justice advocates are addressing the ways that institutional and societal racism impact childbirth and women’s health as well as the professional field. We shouldn’t have to be adding anti-semitism to the mix, with Jewish birth pros and Jewish moms feeling alienated from our good work."

The ways that institutional and societal racism impact childbirth and women's health as well as the professional field, and what reproductive justice advocates are doing to address them have absolutely no bearing on the intactivist position against the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors of any sex, race or creed.

Male infant circumcision is quite clearly not exclusive to Jews and Judaism, and intactivists are opposed to the forced genital cutting of ALL healthy, non-consenting individuals. Intactivists in the natural birth movement approach and give information to ALL parents, not just Jewish ones.

Kenin continues to engage in special pleading, not to mention horrendous, self-serving false accusation.

Is she ready to say that those who oppose female genital mutilation engage in racism against Arabs, Africans, Malaysians, Indonesians etc. are "alienating" mothers and "pros" of those races because they circumcise their daughters?

"If we as childbirth professionals, and the natural maternity organizations we are part of, choose to address circumcision within our scope of information, we can give the issue the same consideration and air-time as we do to the many other physically and spiritually invasive procedures that we witness regularly."

And I ask, yet again, without medical or clinical indication, how can doctors be performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone be "addressing" their parents with any "scope of information?"

How can anyone who calls him/herself a "childbirth professional?"

As a member of a "natural maternity organization," how can a child birth professional be anything else but opposed to the unnatural practice of cutting off a healthy, normal part of a healthy child's penis?

Childbirth professionals who are members of natural birth organizations should give circumcision the same consideration and air-time they do many other procedures alright; the same consideration and air-time they give c-sections, bottle feeding and "cry-it-out" methods.

Sorry, if you tell parents anything other than that cutting off a normal part of a healthy child's penis is not natural, you can't call yourself a "natural birth worker." Every child is born with a foreskin; it is being born without one that is considered a "birth defect." Circumcised children have had a normal, healthy part of their penises cut off. That's not natural.

Concludes the opinion piece:

 "Resources about circumcision options are about as appropriate for birth workers’ clients as resources about vaccination as long as the information is evidence-based, but the intactivist movement’s degrading tactics and banners should have no place in our online or virtual forums, nor at our events."

Except that  circumcision is nothing like a vaccine. Vaccines immunize the body against pathogens that cause disease; when viruses invade the body, it doesn't matter whether a child is circumcised or not.

Vaccines also do not permanently remove a normal, healthy part of the body, nevermind the fact that, unlike male infant circumcision, respected medical organizations actually recommend vaccination for all children.

"Resources about [male infant]circumcision options" are about as appropriate for birth workers' clients as resources about female infant circumcision, child tattooing and scarification options; unless there is medical or clinical indication, simply non-sequitur.

It is advocates of circumcision, especially advocates of circumcision with religious ulterior agendas, not engaging in discourse about the risks of circumcision and the benefits of healthy, natural genitals, but making false, horrendous accusations about others, who should have no place in online or virtual forums, nor at natural childbirth events.

This article is nothing more than self-serving hogwash. Despite admitting herself that she "wears her Jewish heritage," Wendy Kenin tries to pretend as if she had any genuine concern for natural birth and accurate information for mothers.

This is an article written by a Jewish woman for a Jewish audience on a Jewish publication, and it's about nothing more than defending the Jewish practice of circumcision.

Her accusation of intactivists as "anti-Semites" is disingenuous, as if male infant circumcision were an exclusively Jewish practice, and as if intactivists approached Jewish, and only Jewish parents on the matter.

Her agenda is about nothing more than protecting her own religious convictions, which she does very little to hide, and she should stop pretending like it's about anything else, because it's NOT.

Mutilating the genitals of a healthy child is NOT "natural." It is a forced, artificial phenomenon; a glaringly obvious anti-thesis to what natural birth is supposed to be about.

The only reason a child should ever have to undergo surgery is because there is clear, genuine medical indication.

Circumcision seems to be the one exception to the rule, where doctors offer surgery to parents, appealing to their personal religious convictions and/or "cultural sensitivities," falling back on "evidence" of so-called "potential medical benefits" that couldn't convince a single respected medical organization to recommend infant circumcision.

The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents, and "birth workers," particularly those who say to ally themselves with natural childbirth organizations, have absolutely no business discussing "circumcision options" with parents to be.

Indeed, doctors have a duty to refuse to perform needless surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, and natural birth workers have a duty to advise parents against this unnatural practice. 

Reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud. In minors, it is clear abuse.

Just as natural birth workers would advise in favor of vaginal birth and against unnecessary c-section, just as they would advise in favor of breastfeeding and against exclusive formula feeding, just as they would advise in favor of delayed umbilical cord clamping and skin to skin contact, it only follows that they should advise against needless surgery in healthy infants. The discussion of "the benefits of male infant circumcision" has no place in the natural birth movement, and is as out-of-place as the discussion of "the benefits" caesarean birth, formula feeding, cry-it-out, or other non-natural birth practices.

Kenin is a self-proclaimed, self-serving Jewish circumcision advocate who is engaging in a desperate attempt to graft the decidedly unnatural practice male infant genital mutilation onto the natural birth movement. It is clear that she is attempting to clothe her own personal religious convictions with a feigned interest in better childbirth.

Unless she is ready to prostrate herself to be "culturally sensitive" to parents who wish to perform any other practice on their newborns, Kenin engages in special pleading.

"Anti-Semitism is creeping into into the natural childbirth movement," says Kenin, and "intactivists should have no place in our online or virtual forums, nor at our events." She says these things as if intactivists were targeting Jewish parents, and only Jewish parents to speak out against child genital mutilation. She says them like she and other Jewish advocates of circumcision are entitled to righteous indignation, when that position rightfully belongs to us intactivists.

Nay, it is actually the other way around; mutilation and child abuse advocates are creeping into the natural childbirth movement. It is they who should have no place in the natural birth discussion, and their presence at natural birth functions and conferences which ought to be questioned.