Joseph4GI

If You Can't Stand the Heat, STAY OFF THE NET

2012-03-06T11:56:00.005-08:00

You know what absolutely gets on my nerves? When some idiot parents find it gracious to post their child's circumcision on the web for the whole world to see. Some parents actually think it's "cute" or "funny" to post their son's circumcision "story" on a blog, or they actually have the nerve to record it and put it on YouTube of all places. It's the one time on the net where it's perfectly kosher to be pimping your child's dick online and not have it be called kiddy porn.

But you know what pisses me off even more? When said parents actually have the NERVE to tell people leaving comments to "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! WE'RE THE PARENTS, WE DECIDE. DON'T YOU DARE JUDGE ME."

Really?

You actually post your son's naked body, figuratively or literally online for the whole world to see, and then you're surprised to read that some people actually find your cute little "story" offensive and/or disgusting?

Seriously?

I've got news for you.

Once you post shit online, it's fair game.

People are going to give you a piece of your mind, whether you want it or not.

If you don't want to hear it from others, or be "judged" for the so-called "decisions" that you take, then at least have the decency to make posts about your PERSONAL, "PRIVATE" LIFE visible ONLY TO THOSE IN YOUR PERSONAL, PRIVATE CIRCLE.

Or better yet, keep your sick, disgusting "life" OFFLINE. NOBODY WANTS TO SEE YOUR SON'S GENITALS BEING MUTILATED, much less KNOW about them. They're not even YOUR privates, how in the HELL do you feel entitled to have them mutilated to suit YOUR tastes and preferences, much less POST THEM ON THE FUCKING INTERNET FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE???

UGH!!!

Such parents should get thrown in JAIL for pimping their children's PERSONAL PRIVATE PARTS ONLINE. This is tantamount to S&M KIDDY PORN.

I DO NOT WANT TO SEE, NOR KNOW ABOUT YOUR CHILD'S GENITAL MUTILATION.

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

The world is waking up to the fact that yes, like female infant circumcision, male infant circumcision IS TOO GENITAL MUTILATION.

If you don't want to hear it from others, if you do not want to hear other people's "opinions," then do the world a favor and DON'T POST ON THE INTERNET.

This fucking PISSES ME OFF.

If you don't want people talking about your unmentionables,

DON'T AIR THEM OUT IN PUBLIC.

So What Prompted this Rant?
So some Norine Dworkin-McDaniel woman dares to write on her blog, the "funny" story of how she convinced her push-over husband to go through with a circumcision for their son.

The story is actually quite tasteless. And what was the alibi that finally convinced Dworkin-McDaniel's husband to acquiescence to his son's genital flaying?

The prospect of future hypothetical women refusing to give the boy a blowjob.

Wow.

They thought about it, erm, long and hard.

Get it?

Hardy har har...

That was so funny I nearly died!

(Not...)

No but wait. It would have been nice if the story ended there. Oh, no, no, no.

Some OTHER idiot blogger had to give this story a "prize."

A "PRIZE???"

A prize for WHAT?

"Best excuse to mutilate a child's genitals?"

No. The words used to "award" this woman are "fearless and funny."

I'll say, "fearless?" In this world where male infant genital mutilation is losing favor in the civilized world fast?

You betcha.

"Funny?"

HARDLY.

There is nothing EVER funny about "choosing" to violate the most basic of human rights of a healthy, non-consenting individual.

You can read about the "winning" blog post, and the "prize" given here.

Mr. Dworkin-McDaniel Retaliates
It seems MISTER Dworkin-McDaniel was not happy with the negative response his wife's blog post earned, and so he felt the need to fire back at those who expressed disgust at his wife's "funny little story." He posted a long response on a pro-intact group on Facebook, and I'm going to tear it apart on this blog.

Writes Dworkin-McDaniel:
"Stewart Dworkin-McDaniel here, Norine’s “emasculated” husband, just wanting to weigh in on some of the less than charitable (and profoundly stupid, judgmental, and uninformed) comments regarding my wife’s brilliantly funny essay."

Well golly-geepers, gee-whiz! It appears we may have struck a nerve. By now he must know that not everybody found his wife's essay as "brilliantly funny" as he did.

As a central character in what was intended to be a light witty distillation of our discussions regarding our decision to have our son circumcised, I feel the need to respond to the vitriolic comments attacking my wife and me that stemmed from our mutual decision.

The road to hell is paved with good intent. "Light and witty" for WHOM? For WHOM was this blog post written? For others, or for yourselves? Sorry, not very many people agreed with you, did they.

Let's talk about the "big decision" trope.

What other parts of your child's body could you "decide" to remove at your whim?

The question that will always be asked on this blog is, without medical or clinical indication, how is it a doctor can even be performing surgery on a healthy, non-consenting child, much less be stoking a parent's sense of entitlement?

Usually, with any other surgery, there must be a medical necessity before a doctor can even consider performing it, let alone consult the parents for any kind of "decision."

So, what was wrong with your son?

"First, Norine and I are both staunch atheists so our decision was not in any way driven by religious duty or dogma."

This just means that you were looking for non-religious ex-posto-facto reasons to go through with a pre-determined "decision" to keep a controversial tradition.

"I actually find the concept of a traditional Jewish Bris to be in very poor taste. Throwing a party to celebrate an invasive medical procedure to cement some mythical pact with an old testament deity is not my idea of making an informed medically sound decision."

Translation: We wanted to circumcise our son, but we wanted to find smart-sounding "scientific" reasons to do it because using "religion" as an excuse is falling out of favor, as evidenced by other "traditions" that would never fly with the same excuse. (IE, female circumcision, slashing your child's head on the day of Ashura, ritual scarring, tattoos, etc...)

"Also, I find comments comparing male circumcision to clitioridectomy to be especially distasteful and profoundly uninformed."

You know what I find distasteful?

Attacking and destroying a straw man to make your argument look good.

Talk about profoundly uninformed; did you know that not all female genital cutting involves the removal of the clitoris? Did you know that a couple of years ago the AAP briefly approved of a so-called "ritual nick" before they were forced to back-pedal by human rights groups?

You know what I find to be "distasteful?"

Comparing the lesser of two evils.

You can't get away with rape "because murder is worse." You can't get away with shop lifting because "Hey! You could be robbing a bank."

Cutting off part of a child's genitals with no medical or clinical indication is wrong, male or female.

"Female circumcision is a detestable, horrific act performed in misogynistic cultures to control women, deprive them of pleasure, and make them servile. It should be prosecuted at every opportunity in a civilized world. Male circumcision on the other hand, has been shown to have real benefits for the recipient in a non-religious context, both medically and psychologically and is in no way comparable to the disgusting violation of the female genitalia (which is without exception, performed on “religious grounds”)."

But WE'RE the "uninformed" ones.

Here, let me enlighten you Mr. Dworkin-McDaniel. Female circumcision is performed on women BY women, because it is believed to make them more "pure," more "hygienic" and more desirable in the eyes of a male suitor. Does that sound familiar, Mr. "I want my son to get blowjobs?"

Women performing "sunat" operations on girls.

Did you know that, according to Rabbi Maimonides, to deprive men of pleasure and make them "servile" to "g-d" was supposed to be the whole point of male circumcision?

"...one of the reasons for it is... the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible."
~Rabbi Maimonides

You are "just fine" and your organs work to your satisfaction. But you know, millions of circumcised women will testify as you do; they are just as sexually satisfied as you are, thank you very much. You would be interested to know that, contrary to popular belief, female circumcision is not always as "damaging" as you would like to lead others on to believe.

Did you know that contrary to popular belief, no, circumcision DOESN'T destroy a woman's ability to orgasm? Studies show that even when a woman has undergone the worst kind of female genital mutilation (there are many types, did you know that?), that women are still quite able to orgasm? You can read them for yourself here, here, and here.

Closer inspection reveals that nobody actually cares about whether or not female circumcision reduces sexuality or not; what's more important is that male infant circumcision is justified.

But let's continue on a bit with the so-called "benefits."

Neither you nor your wife were interested in these. If I am to believe your wife's blog, this was about whether or not your son would get "blow jobs" as an adult. The "benefits" seem to be secondary.

This point needs to be made clear; neither you nor your wife ever cared about "benefits." Nobody ever does. Those are ex-posto-facto alibis that come AFTER the fact.

Or let me ask, would you have changed your mind had you not found enough "benefits?"

Tell me, is there any number of "benefits" that would make you change your mind and consider female circumcision for your daughters? Some research shows that female circumcision might actually prevent HIV transmission. Read about this here, here, and here.

What if it guaranteed her getting eaten out as a woman? Would that change your mind?

No. It wouldn't.

The point is, "research" and "science" don't actually matter.

Your "decision" to go ahead with your son's genital mutilation runs deeper than that, and you know it.

"But I digress; back to my son’s foreskin. I am a scientist. A degreed biologist and chemist (with a minor in philosophy by the way)."

You know who was also a scientist?

Joseph Mengele.

"Therefore when I look at an argument; as a scientist, I apply the rigorous, critical weighing of evidence and data that the scientific method demands and I do not deviate from those axioms and precepts. Philosophically, the arguments range far and wide from Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism with respect to human suffering to Norine’s comment about the blowjob which was (and most importantly, was supposed to be) a humorous way to drive the point home to me that the foreskin can be an intimidating (and by some accounts) a distasteful distraction to fellatio (ever heard of smegma????)"

Like the so-called "benefits" of circumcision, you do not care about the "science" either, for if you did, you would find that it is all rather flimsy.

Did you know that no medical organization in the world recommends the circumcision of infants? I challenge you to go through the position statements of all the major medical organizations in the industrialized world. They will all tell you that all the "scientific evidence" is dubious and speculative at best, and that there is not enough of it to recommend circumcision. One has to wonder how ever did you come to a different conclusion than the most respected medical organizations in the world.

Yes, we've heard of smegma. Tell us, how much of it collects around Ms. Dworkin-McDaniel's vulva?

Oh, she cleans well enough?

Did it ever occur to you that the rest of the men in the world also have the good sense to keep their organs clean?

Do you dare posit that men outside of the United States have a hard time getting a blow job from their partners?

I'm sorry, but as I will keep repeating, your wife's post was anything but "humorous."

"If Norine’s detractors really think that I consented to the procedure solely on the basis of my son having better, future (a long way in the future I trust!!) sexual experiences, then I marvel at their stupidity and narrow-mindedness. My decision to acquiesce was based on the enumerable studies Norine presented to me regarding the benefits of circumcision that have nothing to do with Yahweh but are based on good solid science."

Then she should have written that.

Not humorous, AND out-of-touch.

THIS got a "prize?"

No, you and your wife's decision had absolutely NOTHING to do with "science," as I am about to point out.

"Lower incidence of certain cancers, lower incidence of genital and urinary infections, and decreased chances of contracting or spreading STD’s including AIDS."

If you were a true "scientist," you would find that all of the "evidence" is rather lacking. You would find that when you compare cancer rates between countries that do and do not circumcise, there is no difference; circumcised men can and do succumb to penile cancer. You would find that the "reduction" that circumcision is supposed to offer is actually quite exaggerated.

You would find that the incidence of UTIs in males is already quite rare; UTIs are more prevalent in females, and are easily treatable with anti-biotics, in boys as they are in girls. The "difference," if any, between UTIs is actually infinitesimally minute, and that circumcision may actually INCREASE them. You would find that a lot of the "research" has been discarded as hopelessly flawed. You would find that the STD's that circumcision are supposed to prevent, including HIV, are more prevalent in the US, where 80% of males are already circumcised from birth, than in other countries in Europe, and the rest of the world, where circumcision is rare.

You would find that, the "research" in Africa is hopelessly flawed. You would find that even if the "research" and the "science" were correct, circumcision would still fail. It would be so ineffective at preventing anything that "experts" that "recommend" circumcision cannot stress the use of condoms. Did you know that condoms don't require a penis be circumcised to function properly?

But this isn't about "science," or "research," now is it.

No. This is about fulfilling cultural expectations, while sounding intelligent at the same time.

Think about this:

Is there any number of "scientific studies?" Any amount of "research" that would EVER cause you to change your mind about female circumcision?

What if the "science" was "solid" and it was proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that female circumcision could "reduce the risk" of some STD that your daughter will most likely not even be at risk for?

The answer is no, you wouldn't.

You and your wife's "decision" to circumcise your son was pre-determined, and this "blog essay" was supposed to be your self-serving justification.

Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

"I’d love to know how many negative comments came from people who have had tummy tucks, face lifts, liposuction, cosmetic dentistry, or other medical procedures that were strictly vanity motivated. In my mind, that’s self-inflicted mutilation with no regard for weighing medical evidence as to the safety or necessity of the procedure. In short, don’t lecture us about our family medical decisions while you admire your silicon breasts in the bathroom mirror."

A straw-man demolition, and non-sequitur arguments.

The assumption is that there were indeed dissenters in Dworkins-McDaniel's readership who had cosmetic surgery such as tummy tucks, face lifts, liposuction etc. Problem is, his argument fails even if his assumption were correct.

Mr. Dworkins-McDaniel conflates elective surgery that adults may choose for themselves, and infant circumcision, which is being imposed by parents and a doctor on a healthy, non-consenting child. If there is no medical indication for surgery, then there is no "family medical decision" to make.

The problem isn't adults choosing cosmetic surgery; the problem is adults imposing cosmetic surgery on a healthy, non-consenting child.

As long as otherwise intelligent people are forcing cosmetic surgery on their children for their own sexual justifications, and as long as they're posting their stories on the NET WHERE EVERYONE CAN SEE, yes we WILL lecture you.

So listen to what we have to say, or stop posting your "family decisions" online.

Thanks.

"There are also psychological implications with respect to an un-circumcised child being ridiculed, ostracized, or worse by their peers but those issues need not concern us here since the mental health and welfare of the child doesn’t seem to factor into any of the more negative comments posted."

Scraping the bottom of the barrel I see.

And what are you teaching your child by mutilating him so that he is not "ridiculed" or "ostracised" by his hypothetical peers?

"It is more important that you fit in and give in to societal pressures than to be yourself, and have others accept you for who you are, as you are."

So are you going to send him to straight school if he turns out to be gay?

Are you going to give him a rhinoplasty if his nose gets too big? Are you going to trim his ears if they start getting too wide? Are you going to bleach his skin if it starts getting too dark? Where does it stop?

Conformity may actually, quite possibly be the WORST reason to perform circumcision on a child.

"Finally, the referencing of websites and studies that bolster your position is absurd, touting them as if they are gospel truth. I can find many expert and scholarly opinions in the opposing camp. It is a hollow position akin to “whoever yells the loudest is right” and it carries no weight with me."

You were supposed to RESEARCH the material given to you, and confirm the SOURCES. Don't tell me you actually just READ what is written on webpages, and believe the bits and pieces that suit you at face value??? You would have found that there is actually very little evidence to support your "decision." Yeah, some "scientist" YOU are...

"I can find websites that profess that the world is flat, JFK was murdered by the phone company, and we never landed men on the moon (Neil Armstrong was cut by the way)."

More straw-men demolition. Unlike these websites, our sources can actually be confirmed. There is no "controversy," even among the scientific elite. With a little research you would find that 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. World medical authorities that agree include the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the British Medical Association, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association.

It ought to baffle readers how a "man of science" like you could have ever arrived at the conclusion you have.

"The bottom line (voiced by the more enlightened and informed respondents on the comment board whether they agree with us or not), is that we made a personal, private decision based on sound medical evidence and ultimately, and that decision was NOBODY’S BUSINESS BUT OURS (and apparently better than half of the US populous currently shares our opinion/decision).

Ah yes, strength in numbers.

Unfortunately for you, it is quite possible for large populations to be wrong. Take female circumcision, for example.

No, the bottom line is, if it's a "personal, private decision," and it's "nobody else's business but ours" you should have NOT POSTED IT ON THE NET.

Once it's on the NET, then it stops being "personal and private."

Do you get it?

"Perhaps in the future there will be a definitive verdict on the circumcision decision but that day is not today."

Or so you would like to believe.

I encourage you to read the position statements of the best medical authorities in the world. They all state that there isn't enough evidence to endorse infant circumcision. It should strike you as odd that parents are expected to make a "decision" based on evidence that major medical organizations in the world could not use to come to a reasonable conclusion.

"I’m sure when I let my son read this many years from now, he will not only forgive us for getting him cut, (we have his foreskin in cryonic suspension in case he wants it back; oh, by the way, that’s funny) but he will be glad that his mother and I spent so much time weighing the decision based on the prevailing knowledge from the medical establishment available to us at the time."

"Here you are son... a part of your penis that you will never get to experience thanks to us."

Actually, no that's not very funny at all.

How do you know he won't be pissed as all fuck, not only that you mutilated him, but also that you publicized his mutilation online and felt the need to respond apprehensively to those who didn't think it was "funny?"

How do you know he won't feel anger and hatred towards you for using bullshit excuses to carry out a cultural ritual to permanently mutilate his organs for life?

How do you know he would have cared less about any "medical benefits" that are already easily achieved with less invasive means?

Just how do you know he's not going to grow up to hate your guts?

Let's hope he doesn't and, as you say, he grows up to "thank" you.

But be aware that that other possibility exists.

"As a footnote, what I find so sad and pathetic is that I needed to write this at all."

And yet, you chose to go ahead and write it...

"I find the negative comments directed at us (Norine) to be just as offensive and unenlightened as those who deem gay marriage or abortion to be wrong in black and white terms with no room or desire for discussion. IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH GAY MARRIAGE, DON’T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX, IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH ABORTION, DON’T HAVE ONE, IF YOU DON’T WANT TO GET YOUR SON CIRCUMSISED, THEN DON’T. Just don’t tell the rest of us we’re immoral and barbaric if we decide to do otherwise."

Again, false comparisons, and yet another straw man demolition.

Marriage is something that two consenting adults decide to do.

Abortion is a decision taken by a woman deciding to exercise her freedom of choice to do whatever she wants with her body.

(Actually, the abortion debate is a red-herring; neither side of the abortion debate can successfully argue in favor of child genital mutilation. If you are "pro-choice," then you must believe the maxim "my body, my choice" applies to BOTH sexes. And if you are "pro-life," then you must certainly advocate for a child's right to his own body, as you do his "right to life.")

Infant circumcision involves the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting minors.

It violates the most basic of human rights, that of the right to one's own body. For this reason male and female circumcision, though not always comparable, are exactly the same in principle.

"If you don't want to get your son circumcised, then don't" doesn't work if you change the word "son" with "daughter," does it.

No, as long as you or your wife, or anybody else is willing to post their pitiful self-justification stories online for the whole world to see, you had better be ready to hear it. If this is "nobody's business but yours," then keep it to yourselves and don't post it publicly on the net.

By the way, I am the satisfied owner of a well groomed (and well-attended) penis.

I'm not sure what purpose this last bit was supposed to serve. Self-reassurance for having a mutilated member maybe?

The True Purpose of That Blog Post
I'm not buying it. From your reply I can already tell that there was no actual convincing your wife actually had to do. The "decision" was already made. The true purpose of your wife's blog post was to fill a void in her psyche that would otherwise be filled with the joke-telling and whistling in the dark that happens at a bris. She may call herself "atheist," but as someone of Jewish heritage she felt the need to circumcise her son out of conviction. It must have freaked her out to think of raising an intact boy; she probably couldn't handle the daily visual reminder that she's renounced her connection with her Jewish heritage, and so she dug up every scientific sounding article she could that would support her view and make her "decision" sound "intelligent." She wanted to come off as being the "intelligent one," and you the more "sex-oriented male" type, which I find rather sexist and insulting, and can't see for the life of me why you let her write shit like that about you.

The true purpose of your wife's blog post was not so much to tell about how you guys arrived at your "decision," but more to tell about how the both of you mulled over something that was already decided. It was about providing comic relief for the both of you, and she was hoping her readers were just going to laugh along with you.

Well, she was wrong.

Her article was NOT "fearless and funny," but rather, utterly failed to conceal her fear and anxiety. It was a pitiful attempt to secure corroboration and approval. I'm sorry, but there is no virtue in mulling over doing something you KNOW is wrong.

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 normal, natural, healthy, FUNCTIONING tissue, with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of 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 individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

SHAME on "Two Kinds of People" for enabling Norine Dworkin-McDaniel. SHAME on "Two Kinds of People" for perpetuating the illusion of "the great circumcision decision." SHAME on them for awarding the trivialization of child male genital mutilation. SHAME on them for thinking this disgusting article was "funny and humorous."

"Genital mutilation is no joke."
~Christopher Hitchens

DISCLAIMER:
What I've expressed in this blog is my own individual opinion, and it does not necessarily reflect the view of all intactivists. ~Joseph4GI

AUSTRALIA: Brian Morris vs. Modern Medicine

2012-03-01T10:13:00.007-08:00

Could it be that ratings are low and Australian news outlets need a controversial story to spice them up? It seems, in these cases, an article promoting circumcision is obligatory, and it never seems to deviate from the usual format. It is usually always something along the lines of "experts say," the "experts" trotted out always being the same usual suspects.

The story always goes something like this: Brian Morris is presented as an "expert" presenting "the latest studies," usually ones written by none other than himself, which tout all the "benefits" of child circumcision. Nothing is ever mentioned about the function of the foreskin, nor the ethical implications of cutting it off in a healthy, non-consenting child. Horrifying statistics that simply fail to correlate with reality are always bandied about, and the audience is warned of the dangers that befall their children if they're not circumcised immediately. The article usually ends on a note of dire warning, indicting the Royal Australasian College of Physicians for not endorsing infant circumcision.

What news outlets usually fail to inform their audience is that Brian Morris is no expert on circumcision, but merely an enthusiastic circumcision fanatic of long standing. He neither holds degrees (nor genuine interests) in surgery, urology, pediatrics, nor epidemiology, and his field of study is only remotely related to medicine. He is in no way an authority on circumcision, much less male genitalia, child care, nor disease prevention. Is there any reason why Australian news outlets don't bother to consult someone who is?

In his latest appearance in the media (the same article with a different name is published again here), Brian Morris, more strongly than ever, indicts the RACP for not taking a stronger stance in favor of male infant circumcision, calling for the ban on non-therapeutic circumcision in public hospitals to be lifted, and for routine infant circumcision to be publicly funded by Medicaid. He does so citing his own "research" as usual, warning of the usual dire consequences that befalls Australians if they don't take their children in to be circumcised.

His latest "report," backed by other circumcision "experts," claims, of all things, that not being circumcised results in a higher risk for prostate cancer. Where on earth is he getting these "statistics" from? Is he not aware that, according to the American Cancer Society, 1 in 6 US men, 80% of whom are circumcised, will get prostate cancer?

He also mentions penile cancer, where the American Cancer Society says:

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.

The rest is the usual pro-circumcision fodder, UTIs, HIV, HPV etc. He, of course, fails to mention that, even if his information were correct (which it is rather questionable), there would be more effective, less invasive methods of treatment and prevention available. UTI is actually already quite rare in boys, for example, and easily treated with anti-biotics. Condoms would be more effective than circumcision in preventing HIV in BOTH partners, and there are already vaccines for HPV, which, by the way, is easier spread by circumcised, not intact men.

Quite simply, Morris' position is impertinent, and unfounded. The diseases he warns about aren't rampant in countries where circumcision is rare, such as the UK, Japan, Germany, Denmark, AUSTRALIA, etc. As a matter of fact, they're a huge problem in the US, where 80% of US men are already circumcised from birth. America actually has the highest rates of HIV transmission in the industrialized world. The so-called "benefits" of circumcision simply fail to manifest themselves here.

The fact of the matter is that 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. World medical authorities that agree include the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the British Medical Association, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association.

If the best medical authorities in the West have not endorsed infant circumcision, it is because they have reviewed all of the evidence and have found no good reason. Brian Morris is taking an impertinent and unfounded position against the whole of Western medicine. He tarnishes the reputation of the University of Sydney, and Australian news outlets ought to be ashamed for presenting him as any sort of "expert" on the subject.

SLOVENIA: Catholic Church Defies the Whole of Western Medicine, the Law, Itself

2012-02-18T09:28:00.000-08:00

Earlier this month, the Human Rights Ombudsman in Slovenia published his opinion that circumcision for non-medical reasons was a violation of children's rights. He based it purely on preexisting laws and maxims of medicine, but speaking ill of the non-medical circumcision of children has outraged Jews and Muslims in Slovenia.

The following is an excerpt translated from the original article linked above:
A complainant asked the Ombudsman to assess whether circumcision of boys is interference with the rights of the child, especially if it is done only for religious reasons and not justified on health grounds. The complainant considered that such interference by the Slovenian doctors is harmful, but he did not know all the negative consequences (prejudice, subconscious trauma, impotence, infection, etc..).

Before preparing the opinion, available scientific literature on the issues was examined, particularly the article by Damian Korošec, published in the magazine Lawyer, Volume 50 (1995) entitled [Circumcision - pointless] banality of surgery. Inquiries were sent to the College of Experts on General Surgery, the National Medical Ethics Commission of the Slovenian Republic and the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia.

... The expanded expert committee for surgery ... concluded that the circumcision of boys for non-medical reasons is not medically justified. Indications for professional intervention are listed in the professional urological literature.

The Office of the Commission for Medical Ethics has given a long answer, which is summarized in its opinion of principle: "ritual circumcision of boys for religious reasons in our country, for legal and ethical reasons is unacceptable, and doctors should not perform it." In addition to the unacceptability of circumcision from an ethical point of view, the Commission also points out that it is unacceptable to falsify medical documentation by recording a ritual circumcision as medically indicated.

The Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia was asked for information concerning payment for circumcision (annual number of interventions, the price of services) and how the issue of payment is arranged, if medical intervention is not indicated, but is carried out only at the request of the individual or his legal representatives. The Institute replied that they have no information on the annual number of interventions; the delivery price that society pays health care providers is €34.88.

When intervention is not medically indicated, service is not covered by the compulsory health insurance, the patient or his agents must pay for the intervention.

...We decided to examine the situation with regard to some important issues of human rights and especially children's rights. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges States Parties to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury and abuse, while in the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person who care for him (article 19 CRC).

The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia in the 56th Article grants the child special protection and care under the 35th Article as everyone is guaranteed the inviolability of physical and mental integrity. These provisions clearly show that any intervention in the physical integrity of children is limited and justifiable only for medical reasons. If there is a medical indication, which is to protect the health of the child, circumcision may be performed; such intervention is a legitimate and legal, and the permission of a parent who has responsibility for the child's development is required or allowed. (Reader: Note this is usually the way it works for ANY OTHER medically indicated surgery, not just circumcision.) If for any reason parents would not allow an indicated medical intervention, the competent authorities may determine possible dereliction of duty in caring for the child and take the necessary measures provided by law.

However, if medical circumcision of the child is not indicated, but is only a result of his parents' beliefs (religious or otherwise), such intervention has no legal basis. This is so whether or not the child is explicitly opposed to the intervention. Interference with the physical integrity of a child solely because of the desire of his legal representatives or guardians, therefore, constitutes an inadmissible interference in his body and is in our opinion the evidence of criminal behavior.

The Patients Rights Act (Official Gazette. 15/08) in section 26 stipulates that a patient who is capable of making prior free and informed consent is not permitted to undergo medical procedure or medical care, without such consent except in cases provided by law. For children, the Patients' Rights Act provides that, generally over 15 is the ability to consent, unless the physician, according to their maturity assesses that it is not able. A child before the age of 15 but under the law generally is not able to consent, with the doctor in these cases, estimated to be in this position. The Act specifically provides that a child's opinion regarding the treatment takes into account the extent possible, if it is able to express an opinion and if he understands the significance and consequences.

The Constitution recognizes the right of parents, in accordance with their beliefs, to provide their children with religious and moral education. ... Guidance on religious education, in our opinion does not include the right of parents due to mere religious belief to choose to intervene in the child's body. We therefore believe that circumcision, for reasons other than medical, is not permitted and constitutes unlawful interference with the child's body and thus violates his rights.

... Parents are primarily responsible for the development of children's health, but also they must in all cases take into account the child's interest as a guide in decision making. Also, in deciding their rights they are limited by the rights of others, in this case, therefore, their children, ... The right to religious freedom does not justify interference with the right to physical integrity of another, so we believe that circumcision for non-medical reasons, may only be [with] the child's consent, subject to the conditions provided for by law on patients' rights, therefore, usually after 15 years of age.

The Whole of Western Medicine Agrees
The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board recommends the circumcision of 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.

"The British Medical Association has a longstanding recommendation that circumcision should be performed only for medical reasons... Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns".
~AMA Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs

"...benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised."
~American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

"...the association between having a sexually transmitted disease (STD) - excluding human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and being circumcised are inconclusive... most of the studies [of the effect of circumcision on HIV] ...have been conducted in developing countries, particularly those in Africa. Because of the challenges with maintaining good hygiene and access to condoms, these results are probably not generalizable to the U.S. population".
~AAFP "Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision"

"Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."
~College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

"[We] do not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."
~The Canadian Paediatric Society

"The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it."
~The British Medical Association

"...the level of protection offered by circumcision and complication rate of circumcision do not warrant a recommendation of universal circumcision for newborn and infant males in an Australian and New Zealand context."
~The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP)

"The official viewpoint of KNMG (The Royal Dutch Medical Association) and other related medical/scientific organizations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."
~The Royal Dutch Medical Association

The Catholic Church Intervenes

The Human Rights Ombudsman in Slovania would have local, international law, and standard medical practice on his side, much to the chagrin of Jews and Muslims who have expressed outrage against him.

And yet, despite the clarity of the law, local and international, despite the consonance of Western medicine regarding the issue, the Catholic Church has impertinently decided to intervene on behalf of the Jewish and Muslim communities who see the circumcision of children as their "religious right."

According to the Slovenian Times:

[The Justice and Peace Commission of Slovenian Bishops] stressed today that the Ombudsman's statement, which had already been rejected by the Jewish and Muslim communities last week, was in violation of both Slovenian legislation and human rights, considering it a public call for disrespecting identities of at least two Slovenian religious communities.

The president of the commission, Maribor Archbishop Marjan Turnšek, moreover said in the press release that this was not in line with the Constitution and the religious freedoms act, as well as "a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms".

Odd... I'm pretty sure he made quite sure his statement was in line concerning Slovenian legislation and human rights (see above).

Turnšek claimed that the Ombudsman did not prove that circumcision would harm the children's health, and that it was not justified that religious circumcision had elements of a criminal act.

The opinion "limits religious freedom and the right to religious education of children" of Muslim and Jewish parents, according to him.

And here, it looks as if the Catholic Church is now acting as some sort of medical authority. This wouldn't be the first time the Catholic Church made a medical value judgement; in the past, the Pope condemned the use of condoms as a means to stop HIV transmission.

The circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors defies the standard of care for therapeutic surgery, which requires that the medical benefits of the surgery far outweigh the medical risks and harms, or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality. Standard medicine dictates that unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. The most basic maxims of medicine tell us that it is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive.

Continues the article:
Turnšek added that the Ombudsman acted in violation of the religious freedoms act because it did not consult religious communities and churches before releasing its opinion.

Oh? Is it some sort of requirement that churches and synagogues must be consulted before the ombudsman can issue a statement on the medical validity of a surgical procedure? Since when?

The article concludes:
The commission also said that circumcision for religious reasons was not forbidden in virtually any developed and secular country.

It called on all relevant state bodies to reject the biased opinion, which had been published by the Ombudsman at the beginning of the month.

And why, precisely, should medical bodies ever listen to religious institutions regarding the validity of a surgical procedure is beyond me...

Self-Contradiction

As if defying local and international law, and further still taking an unfounded position against the best medical authorities in the West weren't enough, Maribor Archbishop Marjan Turnšek seems to be oblivious to his own faith:

"… Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."
~The Catholic Catechism (Item 2297: Respect for bodily integrity)

"…the amputation of any part of the human body is never legal, except when the entire body cannot be saved from destruction by any other method."
~Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58)

"From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way."
~Pope Pius XII

More an what the Catholic Church has to say on circumcision here.

So WHY Did the Catholic Church Do This?
It is quite clear that this was nothing more than a PR tactic to pay lip service to the Jews and Muslims who have expressed outrage, and it has absolutely nothing to do with peace and justice.

So how far does the Catholic Church advocate "religious freedom?"

It is a Muslim religious custom in some countries, to slash their children's heads on the day of Ashura.

What if Muslims started practicing this in Slovenia? And what if Slovenian authorities condemned it? Would the Catholic Church intervene then?

It some countries, female circumcision is seen as a religious requirement for Islam.

Does the Catholic Church defend "religious freedom" here too?

How far does the Catholic Church defend "religious freedom?"

How far must medical organizations keep quiet about "religious customs?"

Or is this limited to male circumcision?

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 normal, natural, healthy, FUNCTIONING tissue, with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of 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.

The Ombudsman is to be commended for standing up for what is right, according to local and international law, and according to the most basic maxims of medicine, in the face of religious fanatics.

The Justice and Peace Commission ought to be ashamed of itself for sacrificing the most basic of human rights on the altar of political gain.

COLORADO: Senator Aguilar Circumvents Circumcision Debate

2012-02-10T10:19:00.000-08:00

In my last post, I wrote about the proposed bill in Colorado to reinstate Medicaid coverage for routine infant circumcision. Last year, Colorado became the 18th state to drop Medicaid coverage for the medically unnecessary procedure, and Senator Joyce Foster, backed by Senator Irene Aguilar and several others, have introduced Senate Bill 90 to reverse this.

A hearing was held by the Colorado Senate Health and Human Services Committee on the second of this month. A very spirited debate ensued, and the fact that the arguments were clearly on the side of the intactivists present should have killed the bill then and there. The bill managed to pass by a 6-3 vote, however, and intactivists have been trying to contact all who were involved since.

Senator Aguilar Evades Debate

Intactivists had been trying to contact Senator Foster, Senator Aguilar, as well as others regarding their support of this bill long before it went before the Senate Health and Human Services Committee on the second. The senators, along with other backers, waited until hours just before the hearing to send out an automated form response to Colorado intactivists, giving them very little time to prepare for a response at the hearing. Replies from Senator Aguilar, as well as others, can be found in my previous blog post.

The replies didn't touch upon a single question asked by concerned intactivists, and instead were scripted form letters touting the so-called "benefits" of circumcision, and toeing the pro-circumcision party line.

After the hearing, Colorado intactivists began to try and contact the Senators and others once again to ask what happened, and to repeat the questions posed to them, which they have yet to answer. Intactivists in and outside Colorado are currently engaged in a letter-writing campaign, and they are attempting to contact all involved in any which way they can.

Senator Aguilar happens to have a Facebook page, where intactivists have tried contacting her, posting the same questions to her, but they've been met with the same unwillingness to engage.

Initially, she seemed welcome to the idea, and even posted a reply, which was more or less a repetition of the reply she sent out just before the hearing, never deviating from the script. (The reply can be found on my previous post.)

Ultimately, however, Senator Aguilar has taken it upon herself to start silencing the people questioning her, and deleting questions and statements that defy her position from her Facebook page. Additionally, she has actually started blocking a number of us, again, ignoring every question we have asked her.

Senator Aguilar's Director of Communications Steps In
In response to our attempts to contact Senator Aguilar through her Facebook page, her Director of Communications, Owen Perkins has stepped in as her spokesman, and, perhaps to be funny, posted the following remark:

Hello.

This is Owen Perkins, Director of Communications for Senator Aguilar, with a quick clarification about this page and our policy regarding posting on it.

The page was never meant to be a forum, but rather a source for news and information about Senator Aguilar’s events, her activities at the Capitol and in the community, and topics of interest to her constituents.

The recent discussion about SB12-090 was informative and helpful in sharing perspectives with those visiting this page. The numerous posts did, however, obscure the information the page exists to promote. As a result, we had to turn off the public posting functionality, while keeping the ability to comment available to visitors.

In turning off the posting option, all posts not originating from our office were automatically removed by Facebook. This included all posts supporting, opposing, and inquiring about the topic of SB12-090, as well as all posts--positive, negative, and otherwise--about any topic.

Additionally, some comments supporting and opposing SB12-090 were removed for inappropriate language and tone. We entertained a vast array of opinions on the page, many of which tread a fine line in terms of maintaining decent discourse, but we only removed those that crossed the line into personal and inappropriate attacks beyond the scope of a civil debate.

So here’s the policy: Keep your comments respectful and civil, keep your comments on the topic of the post you are commenting under, and don’t “spam” or “flood” the page with repetitions of the same comment. We will remove comments that don’t adhere to those guidelines, and you will likely lose your access to the page for disregarding this policy.

We appreciate the passion, commitment, and curiosity of those that visit this page, and Senator Aguilar is grateful for your input. Thank you for understanding that with our limited resources, we are not able to constantly monitor a spirited forum and must, therefore, keep the page limited to its original intent of sharing information, updates, and alerts concerning Senator Aguilar, her constituents in Senate District 32, and Coloradans affected by the work of the State Legislature.

Please contact Senator Aguilar’s office directly for any issue you think she can help with or to share your input as a concerned constituent and Coloradan.

Thanks, and take care.

Owen Perkins, Director of Communications
Office of Senator Irene Aguilar, MD

All I've got to say to that is, what complete and utter hogwash from Owen Perkins. Senator Aguilar's Director for Communications is trying to redefine what has happened, and it is pathetic to say the least.

Could Owen Perkins please explain why all comments with well-reasoned questions about the so-called "benefits" of non-therapeutic surgery in healthy infants and the rights of children were removed, while comments supporting Senator Aguilar's position on Senate Bill 90 were left up?

Why is any post that questions the legitimacy of taxpayers having to pay for non-medical surgery on a healthy, non-consenting infant, and that supports a child's human right to body integrity, deemed "inappropriate?"

On top of removing comments that jeopardize Senator Aguilar's position, why are Facebook users who were being civil, polite and factual being BLOCKED?

Judging from her attitude, and judging from how automated and scripted her responses are, and now, judging by the fact that she has asked her communications director to step in, it sounds like Senator Aguilar is not so interested in any facts or any real discourse, but is dead set on supporting this bill for unseen motives.

More than they could chew...
Given the facts, it looks like Joyce Foster, Irene Aguilar etc. didn't know what they were getting themselves into. They're ready to trot out all the "medical benefits" and scripted responses, but when faced with difficult questions and the truth, they are so utterly discombobulated they have to delete comments, block people and call in their speech writers.

These people are obviously not ready for this issue. They truly think that we're just a "fringe group," but when the comments and questions start hitting home, and they aren't equipped to discuss it fairly, they shut down. It shows you what a pathetically weak case they have.

WHY did this measure even pass 6-3?

There have got to be financial supporters to please, or personal agendas to fulfill.

Who is Senator Aguilar Representing?
A fellow intactivist in Colorado has made the following observation:

Senator Aguilar, doesn't even seem to be representing the vast majority of her constituency, and ought to be targeted and voted out of office.

This is district 32.

The Fort Logan area has some very poor areas; a lot of immigrants live in that pocket. Ironically, the State Mental Hospital happens to be in her district; a hospital that has had its capacity reduced because of Medicaid cuts! The other areas in her district include Washington Park and Cherry Creek; these house the wealthiest people in the state! Only Greenwood Village has a higher per capita income! She hardly has a large population of voters who need, nor want, government funded circumcisions. Her district dog legs into areas where most Denver City employees reside. There is simply no way that her district's demographic has an interest in Medicaid covered circumcision!

In closing...

Truth suppressed, whether by crooks or courts, will find an avenue to be told.
~Sheila Steele (1943-2006)

You can delete comments and block users on Facebook, Senator Aguilar, but you cannot stop people from speaking the truth.

COLORADO: Conflicts of Interest Plague Medicaid Circumcision Coverage Bill

2012-02-07T14:13:00.000-08:00

On February 2nd this year, the Colorado Senate Health and Human Services Committee held a hearing for Senate Bill 90. Last year, Colorado became the 18th state to drop Medicaid coverage for routine infant circumcision, and the bill, introduced by Senator Joyce Foster, aims to restore the coverage, which is estimated at $186,500 annually.

Seeing the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants as a violation of basic human rights, and a waste of taxpayer dollars, intactivists had been watching the introduction of this bill closely. Colorado intactivists were alerted to contact members of the Committee to tell them why this bill was a bad idea. They got responses from three senators just a few hours just before the hearing, saying why they were in support of the bill, giving Colorado intactivists little time to prepare for the hearing in advance.

Even given the short amount of time given to prepare, however, Colorado intactivists attended the hearing and gave those in support of the bill a run for their money.

Joyce Foster defended her bill from the platforms of "disease prevention," "fairness," "social justice" and "parental choice." She and a number of other speakers read off a litany of "medical benefits," above all, stressing the HIV "research" in Africa, and likening circumcision to a vaccine.

Intactivists fired back, calling out all the misinformation being presented, effectively destroying the opposing side's arguments of the "medical necessity" of the circumcision of infants.

Mark Filbert challenged the assertion that public funding for circumcisions was a matter of "social justice."

“Nobody has said anything about the choice of the person on whom this is done,” he said. “I very much resent that this decision was made for me. … I don’t think state money should be used to potentially violate the individual human rights of men.”

Intactivists had conclusively made their case, putting Senator Joyce Foster in her place.

Even so, the bill passed 6-3.

Senators Ellen Roberts, Jean White, and Kevin Lundberg voted against restoring the funding, while Senators Jeanne Nicholson, Betty Boyd, Linda Newell, Shawn Mitchell, Irene Aguilar; and Joyce Foster voted for the bill.

The arguments on our side were clearly argued, which is why many intactivists are bewildered as to why the bill managed to pass. Given the responses Colorado Intactivists got from the senators, we sense the they may have been bought out, the votes were already cast in advance, and this was all just political theatre.

Automated and Scripted
In response to their e-mails and letters, Colorado intactivists got back form letters from their senators. They were automated and scripted, and the senators didn't even attempt to answer questions posed to them; they were just form responses touting the "benefits" of circumcision, and touting the pro-circumcision party line.

From: Senator Irene Aguliar

Colorado intactivists got the following form letter from Senator Irene Aguilar:

Thank you for your thoughtful letter.

I want to take a moment to explain to you why I support SB 90.

First, I see this as a social justice issue. I think the decision a parent or parent(s) make about circumcision is very personal. I do not want cost to be part of that decision for families on Medicaid. You may not know this, but 75 to 80% of American men are circumcised. Most families choose to have the newborn son circumcised if their father is circumcised. I would like families on Medicaid to have this choice.

Secondly, I think there is circumstantial evidence that there may be a medical benefit to circumcision in high risk populations. The World Health Organization has strongly endorsed circumcision in Africa as it has decreased the incidence of HIV, AIDS, and STDs. Circumcision is also linked to lower rates of HPV and cervical cancer in female partners. While this data is not corroborated in the United States as a whole, there is evidence that HIV/AIDS and STDs are more prevalent in low income populations.

The overall costs to the state are under $200,000. I would never endorse or suggest mandatory circumcision but do want all families in Colorado to make this very personal choice without regard to cost.

Thanks again for writing and for your engagement in the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Irene Aguilar, MD
State Senator, District 32
www.aguilarfor32.com

In her first paragraph, Senator Aguilar seems to come to the conclusion that, since 75% to 80% of US men are all circumcised, and that since "most families choose to have the newborn son circumcised if their father is circumcised," that it automatically means that that many babies are getting circumcised. She seems to be unaware that, according to the latest CDC report, the rate of infant circumcision has dropped down to 56%. She also seems to be unaware of what Medicaid is supposed to be used for; absolute medical necessities. It brings up the question that I always ask on this blog:

Without medical or clinical necessity, how is it doctors can even be performing surgery on a healthy child, let alone give parents any kind of a "choice?"

So some parents view circumcision as a "choice" they're entitled to. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for elective surgery when there is no pressing medical need?

The second paragraph was to be expected, and it didn't surprise intactivists at all. Touting baseless claims, there was no attempt to answer questions posed to Aguilar by intactivists at all, which suggests that Aguilar isn't really interested in any "facts," as she is in justifying her predetermined decision to support this bill.

Yes, some (horrendously flawed) "evidence" indicates that there MIGHT be "medical benefits" (which?) in high-risks populations (of which newborns are?). The WHO has strongly endorsed circumcision in AFRICA, for men who engage in high-risk activities like multiple partnerships and unprotected sex, however, the WHO says nothing about infants elsewhere.

Regarding HPV, Aguilar is engaging in selection and preference; while some "studies" link circumcision to lower rates of HPV, others say that there is little to no difference, while still others link it to HIGHER transmission rates. Aguilar is touting HPV as a "potential medical benefit" of circumcision, based on inconclusive evidence.

But furthermore, she seems to imply that low income populations are dirty and disease-prone, and would somehow be too stupid to comprehend the use of condoms, which would be cheaper, and more effectively prevent any STD that she names.

She doesn't seem to care that the foreskin is a healthy, normal, functioning part of the body, or that there might be cheaper, more effective, less invasive ways to prevent disease. She doesn't seem to care that there are inherent risks to the procedure, which include infection, partial or full ablation, and even death. She doesn't seem to be aware that there has been a rise in circumcision botches and calls for their repair. She doesn't seem to care that circumcision is a human rights issue.

Senator Irene Aguilar on Facebook
For a while, Senator Irene Aguilar was gracious enough to let intactivists comment regarding Senate Bill 90 on her Facebook page. She posted the following, more or less sticking to her lines:

Dear Commentators on SB-90,

I respect the work that you, and people who share your passion, are doing to educate parents about the benefits of leaving a male infant uncircumcised. I also respect the right of those whose religion dictates this procedure to pursue it. And I respect the doctors' opinions on the potential medical benefits of the procedure. Most importantly, I defer to parents ...to make the decision that is most in line with their own personal values. I do not want their decisions to be based on poverty.

For me, Senate Bill 90 is not about whether infant males should or should not be circumcised. That is a personal decision. SB 90 is about giving parents who live in poverty the same choices that others have. And it was about the country-wide effort to undermine Medicaid by trying to cut benefits in any way possible. That is why it is such a social justice issue to me.

I would encourage you to continue your advocacy and education efforts with parents. I did learn a lot from the testimony I heard.

I hope you can respect my position, as I respect yours.

To quote MLK: Cowardice asks the question 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.

Clearly our opinions on what is right differ. I recognize that my opinion may not be safe or politic or popular with some of you. However, my conscience tells me it is right and I will not be bullied or harassed into going against my conscience.

Thank you for sharing your opinions.

Sincerely,

Senator Irene Aguilar

It seems strange that she brings up religious obligation to circumcision, when what is being discussed is a bill to restore Medicaid coverage to the secular, non-religious practice of circumcision at hospitals.

And once again, she seems to forget, or possibly be completely oblivious to the fact that Medicaid is supposed to pay for medically necessary procedures. Instead, her bigger concern is that poor people won't be able to keep up with the Joneses because they can't afford an elective, non-medical procedure all the rich parents are putting their kids through. Instead of based on social status, shouldn't parents be making their medical decisions based on MEDICAL NECESSITY??? Senator Aguilar has a very strange definition of the words "social justice."

She claims to have "learned a lot" from peoples' testimony on the 2nd, but apparently not...

I can't see why, but she feels the need to quote Martin Luther King Jr:

Cowardice asks the question 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.

And Medicaid (not to mention medical ethics) asks the question "is it medically necessary?"

The question never was about whether or not it was "right," or what her conscience thinks.

The question is, is circumcision an absolute medical necessity in healthy children, and should taxpayers have to pay for it?

It appears Senator Aguilar has taken it upon herself to start silencing the people questioning her, and deleting questions and statements that defy her position from her Facebook page.

Judging from her attitude, and judging from how automated and scripted her responses are, it sounds like Senator Aguilar is not so interested in any facts, but is dead set on supporting this bill for unseen motives.

From Senator Joyce Foster:

Joyce Foster also replied to intactivists with a form letter just before the hearing, in more or less the same fashion as Senator Aguilar:

Thank you for sharing your concerns with me regarding Senate Bill 90. After reviewing the overwhelming scientific data validating that male circumcision reduces instances of HIV, AIDS, HPV, urinary tract infections, penile cancer and other infectious diseases I remain steadfast with my support to restore Medicaid funding for this important preventative health care procedure.

A 2009 UCLA AIDS Institute study reports that “Hospitals in states where Medicaid does not pay for routine male circumcision are only about half as likely to perform the procedure, and this disparity could lead to an increased risk of HIV infection among lower-income children later in life”. Senate Bill 90 helps level the playing field for these children, providing them the same protection from contracting HIV as children with non-Medicaid health plans. Organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are working toward the same goal abroad, giving to the Global Fund for AIDS prevention. The Foundation cites studies that say male circumcision reduces HIV transmission by up to 70% in non-industrialized countries.

In addition, the Journal of the International Aids Society recently reported that “The scientific evidence accumulated over more than 20 years shows that among the strategies advocated during this period for HIV prevention, male circumcision is one of, if not, the most efficacious, epidemiological as well as cost-wise”. Until last year Colorado covered male circumcision under Medicaid, and while the elimination reduced state spending by about $186,000 yearly, we must recognize that preventative care is key to sustainable savings.

Thank you again for writing and expressing your opinion with my office. I value your input.

Sincerely,

Colorado State Senator Joyce Foster
District 35
State Capitol Rm. 329
Capitol Phone: 303-866-4875
Email: joyce.foster.senate@state.co.us

Senator Foster's response was completely predictable, touting every last "medical benefit" she could, spoken like the true advocate of circumcision that she is. Much of her information is also inaccurate, and she would be refuted at the hearing on the 2nd by intactivists who knew what they were talking about. But let's examine some of what she touts here:

She claims there to be "overwhelming scientific data validating that male circumcision reduces" such and such disease. But how is this even possible?

The fact of the matter is, the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations, that it would be quite surprising were male circumcision to be recommended in the United States. No respected U.S. based medical board recommends circumcision for U.S. 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, within and outside of the United States.

There is not enough evidence for major medical organizations to come to any reasonable conclusion regarding the circumcision of infants, and yet, somehow, Senator Foster has found "overwhelming scientific data?" How can that be?

She makes the obligatory reference to HIV/AIDS, and I've already explained this, as well as HPV above, in my analysis of Senator Aguilar's response.

But these aren't enough; Foster also has to mention UTI, penile cancer and other "infectious diseases."

It must be noted that Senator Foster is attempting to resuscitate alibis for circumcision that have been since disproven. The notion that circumcision is a useful prophylactic against UTI, for example, has been laid to rest by the 1999 AAP Task Force on Circumcision.

According to the American Cancer Society:

"In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other risk factors, such as smoking, personal hygiene, and the number of sexual partners.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer."

She mentions a study which concludes that “Hospitals in states where Medicaid does not pay for routine male circumcision are only about half as likely to perform the procedure, and this disparity could lead to an increased risk of HIV infection among lower-income children later in life.”

While it may be true that circumcision is less performed where Medicaid does not pay for circumcision, the "increased risk of HIV among lower income children later in life" is pure speculation.

Like Aguilar, she talks from the platform of "social justice" saying that "Senate Bill 90 helps level the playing field for these children, providing them the same protection from contracting HIV as children with non-Medicaid health plans." The dubious assumption here being that children are at risk for HIV transmission, and that, when they're adults, they'd be promiscuous sex fiends that would be too stupid to learn to wear condoms. Again, even if the "science" were correct, which it is horrendously flawed, circumcision would be out-performed by condoms. Senator Foster seems more interested in legitimizing circumcision than she is about actual disease prevention, and I believe there is a very good reason, that I'll get into shortly.

I just think she's an idiot citing the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates is very crazy about circumcision, but who is he? What medical credentials does he have? How is it his word trumps the word of the best medical authorities in the west?

I'd like to bring attention to the "up to 70%" figure we see here; not too long ago, the figure was "60%." So where is Bill Gates etc. getting this number from? Why doesn't it manifest itself anywhere else in the world?

Scot Anderson let Senator Foster have it in the hearing with the facts:
Circumcision has been practiced in America for decades now. 80% of US men have been circumcised from birth. And yet we manage to have the highest HIV transmission rate in the industrialized world. We have a higher HIV transmission rate than various countries in Europe where circumcision is rare.

He also challenged the bill's price tag of $186,000 yearly, stating that, based on average costs and the number of procedures reported in hospitals across the state, the likely cost to taxpayers was closer to $4 million annually.

From Brandon Shaffer:

Colorado intactivists got a response back from Brandon Shaffer which was faithful to the pro-circumcision script:

Thank you for writing. I rely on feedback from fellow Coloradans to be an effective legislator. Senate Bill 090, known as the Medicaid circumcision bill, would provide vital preventative health care for boys.

I understand that the issue of male circumcision is controversial because it is at the intersection of medical and cultural debate, and I respect the varying factors that must be weighed. However, reliable studies prove that male circumcision reduces instances of infectious disease, some congenital obstructive urinary tract anomalies, neurogenic bladder, spina bifida, and urinary tract infections.

A UCLA AIDS Institute study reports that if states opt to not cover male circumcision the rate of HIV in boys who were born into low-income families will likely go up. Senate Bill 090 helps give those boys the same preventative healthcare as boys with non-Medicaid health plans. Organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are working toward the same goal abroad, giving to the Global Fund for AIDS prevention. The Foundation cites studies that say male circumcision reduces HIV transmission by up to 70% in non-industrialized countries.

Up until July 1, 2011, Colorado covered male circumcision under Medicaid, and while the programmatic cut will save the state about $186,000 yearly, we must recognize that preventative care is key to sustainable savings.

Thank you again for writing and expressing your opinion. Even though we may disagree, I value your input.

Sincerely,

Senator Brandon Shaffer

Brandon C. Shaffer
Senate President
Colorado State Capitol
200 East Colfax, Room 257
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303) 866-3342
Fax: (303) 866-4543

"Vital preventative care." Are newborns engaging in risky sexual activity that will put them at risk for HIV? Aren't condoms already more effective at preventing HIV transmission, and the transmission of other STDs?

He also seems to be missing the point, either intentionally, or because he's really that ignorant. "The issue of male circumcision is controversial because it is at the intersection of medical and cultural debate," he says. He fails to address the question of whether or not doctors can be performing surgery on minors without medical or clinical indication. He, like Aguilar, also seem to be oblivious to, or deliberately ignoring the fact that Medicaid is supposed to be paying for medically necessary procedure, not cultural traditions.

The issue of male circumcision is "controversial" because, unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of 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.

Shaffer mentions a few new diseases circumcision is supposed to prevent in his letter: "congenital obstructive urinary tract anomalies, neurogenic bladder, spina bifida." It is simply baffling how circumcision advocates scrape the bottom of the barrel and always manage to find SOMETHING. What "obstructive urinary tract anomalies?" How often do these occur, and couldn't these be treated as they came? What is the rate of "neurogenic bladder and spina bifida?" What is the reason there is not an epidemic of these conditions in other countries where circumcision is rare? Absolutely astounding!

Almost word for word he mentions the UCLA paper that Foster mentions, as well as the "savings" this bill is supposed to offer. These are addressed in my analysis of Foster's letter.

Conflicts of Interest

Foster and her supporters don't have a case. They were clearly shown up at the hearing on the 2nd. They were clearly and conclusively refuted, and there is simply no way that the bill could have passed at that hearing. I speculate that there are other factors at play here. Ostensibly Foster etc. have an interest in public health, but I suspect that their interests are espoused elsewhere.

Financial Interest

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" ~Upton Sinclair

It would appear as if Irene Aguilar had a true interest in public health. But if so, why does she seem willfully ignorant to the facts? Instead of addressing questions Coloradans sent her, why does she send out a form letter touting the party line? Why does she keep deleting legitimate questions posed to her by concerned Coloradans on her Facebook page?

Irene Aguilar is a doctor, one that possibly profits from the circumcision of minors herself. Could it be she is not looking out for public health interests, or the interests of "low-income families," but only her own? Could it be she's bought and paid for by other physicians who profit from this procedure? I could only speculate, but I wouldn't put it past her.

Safeguarding Religious Tradition

I suspected that there might be a religious influence in all of this circumcision for "health benefits" talk; there usually is.

In this day and age, "religious freedom" and "parental choice" have lost their validity as alibis for male circumcision. The litmus test for this is female genital cutting; "religious freedom" and "parental choice" fail as arguments, which is why the conversation inevitably has to be directed towards the "research" and the "medical benefits" of circumcision. Advocates of infant circumcision as a religious right must therefore feign an interest in public health. Readers will remember that in order to strike down the circumcision ban proposal in San Francisco, circumcision advocates had to invoke an obscure law that protects veterinarians who profit from declawing cats.

Joyce Foster speaks from the platforms of "public health" and "social justice," but how much of this is an actual interest in public health and "equality," as opposed to an interest in protecting her own traditions?

It just so happens that Joyce Foster is married to a rabbi, Steven Foster. She is also quoted in the Colorado hearing as having had her own children circumcised "for religious and medical reasons." (Medical AND religious. Figure that!) According to her Wikipedia profile (Accessed 2/8/2012), she introduced a resolution in support of the nation of Israel.

So did Foster introduce Senate Bill 90 in true interest in public health? Or is she using her position of power and authority to help safe-guard a medical procedure that also just happens to be a religious rite particular to Judaism?

Is her husband a mohel, and did she introduce this bill as a favor for him? This wouldn't be the first time she uses her position to introduce a bill for a family member. In 2010, she introduced a bill that would benefit her brother-in-law, who was involved in relationship with a client he was paid to treat.

Incidentally, the UCLA "study" was written by one Arleen Leibowitz,who lamented, at the time, that 17 states had dropped Medicaid coverage for routine infant circumcision.

Brandon Shaffer, who replied to Coloradan intactivists with a form letter similar to Foster and Aguilar also happens to be Jewish, according to his Wikipedia profile. (Accessed 2/8/2012)

So what's this bill really about? And who is it really for?

Is it truly about public health? Or is this about safeguarding a religious tradition that has become ever under scrutiny?

The Hearing
Witnesses at the hearing say that it was phenomenal. The senators and their supporters were obviously not expecting any kind of competition, and they got their asses handed to them. There was over an hour of amazing intactivist testimony. Foster was clearly self-conscious and defensive. "Let me clarify," she said. "I had my sons circumcised because it was a health issue and a religious issue." (So what was wrong with them?) Aguilar had to beg for the vote, it was like a personal favor. I can only imagine that they all felt dirty afterward.

It is truly saddening and discouraging that although the arguments were clearly on our side, the bill passed 6-3 anyway. But in a way, this is no surprise; intactivists could see it coming a mile away. We saw it in the introduction of the bill, the dubious premises on which it was based, the ready-made responses from Aguilar and Foster... it was clear that there was an agenda.

We find comfort in that we took a few people to school that day. The advocates of the bill were made to look like fools, there was actual debate that others could learn from, and we got three dissenting votes. This is only the first stage in getting this bill passed, and there is still time to stop it.

Where the bill stands now
SB-90 will move to the Appropriations Committee, which is where bills that involve costs to the state go to first, for evaluation as to whether or not funds are available. The Appropriations Committee will be unable to conduct this evaluation, however, until the Joint Budget Committee finishes deciding the total state budget for the year. (This may not be until the end of March.) The bill must then be introduced in the House Committee by a sponsor, before it can go to the full House for a vote. It can be voted down at any stage in this process.

Closing Remarks
Circumcision is not a medically necessary procedure in healthy newborns. Speculation on potential disease can be used to warrant no other amputative surgery. Catering to parental whim or religious belief is not a medical mandate. Any "benefit" of circumcision that can be named can already be easily and better achieved through non-surgical means, and without putting a child at needless risk for infection, partial or full ablation, or even death.

The current trend is for states to eliminate any spending that does not directly benefit the recipients of Medicaid. Outside Colorado, infant circumcision is recognized by 17 other states as having no immediate benefit to infants, with enough costs to warrant its elimination except in the case of medical need.

Parents can always obtain the surgery through Medicaid, in the rare instance where it becomes medically necessary; before then, and for solely cosmetic purposes, it is a waste of taxpayer money.

At a time of decreased funding for necessary medical care and procedures, why should the taxpayer have to pay for superfluous, risky surgery, whose benefits are already equally, or better achieved through non-surgical means?

What other non-medical cultural traditions should the taxpayer have to pay for? Ear piercings? Scarification? Tribal tattoos? Where does it stop?

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 normal, natural, healthy, FUNCTIONING tissue, with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of 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 any medical or clinical indication, how can a doctor be performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting infants, let alone be giving parents any kind of a choice? Let alone be compensated for it?

In Defiance
The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations that it would be quite surprising were male circumcision to be recommended in the United States. No respected U.S. based medical board recommends circumcision for U.S. 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, within and outside of the United States.

Medical bodies that agree that there is not enough evidence to recommend infant circumcision include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the British Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association.

The best medical authorities in the West have concluded that the benefits do NOT outweigh the risks. They must all say that there isn't enough evidence to recommend the circumcision of infants. So where are the Colorado senators getting their "overwhelming scientific data" from? Do they dare defy the whole of Western medicine?

It needs to be made clear:
A vaccine functions by strengthening the immune system against pathogens that cause disease. When HIV, or any other disease, invades the body, it makes no difference to the immune system whether or not a man is circumcised. Saying that circumcision behaves ANYTHING like a vaccine is a deliberate LIE, it is an unscientific statement and a disservice in the fight against disease, and our leaders have got to stop repeating it.

Let it be clear:

The idea that circumcision prevents male heterosexual HIV transmission is a belief; a belief that cannot be scientifically demonstrated. A "decrease" in HIV transmission can be "observed" in three hopelessly flawed, heavily skewed "studies" that fail to correlate with real world empirical evidence. That this "decrease" was indeed caused by circumcision, however, is a far-fetched belief that "researchers" have yet to substantiate. "Researchers" are trying to frame their cherished beliefs and traditions in "research," and that's not science.

One of the most thorough demolitions of the "studies" the WHO has used to endorse adult circumcision as HIV prevention in Africa can be found here.

These three papers thoroughly and conclusively destroy them. One must wonder what kind of boobs they have working at the WHO, that they managed to pass such highly flawed rubbish off as “science.”

Our leaders would do well to challenge and look at the "evidence" closer, instead of just accepting it at face value.

Does science trump basic human rights?
The science is irrefutably on OUR side, however we've got to stop buying into the idea that human rights can be bargained with "science" and "research."

Even IF we lent any credibility to the latest twaddle some people dare to call "science," circumcision would still fail. Even if we assumed the "research" to be problem free, the authors themselves cannot stress the use of condoms enough. Even if the latest "studies" were 100% infallible, we have got to ask, why is the solution always circumcision?

Is there any reason why "researchers" are not looking for non-destructive ways to prevent HIV transmission, and instead facilitating male circumcision which just happens to be a cherished ritual tradition?

Consider this:
There would never be enough "science" or "research" to endorse the promotion of female circumcision to prevent ANYTHING.

It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were made "painless," "bloodless," and it didn’t affect a girl’s sexuality. It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were performed in the clean environment of the hospital, by a trained professional, using pain killers and the most pristine, and most "advanced" utensils. Why do "researchers" grope for reasons to promote male infant circumcision?

Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or "research" is still genital mutilation.

We've got to stop giving credibility to the idea that deliberate child abuse and the violation of basic human rights can be justified with "science."

DISCLAIMER:
The opinions I express in this blog are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the view of all intactivists. These are my own individual expressions, and I do not claim to speak for any one intactivist affiliation. ~Joseph4GI

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

2012-02-04T09:33:00.000-08:00

Yes! Different is normal!

So I just recently saw a video put out by Planned Parenthood, entitled "Different is Normal."

It's an interesting little video, obviously aimed towards teens, and it would probably be a very good message if it weren't for one, tiny, detail.

Actually, no, it's actually a rather large detail; it outright tries to call the circumcised penis "normal," like any other part of the body we're born with.

The video starts out with a good message...

"As a teenager, you worry about a lot of things: homework, acne, your profile picture. One thing you shouldn't be worried about is whether or not your breasts, penis, or vulva are normal, but lots of kids do. So, are they normal? Will they be when you're all grown up? Short answer: yes. Long answer: well, when it comes to our bodies, being different is normal."

Well, there's a slightly longer answer, but Planned Parenthood won't be addressing it here.

"You already know that our bodies are just like snowflakes, no two are alike. Our faces are all made of the same parts: eyes, ears, nose, mouth, but they all look completely different. If that goes for your face, then why not the rest of your body? The reality is that normal is different. It's all over the place."

Do you see where this is going?

They start with the penis.

"Here's a flaccid, or soft, adult penis. All penises have the same parts: glans, shaft, urethra, and all have testicles hanging below. Here's one that's erect, or hard."

Of course.

But, where's the foreskin? Is that not a part of the penis? And why are they showing a picture of a circumcised penis, as if it were the way it appeared in nature? Where's the scar?

They show a second slide:

Only THEN do they decide to add:

"Some have foreskins, some are circumcised and have no foreskin."

Did the guy with a foreskin get some sort of body modification? Was he born with some sort of genetic variation? Why are penises assumed to be circumcised by default?

"Some are shorter, some are thicker, some are thinner, some curve when they're erect."

"All are normal."

Well. At least they hope to convince insecure teens.

Let's see how they treat the girls:

"Same goes for girls. Each vulva has an inner labia, outer labia, clitoris,

pening to the vagina, urethra, and clitoral hood."

What's wrong with this picture?

They didn't seem to forget the labia, nor the clitoral hood, nor the clitoris in this diagram. Furthermore, the girls are actually shown different diagrams of different other vulvas, complete with different shapes and sizes of the clitoris, as well as variations in the lengths of the labia.

A stark difference is that the boys don't get to see different types of foreskins and/or glans. It appears the only variations among penises is circumcised and not... Absolutely no mention of the frenulum...

"Even with the same parts, each adult vulva looks completely different.

Some have bigger openings in the vagina, some have bigger clitorises that stick out..."

"...some have wide outer labia..."

"...some have bigger inner labia that stick out..."

"...and often the labia in the pair don't match each other."

"All are normal"

So much dedication and care for the female vulva. Where are all the variations of the male penis? Where are all the large prominent glans? The long foreskins? The short foreskins? The uneven foreskins? Are those not "normal?"

But, more than this, where are all the circumcised vulvas? Where are the vulvas with no clitoris? Where are the vulvas that have been sewn up in infibulation? If they're showing diagrams of circumcised penises, why aren't they showing diagrams of female circumcision? Why does Planned Parenthood try to pass off the circumcised penis as just another variation of "normal?"

Would Planned Parent hood EVER dare to say that ANY of these things was normal?

Female genital cutting is "normal" for millions of girls in Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Brunei and all over South East Asia.

But let's not talk about THAT.

"So remember, when it comes to our faces, our hands, and yes, our genitals, different is normal. So you can officially stop worrying about your vulva, breasts, or penis."

Do you hear that, boys? Do you hear that men? You can stop worrying about the fact that someone took a knife and sliced off part of your penis.

Muslim boy becoming "normal."

This is perfectly "normal" and acceptable.

What about you girls who don't have a clitoris? Who are missing your labia? Or who have been infibulated?

For millions of girls globally, this is "normal."

Go sit in a corner and feel sorry for yourself.

Thanks, Planned Parenthood, but NO THANKS.

NOT NORMAL
No, the circumcised penis is NOT normal.

It is a forced, contrived, artificial phenomenon.

It is a subversion of the normal, healthy penis.

No, penises in the world DON'T all have the same parts. (Neither do vulvas in the world for that matter...) Some are missing parts, and it's because they were deliberately CUT OFF.

But let's not get into that; this is a feel-good video for teens, right?

SHAME ON PLANNED PARENTHOOD
This video is pure self-serving GARBAGE.

Planned Parenthood ought to be ASHAMED for trying to normalize genital mutilation.

They ought to be ashamed that they are insulting the youth's intelligence with this crap.

SHAME on you, Planned Parenthood, SHAME on you.

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 normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of 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.

The presence of the foreskin is normal, and its absence abnormal.

Nay, it is a deliberate disfigurement.

Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or "research" is still genital mutilation.

The same video touting the same bullshit can be seen here in Spanish.

The New York Times has actually published a very informative article concerning female genital cutting as it occurs in South East Asia and can be accessed here.

MALAWI: Bishops OK Circumcision, Shun Condoms (Surprise Surprise...)

2012-02-02T07:50:00.012-08:00

Remember when we said that promoting circumcision as HIV prevention would result in the perception of circumcision as a substitute for condoms?

I reiterated this warning in a recent post.

Ever since the WHO endorsed this madness, we intactivists have been issuing this warning.

Here is yet another example of this in action.

It appears Roman Catholic bishops in Malawi have approved of circumcision as an HIV prevention method, because, according to this article, "As a church we are against the use of condoms."

This is despite the fact that in Malawi, the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 13.2% vs 9.5%, according to a study conducted there:

"In Malawi, circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who were not circumcised (13 % compared with 10%). In Malawi, the majority of men are not circumcised (80%)(...where one would expect HIV to be the most rampant...) (See page 10)

According to Fr. George Buleya, "We have examined theological texts and found no opposition to it."

Here is some of what they would find if they had searched with their heads out of their asses:

~Gal. 5:2 "Behold, I Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing!"

~Gal. 5:3 "And I testify again to every male who receives circumcision, that he is in debt to keep the whole Law. You who do so have been severed from Christ. . . you have fallen from grace."

~Gal. 5:11 "But if I still proclaim circumcision. . . then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished."

~Gal. 5:12 "I wish that those who are pushing you to do so would mutilate themselves!

~Gal. 6: 12-16 "Those who desire to make a good showing in the flesh try to compel you to be circumcised, simply that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. . . They desire to have you circumcised so they may boast in your flesh. . .

~Phil. 3:2 "Beware of the dogs! Beware of the evil workers! Beware of the mutilation! For WE are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put NO confidence in the flesh!"

~Col. 2:8-14 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men...rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form and in Him you have been made whole.. and in Him you were also circumcised, with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, and raised up with Him through faith. And...in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him. . . having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which were hostile to us. And He has taken them out of the way, having nailed them to the cross."

~Lev.19:28 "You shall not make any cuts in your flesh."

~Deut. 23: 1 "No one who...has his male genitalia cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

What does this friar mean with approving circumcision as a way to prevent HIV?

Does he have no faith that faithful Christian men will not do as the scriptures say, and be faithful and abstain from sex until marriage?

Does he expect for Christian men and women to fornicate and engage in adultery?

But that is a secondary detail; the fact of the matter is that now, thanks to the WHO, thanks to these "mass circumcision campaigns," we have religious leaders telling African Christian masses that they approve of circumcision in lieu of condoms.

Condoms prevent HIV transmission and the transmission of other STDs in both men and women by 95%, not to mention unwanted pregnancy.

Even if the "science" were sound (and it is hopelessly full of holes), circumcision would only "reduce the risk of HIV transmission" by 60%. Women are 50% more likely to acquire HIV from a circumcised partner, as they would be 100% exposed to the viral load in semen. Circumcision also fails to prevent unwanted pregnancy. (The Catholic church loves that part...)

Which is why even the authors of all this so-called "research" cannot stress the use of condoms enough.

Way to go, WHO.

Way to go, "researchers."

Way to go, President Obama.

Way to go, Billary.

Way to go, Bill Gates.

Way to go, Bono.

Is this what you wanted?

When the dust clears, the blood of millions of Africans will be on your hands.

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

2012-01-31T01:57:00.000-08:00

It's all happened before. And it's all happening again. But this time, it happened in New York.

Yes, it seems, that since the WHO used three dubious "studies" to endorse male genital mutilation as HIV prevention, circumcision advocates, each with their own different interests, have been looking for ways to promote so-called "mass circumcision campaigns" full speed ahead.

PEPFAR and Bill Gates are in Africa bankrolling so-called "mass circumcision campaigns." These have started a race to come up with an efficient gadget that will speed up circumcision. Eager circumcision advocates are trying to use the WHO judgement to get medical organizations around the world to endorse the practice of infant circumcision, and to recuperate public funding which once paid for it. In Australia, circumcision enthusiast Brian Morris can't seem to keep quiet about getting the Royal Australian College of Physicians to endorse "mandatory circumcision" for all boys. In America, Arleen Leibowitz laments the fact that 17 states have stopped Medicaid funding for infant circumcision.

All of this hullabaloo surrounding an eminent "scale-up" of circumcision seems to be focused on one concentrated purpose:

To secure acquiescence to the idea that circumcision actually does anything to prevent HIV transmission.

In recent months, a number of news outlets have run what appears to be an infomercial for a circumcision device, namely the PrePex device, developed by Israeli inventors.

A video version of the PrePex infomercial was published on the BBC, which wasn't even viewable to Britons. Perhaps the BBC knew that if Brits saw this ridiculous excuse for journalism there would be an outcry demanding an explanation. A few days later, a more dumbed down version of the infomercial was published on the Washington Post in news article form. The message and the purpose remained the same; to move the audience past the evidence (or lack thereof), and focus attention on "mass circumcision campaigns," and how the new PrePex device is the answer.

The PrePex Infomercial on the New York Times
The PrePex company has managed to get the New York Times to publish an infomercial for them, masquerading as a news article. This article goes a step further than its predecessors, however, as it is actually now calling circumcision, an amputative procedure, an actual "VACCINE."

I am going to go through the entire article and highlight all the deliberate misinformation that the New York Times tries to pass off as fact.

"AIDS Prevention Inspires Ways to Make Circumcisions Easier," reads the headline.

Already, the author is assuring his readers that yes, circumcision does in fact, prevents AIDS. No actual analysis of the "evidence" is needed, readers should just believe that this is a foregone conclusion.

Reads the caption under the picture of the "new" invention: "‘LIKE A FINGERNAIL’ One new product, PrePex, uses a ring to block blood flow. After a week, the dead foreskin falls off or can be clipped."

Hardly innovative, the PrePex is nothing more than a glorified tourniquet device. A number of other devices use the exact same principle of cutting off blood circulation to the foreskin, including the TaraKlamp, the Smartklamp, the Ismail Clamp, the Zhenxi Ring and the Shang-ring before it.

"Like a fingernail" is an attempt to trivialize the foreskin. Tie off any part of the body and it will shrivel up and die. Reader, ask yourself; when was the last time you had to cut off circulation in your fingernails before you had to cut them off?

Let's continue with the article:
"The day of the assembly-line circumcision is drawing closer."

This seems more like wishful thinking on the part of the author, and the circumcision advocates he is writing the plug piece for. In actuality, "assembly-line circumcision" has been going on in the US for a few decades now. And actually, as per the CDC, the practice is in decline. This, I believe, is the real cause for concern for advocates of circumcision in the so-called name of disease prevention.

Moving on:
"Now that three studies have shown that circumcising adult heterosexual men is one of the most effective “vaccines” against AIDS — reducing the chances of infection by 60 percent or more — public health experts are struggling to find ways to make the process faster, cheaper and safer."

A deliberate lie, mashed together with a half-truth. "Studies" have shown no such thing.

Let us begin with this half-assed quantification of circumcision as a "vaccine." It needs to be made clear:

A vaccine functions by strengthening the immune system against pathogens that cause disease. When HIV, or any other disease, invades the body, it makes no difference to the immune system whether or not a man is circumcised. Saying that circumcision behaves ANYTHING like a vaccine is a deliberate LIE, it is an unscientific statement and a disservice in the fight against disease, and news outlets have got to stop repeating it.

It may be true that health "experts" (Experts? WHAT experts? Who are they?) are scrambling to find ways to spread circumcision, but there is absolutely no "study" in the world that can demonstrate that circumcision functions anything like a vaccine.

The worn 60% figure is never addressed. 60% of what? What did the supposed "studies" actually show?

The "studies" supposedly involved 10,908 men, 5,411 of which were circumcised, and 5,497 which were left intact as a "control" group. By the end of the studies, 201 men contracted HIV. The famous 60% figure we hear repeated over and over comes from the comparison of 137 intact men vs. 64 circumcised men who contracted HIV. This figure quickly shrinks to an insignificant 1.37% however, when we factor in the rest of the 10,707 men who didn't get HIV. Circumcision is being heavily promoted using a ridiculously inflated number, but the New York Times etc. are touting it as gospel truth.

No, even if the "research" were correct, circumcision could not hold a candle to condoms.

Additionally, real world empirical evidence fails to correlate with the WHO's select studies.

Let's continue...
"The goal is to circumcise 20 million African men by 2015, but only about 600,000 have had the operation thus far."

Which raises a few questions. The WHO endorsed these "studies" since 2006, and campaigns such as Soka Uncobe have been blasting the message in Africa for at least a year now. "Those foreskins are flying," assured Robert Bailey in a past article on the very New York Times. If the programs are being so "successful," how is it that there are efforts to "streamline" circumcision? Have organizers thought of the possibility that they may never even reach one or two million men, let alone 20? That despite all of the "science" and "research" thrown at them, the men may not be interested in having part of their penis cut off? Have they thought of plan B? Have they envisioned a future where HIV might be prevented WITHOUT surgery? Why does it seem like organizers in Africa are more concerned about spreading circumcision, than they are about spreading HIV awareness, and education in the use of condoms, which, even according to "research" would far supersede it?

Aren't organizers concerned that promoting circumcision is going to discourage the use of condoms?

Continuing:
"Even a skilled surgeon takes about 15 minutes, most African countries are desperately short of surgeons, and there is no Mohels Without Borders."

And why on earth would you need RELIGIOUS practitioners of circumcision? What is this effort ACTUALLY about? Aren't circumcision advocates even going to try to conceal their ulterior motives anymore?

The questions continue. KNOWING that surgeons and doctors are in short supply, and that healthcare is needed elsewhere, how is it circumcision advocates insist on exhausting this limited supply? How is it they're not looking for less invasive methods of HIV prevention that are as effective, if not even more so than circumcision?

The article continues:

"So donors are pinning their hopes on several devices now being tested to speed things up."

Or, rather, using WHO endorsement of male genital mutilation as HIV prevention, circumcision device manufactures have managed to secure a piece of the circumcision/HIV pie.

Continuing:
"Dr. Stefano Bertozzi, director of H.I.V. for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said it had its eyes on two, named PrePex and the Shang Ring, and was supporting efforts by the World Health Organization to evaluate them."

Evaluate? Or endorse?

(And look who is doing the evaluating! None other than David R. Tomlinson, the "chief expert on circumcision" at the WHO, who also just happens to be an inventor of various circumcision devices himself, namely the AccuCirc device.)

Are Bill and Melinda Gates really interested in humanity? Or is this merely a PR endeavor?

The clincher:

"Circumcision is believe[d] to protect heterosexual men because the foreskin has many Langerhans cells, which pick up viruses and “present” them to the immune system — which H.I.V. attacks."

Here we see the New York Times, yet again, trying to merge science with quackery.

HIV most definitely attacks the immune system; this is an observable phenomenon that anyone can see and confirm for themselves. But there is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that the Langerhans cells in the foreskin "picks up" viruses and "presents" them to the immune system.

Actually, scientific evidence proves quite the opposite: Not only do the Langerhans cells act as a natural barrier for HIV, they actually secrete Langerin, which destroys HIV on contact.

de Witte, Lot; Alexey Nabatov, Marjorie Pion, Donna Fluitsma, Marein AW P de Jong, Tanja de Gruijl, Vincent Piguet, Yvette van Kooyk, Teunis B H Geijtenbeek (2007-03-04). "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" (PDF). Nature Medicine. doi: 10.1038/nm1541. http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/de_Witte_2007.pdf.

The claim that the Langerhans cells facilitate HIV transmission is categorically false.

The New York Times is "picking up" and "presenting" deliberate scientific falsehoods to the American public.

Let it be clear:

The article continues:
"PrePex, invented in 2009 by four Israelis after one of them, a urologist, heard an appeal for doctors to do circumcisions in Africa, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration three weeks ago. The W.H.O. will make a decision on it soon, said Mitchell Warren, an AIDS-prevention expert who closely follows the process."

The inventors of the PrePex device are of Israeli origin which brings into question their true motives. The Jerusalem AIDS Project (JAIP) created Operation Abraham, which is an organization whose sole purpose is to promote circumcision any which way it can. They too have used the WHO's endorsement to travel all over the world to promote circumcision. Are they truly interested in public health? Or are they interested in safeguarding and promoting a religious ritual which is ever under scrutiny? Or is this purely an endeavor to cash in on the opportunity?

The PrePex plug piece continues:
"From the initial safety studies done so far, PrePex is clearly faster, less painful and more bloodless than any of its current rivals. And it relies on the simplest and least-threatening technology — a rubber band.

The band compresses the foreskin against a plastic ring slipped inside it; the foreskin dies within hours for lack of blood and, after a week, falls off or can be clipped off “like a fingernail,” said Tzameret Fuerst, the company’s chief executive officer, who compared the process to the stump of an umbilical cord’s shriveling up and dropping off a few days after it is clamped."

Again, this is hardly innovative; the PrePex is nothing but a glorified tourniquet device. A number of other devices use the exact same principle of cutting off blood circulation to the foreskin, including the TaraKlamp, the Smartklamp, the Ismail Clamp, the Zhenxi Ring and the Shang-ring before it.

"Like a fingernail" is an attempt to trivialize the foreskin. Any part of the body will shrivel up and die if you cut off circulation to it. Unlike the foreskin, or any other part of the body, fingernails are a dead part of the body, and don't need to be tied off to cut off circulation before trimming them. The umbilical cord does not need to be tied off either, as it too is a dead part of the body which will eventually shrivel up and fall off on its own.

Focus on PrePex

I'd like to zero in on this Tzameret Fuerst woman. Who is she? Why is she so enthusiastic about circumcision? Particularly this new "PrePex" device? And why does it seem like she's more excited about getting millions circumcised, than she is about HIV prevention? Why is the fact that, even if "studies" were correct, circumcision is not "100% effective" an afterthought?

If my presumptions are correct, she is the wife of Oren Fuerst, co-inventor of this device. Millions of men circumcised means that millions of PrePex devices will be bought and used. She's cashing in on the HIV gravy train, and that's why she's so enthused.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
~Upton Sinclair

Continues the PrePex ad:
It is done with topical anesthetic cream, and there is usually no bleeding. And PrePex can be put in place and removed by nurses with about three days’ training.

All really irrelevant afterthoughts... If there is no scientific proof that circumcision prevents HIV, and even given the "evidence" condoms still do a far better job, what does the minimalization and the simplicity of the procedure even matter...

The rings come in five sizes, A through E, Ms. Fuerst said, “and you won’t believe how high-tech the rubber band is.”

She's right! I don't!

"Each size must apply just enough pressure to cut off blood flow without being tight enough to cause pain"

Fuerst, does PrePex have an AIDS prevention method that DOESN'T involve cutting off part of my penis, please?

Continuing...
"The W.H.O., Mr. Warren said, is also evaluating the Shang Ring, a plastic two-ring clamp developed in China to treat conditions in which the foreskin becomes so tight that it cuts off urination."

And here we see the injection of a condition which necessitates circumcision, and another device that facilitates it. Are we even going to be given a scientific explanation as to what these "conditions" are? If they actually cut off urination, and they actually need circumcision viz Shang Ring?

What is the name of the condition where the foreskin becomes so tight it cuts off urination? What causes it? Is circumcision the only option? More gratuitous promulgation of non-science.

Moving forward:
"However, it requires cutting off the excess foreskin beyond the clamp, which means the circumciser must inject anesthetics directly into the penis and groin, wait for them to take effect, create a sterile surgical field and be trained in minor surgery."

“The Shang is not as fast, but it’s faster than full-fledged surgery,” Mr. Warren said. “And it hasn’t submitted as much safety data."

"In a safety study presented at an AIDS conference last month, scientists from Rwanda’s health ministry said they had used PrePex to circumcise 590 men. Only two had “moderate” complications; one was fixed with a single suture, and one required a new band in a different spot."

All useless information that draws attention more and more away from whether or not circumcision actually prevents anything... I'm sure with just the right amount of "research" one could invent a device that facilitates the extraction of the labia with only "moderate" complications...

Or better yet, come up with an actual solution that doesn't involve genital mutilation...

Continuing on:
"According to Dr. Jason Reed, an epidemiologist in the global AIDS division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2 of 590, or 0.34 percent, is a tenth the typical complication rate of surgical circumcision."

More statistics to blind the reader with. That's 2 out of 590 in a controlled study. What does that look like for the rest of Africa outside of the scientific environment? And what does this figure look like at 20,000,000 men? One in 295 men will suffer complications. Over 20,000,000 men that these people plan to circumcise, that's about 67,800 men who will suffer complications.

And that's *if* the people writing these "studies" were writing the truth. Remember, they're trying to MARKET their device.

I'm also being kind in assuming that all 20,000,000 African men will have undergone circumcision using the PrePex device; surgery will still be used, and, given the WHO green light, tribes will continue to circumcise youth and men traditionally. The number of complications is going to exceed 70,000, as will the number of iatrogenic HIV transmission. (In Africa, visiting a health center in and of itself is a risk for HIV. Is Daniel McNeil Jr. not aware of this fact?)

All of this, when HIV can already be easily and effectively prevented via education and condoms???

There is another lie that Jason Reed is trying to slip by here; that 0.34 percent is a "tenth" of the typical complication rate of surgical circumcision.

What kind of circumcision could Jason Reed possibly be referring to? Adult circumcision? Child circumcision? What is being counted as a "complication?"

There are reasons to believe that CDC statistics on circumcision in the United States is flawed, namely that they report "zero deaths" when intactivists have a long list of deaths documented. They report an infinitesimally small number of "complications," when we have reports that botched circumcisions have been on the rise for the past few years. Is the CDC telling the truth? Or are they circumcising it?

Instead of investigating, the New York Times takes Reed's presentation of CDC statistics at face value. Let's hear it for American journalism!

Continuing:

"None of the men became infected."

That's great! Does circumcision prevent HIV? Is it even relevant in light of HIV prevention methods which already supersede it?

Continuing:
"On the 10-point pain scale, they reported [a]n average [of] only about 1 when the ring was placed and only 3 when it was removed (about the same level of pain caused by erections during the week they wore it).

By the end of the study, the two-nurse teams could do a procedure in three minutes.

By contrast, Dr. Reed said, the best surgical “assembly lines” — a practice being pioneered in Africa with American taxpayer support — can get down to seven minutes per patient, but only by getting six nurses and a surgeon into a tight harmony."

"Looking busy" is but a distraction from the main points:

Does circumcision prevent HIV? Even if it did, even if the science were correct, is it even worth it in light of less invasive, more effective methods of prevention that already exist? Is it ethical to promote deliberate genital mutilation in the name of "research" and "public health?" Would we ever promote female circumcision if we had the same "research" to support it? What if it could be made "painless" or "bloodless?" What if we could make it so it doesn't decrease a woman's sexuality? Would we consider female circumcision then?

Continuing:
"In theory, he said, breaking that into three two-nurse PrePex teams could mean circumcising around 400 men a day, rather than the 60 to 80 a busy team now does. And the surgeon could go do something more important."

That's assuming 400 men a day would indeed line up to get circumcised. Many programs, such as Soca Uncobe, have completely missed their mark.

Or, instead of spending millions of dollars on needless devices, instead of emburdening surgeons with a time-consuming, needless procedure to mutilate the genitals of millions of men, they could be spending money on condoms and sex education, which, even if the "science" were correct, is worlds more effective. HIV transmission could be decreased WITHOUT genital mutilation, WITHOUT the need for these ridiculous devices. Men could keep their organs, condoms and sex education would prevent HIV in both men and women, and no time, money or energy has to be wasted on a dubious form of "prevention."

Continuing:
"In fact, Dr. Reed said, American AIDS dollars for circumcisions often go toward an operating room with lights and an instrument sterilizer. Instead of circumcisions, hospitals are more likely to use it for procedures like saving women in obstructed labor"

"Which is understandable — of course that takes precedence,” he said. “But then the circumcisions don’t get done."

Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

It doesn't make any sense to be spending millions on genital mutilation, when, even if the science is correct, would fail to live up to a condom. It doesn't make sense that there are other, more important issues to address; healthcare in general, mother-to-child HIV transmission, food, water, etc., and "experts" like Reed are more concerned that money isn't wastefully being spent on circumcision, for which there is already cheaper, less invasive, more effective ways to prevent HIV.

What is this all about? Is this about healthcare? HIV prevention?

Or is this purely about circumcision?

Some "experts" need to get their priorities straight.

Continuing:

"Robert C. Bailey, an epidemiologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who helped design Kenya’s circumcision efforts, opposes timesaving devices because training nurses in minor surgery has other benefits, he said. A trained nurse could close a wound or take out an appendix, for example. And the time-consuming parts of the process are counseling and H.I.V. testing, Dr. Bailey said, so 'doing it in five minutes instead of 20 is trivial.'

"But he conceded, 'If PrePex really doesn’t require anesthesia, that’s truly an advance.'"

This part of the article is a bit confusing, and I'm not sure I understand it myself.

First off, am I to understand that nurses are being trained in surgery OTHER than circumcision? But furthermore, am I to understand that circumcision is being used as an "opportunity" for counseling and HIV testing? Couldn't circumcision simply be skipped and men could be given counseling and HIV testing directly? Or are intact men simply incapable of receiving these things?

Imagine, for a moment, a dentist using a total tooth extraction as a pretext to hand people information on oral hygiene and dental care. But his patients still have to use false dentures.

Imagine the converse. What if we started offering circumcision to the women so that doctors can then “take the opportunity” to tell them about better hygiene practices and sex education?

The million dollar question is, since when does a man need surgery to learn how to wash his penis and use a condom properly? Does not being circumcised somehow impede a man’s learning of these concepts? Does not being circumcised somehow nullify the protective effect of condoms?

The article continues:
"Rwanda is training 150 two-nurse teams; it is a small country, but it serves as a bellwether for Africa because its health care system is well organized, government corruption scandals are rare, and it is heavily supported by donor funds."

Rwanda is also a country where HIV has been shown to be more prevalent amongst the CIRCUMCISED. According to a demographic health survey taken in 2005, the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8% vs 2.1%.

And, incidentally, according to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Rwanda. (In America, 80% of the male population is circumcised from birth.) The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C., March 15, 2009, "[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." Hader once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe.

Somehow, though, something tells me that the New York Times is not going to publish this part of the story.

The PrePex ad continues:

"Other, rival devices are not far along in safety testing or are failing it."

Hint hint... it's the PrePex, everyone!

"The Tara KLamp, manufactured in Malaysia since the 1990s, has created controversy in South Africa. It is a hinged plastic bracket the size of a small drinking cup. A plastic tube goes over the head of the penis, and the foreskin is pulled up it and painfully crushed by the bracket. Then the whole contraption must be worn at least five days. A 2005 clinical trial in South Africa was stopped early after the device caused far more injuries and infections than surgery did."

It is essentially the same exact contraption as the PrePex, and follows the exact same mechanism and principle of cutting off circulation to the foreskin, thereby facilitating its excision. Rest assured, though readers, the PrePex is the better design.

But again, a man needs a PrePex likes a fish needs a bicycle.

Continuing:

"The national health ministry has banned it in most of South Africa, but it is still used heavily in KwaZulu-Natal Province, which has the country’s highest AIDS rate and where the Zulu king, Goodwill Zwelithini, reversing 200 years of tradition, ordered that all Zulu men circumcised.

The W.H.O. knows about the stopped trial and is not considering the KLamp, Mr. Warren said."

Oh thank heavens! They don't seem to be too concerned that non-authorized devices and circumcision methods are being used in their name, though.

One must wonder as to the relevance of the Zulu king anecdote; is the author more concerned with HIV prevention, or with "reversing 200 years of tradition?" This really shows you where his heart actually is.

Reed continues:
"Dr. Reed said he had heard that another device, Ali’s Klamp, was being tested in Kenya under protocols that seemed to match W.H.O. requirements. According to Circlist.com, a circumcision information Web site, it is a Turkish device dating to 2007, and works on principles similar to those of the Tara KLamp and another device, the SmartKlamp, approved by the F.D.A. in 2004."

For all intents and purposes, all of these devices are essentially the same. They all function under the exact same principle of cutting circulation off to the foreskin. The PrePex is simply a different design.

Now, I'd like to take the time to correct a horrific error that this article commits, and that is present circlist.com as a mere "cirumcision web site."

What is Circlist? What do they do?
Circlist is a circumfetishist organization. A circumfetishist is someone who has a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, and/or derives sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself. The Circlist organization has a website and discussion group for men who sexually fantasize about performing and receiving circumcisions, often on small children. Circlist members openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision, to the point of being a sado-masochistic fetish. Circlist has been long known to intactivists as a meeting place for circumfetishists, where they discuss the erotic thrill they experience from watching other males being circumcised, swap fiction and non-fictional stories about it, and trade in videotapes of actual circumcisions. They are a fetishistic organization comparable to NAMBLA, and yet, here they are, being given credibility on the New York Times.

The fact that Circlist is being used as a reference in this piece, even though it doesn't rely on them for any facts, demonstrates how uninterested the New York Times is in logic and ethics. The site’s inclusion with a direct link to it is absolutely shameful. What a sick, disgusting shame that Daniel McNeil Jr. of the New York Times has decided to quote them as any kind of reliable resource.

SHAME on you, Daniel McNeil Jr. for daring to give publicity to this sick, disgusting group in the New York Times.

On to the end:

"PrePex was cleared by the F.D.A. because it was judged “substantially equivalent” to the SmartKlamp, Ms. Fuerst said. Proving equivalence in safety to an approved device is the fastest way to get approval, she said..."

Which seems to be her actual main concern...

"...although the technology is quite different."

No, the technology is the same, and it's rather old.

And finally:
PrePex’s ultimate cost is still being negotiated with donor agencies and foundations, Ms. Fuerst said, but may end up in the $15-to-$20 range, about the same as a surgical circumcision kit.

Let's see, at 20,000,000 men, that's $300,000,000 at minimum, and $4,000,000,000 at most.

For a useless, extraneous device looking for a purpose, not bad.

Not bad at all.

Closing comments
The "science" behind this massive effort to stuff circumcision down African people's throats is horrendously flawed. Why news outlets simply publish lies without questioning their validity is perplexing. A question that I keep encountering on the blogosphere is "Whatever happened to actual journalism?" But that's a different discussion for another blog post.

Even IF we lent any credibility to the latest twaddle some people dare to call "science," we have got to ask, why is the solution always circumcision?

Contrary to what is published here in the New York Times, there is actually no demonstrable scientific proof that the Langerhans cells "pick up viruses and "present" them to the immune system." But let's just assume just for a moment, that the claims were true. Let's just assume for a moment, that the Langergans cells, as they claim, "presents HIV to the immune system."

Is there any reason why the so-called "researchers" aren't looking for ways to deactivate Langerhans cells, as opposed to cutting them off?

Is there any reason why PrePex is not looking for non-destructive ways to prevent HIV transmission, and instead facilitating male circumcision which just happens to be a cherished tradition in their own country of origin?

Let's ask other questions. Assuming the Langerhans cells behave the way circumcision advocates claim, is there a reason why "researchers," PREPEX etc. aren't looking into FEMALE CIRCUMCISION? It is irrefutable scientific fact that Langerhans cells are found in the genital mucosa in BOTH sexes. If the Langerhans cells "facilitate" HIV transmission for men, then it would also do so for women. Circumcision, would only be offering "benefit" to men; women would still be vulnerable to the viral load in semen.

Which raises the question:

How is it conscionable to be spending millions of dollars on the promotion of an alternative to the most conclusively effective mode of HIV prevention known to us?

Why aren't the WHO, PEPFAR, PrePex etc. worried at all that the promotion of male circumcision is going to result in the grossest of violation of the most basic of human rights?

Genital mutilation, whither it be wrapped in culture, religion or "research" is still genital mutilation.

Consider this: There would never be enough "science" or "research" to endorse the promotion of female circumcision to prevent ANYTHING.

It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were made "painless," "bloodless," and it didn't affect a girl's sexuality. It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were performed in the clean environment of the hospital, by a trained professional, using pain killers and the most pristine, and most "advanced" utensils. Why do "researchers" grope for reasons to promote male circumcision?

The day will come when anyone whoever endorsed this despicable human rights violation will be too embarrassed to ever admit that they did.

May god have mercy on their souls.

Circumcision in Africa: We Keep Warning. Is Anybody Listening?

2012-01-26T09:49:00.000-08:00

Ever since the WHO endorsed circumcision as HIV prevention in 2006, we intactivists have been trying our best to warn promoters of circumcision, and organizers of so-called "mass-circumcision" campaigns that this is going to backfire.

We keep warning that the studies are horribly flawed, that empirical data completely contradicts the results in the so-called "research," and that African men are going to see this as nothing other than a green light for unprotected sex, putting millions of men and women in danger of sexually transmitted HIV.

IS ANYBODY LISTENING???
Nope, major charities and organizations such as Bill and Melinda Gates and PEPFAR are in Africa bankrolling so-called "mass circumcision campaigns" full-speed ahead. Whenever any of these organizations puts out any sort of statement, it's always "circumcision, circumcision, circumcision." Abstinence, faithfulness and condoms seem to have been placed on the back burner, and are barely even mentioned, if at all.

How is it possible that we are over-stating an alternative to the most effective mode of protection against sexually transmitted HIV known to us?

In May last year, I wrote a similar post to this one. PANOS Eastern Africa had put out a report that showed that the circumcision/HIV messages meant to reduce the prevalence of the disease were actually facilitating its spread. I also gave instances of others warning that this is precisely what would happen, as well as many cases in point in vivo.

It is now the end of January, starting a new year, and neither PEPFAR nor Bill Gates etc. have changed their message. In fact, these organizations and more have come out stronger than ever in their drive to circumcise the whole of Africa. In December last year, PEPFAR kicked off another year reinforcing the circumcision campaigns in Africa. Very recently, Bill Gates released his 2012 annual letter, and, as expected, he pushed circumcision. Circumcision, claims Gates, reduces AIDS transmission by a whopping 70%. Where IS he getting this number from? Why ISN'T this number manifested in the real world?

More Reports Come In
While you'll hear in the news about how "successful" the "mass circumcision campaigns" have been (not so much in reducing HIV, but in how many men they've managed to dupe), you won't hear about reports warning that men and women are taking home the wrong message.

According to AllAfrica.com, "Nyanza provincial director of public health and sanitation, who is also the task force chairman Jackson Kioko, said there have been reports that those who have been circumcised are taking it as immunity against HIV."

PlusNews reports of a study in Kenya conducted by the University of Illinois' Chicago School of Public Health, which found, among other things, that "most women were happy with the appearance of their partner's penis and enjoyed sex more after circumcision." (Others studies will find that there are men that like the experience of their partner's circumcised vulvas, and that they enjoy sex more, but we'll not ever hear about them.) As sexist and degrading as this "study" is to men, it was supposed to be the study's "plus" side. On the negative, the study found that the women believed that condoms were less necessary than circumcision, that they were more likely to have more than one sexual partner, and to have sex without a condom. One would think that these issues would have been addressed BEFORE rolling out these so-called "circumcision campaigns?"

HELLO??? IS ANYBODY AT THE WHO LISTENING?
Nevermind the ethical dilemma of endorsing genital mutilation in the name of public health interests, and nevermind the sexist, misandrist marketing practices of trying to sexify circumcision, and stigmatize intact men. And nevermind the fact that plans are already underway to forcibly circumcise newborns and youth.

Is nobody concerned that the promotion of circumcision will deprecate the value of cheaper, more effective, less invasive HIV prevention measures, thereby putting the lives of millions of African men and women in danger???

The Warning Continues...
The promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a catastrophic mistake. Even if the "research" was correct, and it is horrendously flawed, circumcision would fail to deliver the efficacy of HIV prevention methods which far exceed it. In light of condoms and education, which have been conclusively proven to prevent HIV, promoting circumcision is an impertinent disservice in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The promotion of circumcision ~~will resul~~t is already resulting in Africans perceiving the most effective HIV prevention known to us as an expendable option. The promotion of circumcision is going to backfire, sending the wrong message, putting the lives of men and women in danger. The promotion of circumcision is going to be a waste of precious funds, where they are desperately needed in other areas (i.e. food, water, access to actually needed healthcare, etc). The promotion of circumcision is an ethical, scientific scandal waiting to explode. The promotion of circumcision is going to be a disaster that is going to haunt any organization and individual that ever endorsed it.

Even if the "research" was accurate, circumcision fails. Circumcision fails, and this is why even the very authors cannot stress the importance of condoms enough. Condoms would prevent, not only the transmission of HIV, but the transmission of other STDs more effectively, and more efficiently. Condoms would prevent STD transmission not only in men, but in their partners as well. Additionally, condoms prevent unwanted pregnancy. Circumcision does not.

It is going to prove a fatal mistake to have ever endorsed a dubious alternative to the only effective method of HIV prevention ever known to us.

AND...
It is endorsing the grossest violation of the most basic of human rights.

Consider this: There would never be enough "science" or "research" to endorse the promotion of female circumcision to prevent ANYTHING.

Genital mutilation, whether wrapped in "science," "research," and feigned interests in public health, is still, in the end, genital mutilation.

The day will come when anyone whoever endorsed this despicable human rights violation will be too embarrassed to ever admit that they did.

May god have mercy on their souls.

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

2012-01-17T20:27:00.000-08:00

In the battle against male genital mutilation, intactivists always point out that while male circumcision is defended on the grounds of "religious freedom," "parental choice" and "medical benefits," the same is not true for female circumcision. At the same time, advocates of male infant circumcision always shoot back "male and female circumcision aren't the same!" There are some that even go as far as feigning offense and demanding "How dare you compare male and female circumcision! We're not moving forward until we agree that they're not the same!"

So we hear that male and female circumcision "aren't the same." But what is the basis for this claim? Are we supposed to believe it at face value without any demonstrable proof? When a circumcision advocate asserts that male and female circumcision "aren't the same," what does that person mean? What exactly is he comparing?

I've already written an extensive blog post on the matter here, so I won't spend too much time on this one.

I'm just going to briefly cover a few points of consideration for this debate that tend to be completely ignored, if ever even brought up.

Male circumcision as it happens in the United States to newborns and children is always compared to female circumcision as it happens in the African bush to teens and adult women.
This is a false comparison. Circumcision advocates always compare male infant circumcision, which is usually conducted by a professional, with sterile equipment, in the pristine environment of a health facility (sometimes) with analgesia, with the kind of female circumcision that is conducted in the African wilderness as a rite of passage, which is usually conducted by a shamaness priestess, using raw tools such as a rusty razor blade or a glass shard, under the harsh conditions of the bush. They are also comparing two different genital cutting procedures that are not analogous to each other.

Not all female circumcision is performed in the bush.
In fact, female circumcision is also performed by doctors with sterile utensils under pristine conditions. Some doctors also claim there to be "medical benefits," citing works and studies. They do this out of genuine concern for their patients, and not because they wish to justify their profession I'm sure.

Not all female circumcision is performed on teens and adult women.
Male circumcision advocates elicit an emotional response when they present the image of a teen or an adult woman being forced to undergo genital cutting. Male circumcision is supposed to somehow be justified by the fact that it is often performed on newborn babies that will not remember.

The fact is that circumcision is performed in baby girls in various parts of South-East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. "She won't remember," however, seems to fail this litmus test.

Not all female circumcision is forced.
As in adult male circumcision, adult female circumcision is also often a rite of passage that a girl or woman is expected to undergo willingly. "Willingly" is a misnomer, as succumbing to social pressure can hardly be called "free will." This seems to be a good enough reason, however, to look the other way, when it concerns male circumcision as it happens in African tribes. In the "mass circumcision campaigns" in Africa, one often hears the acronym "VMMC," which stands for "voluntary medical male circumcision." With all the social pressure to get circumcised, lest one be seen as an HIV risk, one must wonder how much of the circumcisions in Africa are actually "voluntary."

For better or for worse, however, there are communities where a woman submits herself to get circumcised out of her own free will. While this is enough to justify male circumcision in various situations in Africa, "social pressure" only seems to be a problem when it involves female circumcision.

Not all female circumcision removes the same parts.
Male circumcision advocates always compare male infant circumcision as it occurs in the United States, to infibulation, which is a kind of female circumcision that removes the clitoris, inner and outer labia, and the remaining wound is sewn shut to leave only a small hole for menstruation.

In reality, infibulation is the WORST kind of female circumcision, and it is actually the rarest, comprising of 15% of female circumcision globally. There are various other forms of female circumcision, and not all of them remove the same parts of the genitals. There are forms of female circumcision that are as equal to, or less severe than male circumcision. At least in the United States, ALL forms of female genital cutting is considered "mutilation," and against the law.

What is true for female circumcision, is also true for male circumcision.
Just as female circumcision is often performed by shamanesses and priestesses with glass shards and rusty razor blades under harsh conditions, the same is true for male circumcision.

Every year, millions of men undergo circumcision as a rite of passage in various parts of Africa, and every year, scores of men succumb to infection, lose their penises to gangrene, or die.

While these are concerns regarding female circumcision, they don't seem to be a concern regarding male circumcision.

Perhaps less women would succumb to infection or bleed to death if only these procedures would be done in hospitals. Perhaps it would be less traumatic if only these women were circumcised as babies so that they wouldn't remember the pain and anguish.

The suggestion that African states should provide sterile equipment and proper training to provide "infant female circumcision" would probably not make it very far.

So what is being compared?
The comparison of male infant circumcision as it occurs in America to female circumcision as it occurs in the African bush is self-serving hyperbole.

A more accurate comparison of male infant circumcision as it occurs in American hospitals would be female infant circumcision as it occurs in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei.

A more accurate comparison of female circumcision as it occurs in Africa would be male circumcision as it occurs in Africa.

Apples to apples
So what do people mean when they assert that "male and female circumcision aren't the same?"

When someone makes this claim, can we trust that this person has actually taken the time to do their research? That s/he has actually witnessed both male and female circumcision? Adult and minor?

How can we be sure that they're aren't blowing female circumcision out of proportion in order to trivialize male circumcision?

I dare say that comparing male infant circumcision as it is performed in US hospitals to female circumcision as it is performed in the African wilderness is a false comparison. It ignores the fact that circumcision is performed in males under the exact same conditions as it does in females. It ignores the fact that there are actually various kinds of female circumcision, some equal to, if not less severe than male circumcision as we know it. It ignores the fact that we would never accept female circumcision, not even the kind that can be compared with male circumcision, or even dwarfs in comparison.

Let's compare the same exact thing:

A baby in South-East Asia undergoes "sunat"

Original Text: "It happens so fast, with a bismillah and a snip,

a little bit blood and that's it, Zahra dah sunat!

She didn't cry even a drop, in fact giggling2 lagi.

I guess it wasn't painful for her, alhamdulillahh.."

The slit clitoris if you can find it (on the lower blade)

You can read the whole thing here:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html

We're often told that male infant circumcision is "just a little snip," "he doesn't even cry," and they remove "only a little flap of skin."

Well, let's have "a little flap of skin,"

..and let's compare it to the slit clitoris above.

I'm somehow not convinced that the foreskin is "just a little flap of skin."

And I'm not convinced that female circumcision, as we see above, is "worse."

Remove the same exact amount of flesh you see above from the genitals of a baby girl, that would be "mutilation."

When we actually sit down and compare like with like, I dare say male infant circumcision is more severe than female infant circumcision.

Recap of the facts:
Female circumcision is not always as severe as male circumcision advocates would like their audience to believe. While it is often performed by a shamaness priestess, using raw tools such as a rusty razor blade or a glass shard, under the harsh conditions of the bush, the same is also true for male circumcision.

While male infant circumcision is often conducted by a professional, with sterile equipment, in the pristine environment of a health facility, the same can also be true of female circumcision.

While infection and hemorrhaging to death are risks of female circumcision, the same is also true of male circumcision.

Claims of "hygiene" and "medical benefits," as well as "literature" to back these claims exist for both male and female circumcision. While these seem to be perfectly good rationale to justify circumcision in males, there would never be enough literature that would ever make female circumcision "acceptable."

Conclusion
Comparing the severity of male and female circumcision, citing "potential medical benefits," "religion and culture," and "parental choice" are all red herrings that draw attention from the point that intactivists are trying to make:

Circumcision, male or female, is always abuse, genital mutilation, and a gross violation of basic human rights, when it is conducted on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

Whether it is performed by professional or amateur, in the hospital or in the bush, on babies, children or adults, with pain killers or without, with a glass shard or a scalpel, whether it removes a "tiny flap of skin," or a substantial chunk of flesh, for "potential medical benefits" or for "religious reasons" is irrelevant.

The Bottom Line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genital 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 normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of 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.

Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less stoking a parent's sense of entitlement.

References:
For more information regarding female circumcision as it is performed in South East Asia, I recommend the following article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html

The WHO classifies female circumcision into four types. Read more about them here:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Closer investigation reveals that, contrary to popular belief, women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital cutting, are still able to orgasm:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496293/abstract
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"Studies show" that female circumcision "reduces" the risk of HIV:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Additionally:
"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
http://www.islamictreasures.com/manners-of-welcoming-the-new-born-child-in-islam-sku16723.html

A mother in South East Asia blogs about her daughter's circumcision, or "sunat," as it is known there. The picture used in this blog post was also taken from here:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
Another blog similar to the one above:
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot.com/2010/10/sunat-baby-girl.html

In the following parenting forum for South East Asia, mothers describe their experiences in having their daughters circumcised, their own circumcisions as adults, and there are even some recommendations for doctors who perform it.
http://www.mummysg.com/forums/f40/have-you-sunat-your-girls-29826/

Note that if the forum above were discussing boys instead of girls, it would read like almost any other parenting forum on the internet, such as CafeMom or what have you. Cutting genitals in the name of "religion," "parental prerogative," or "potential medical benefits" is only an issue with girls; never with boys.

CIRCUMCISION: The Washington Post Folds to the PrePex Ad Campaign

2011-12-15T10:36:00.000-08:00

On my last post, I talked about how the BBC basically ran a paid ad for the PrePex circumcision device using claims based on dubious studies, as well as unfounded myth, and the conflict of interest of the CEO of the company who markets PrePex. Upon further inspection, one can see that the video was not only a paid ad by PrePex, it is a clip of the show "The Health Show," which is sponsored by none other than Bill Gates. (One can see this in the caption under the video.)

The plot thickens.

On my last post, other readers have commented that they are unable to see the video hosted by the BBC. According to my comments, Brits get a message that the video is not visible in their area, this despite the fact that they are IN the UK, and they all pay a license fee. It sounds like PrePex and Bill Gates had a target audience in mind, and they're using technicalities to keep Brits from seeing the content. Could it be that they know Brits, who are for the most part intact, would call bullshit and protest?

Now, it seems, PrePex and Circumcision Inc. are trying to expand their business, and are having news outlets run paid ads that masquerade as "news" for them. A few days ago, the Washington Post ran an article that's basically another paid ad for circumcision and the PrePex device. This time, instead of being pushed by the PrePex CEO, the ad came in the form of an article by Agnes Binagwaho, the Minister of Health of the Republic of Rwanda, who appeared on the BBC video promoting circumcision. Apparently she's a recipient of an honorary PhD in sciences from Dartmouth University" for her "lifetime achievement in treating and preventing AIDS." (Which means she isn't even a real PhD.)

Agnes Binagwaho ought to be ashamed of herself. On the "The Health Show" clip hosted by the BBC, she spouts off how "circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 60%" as if it were matter of fact. How does she know this? Who exactly is she to be making this value judgment? An "honorary PhD?" Is Dartmouth University CRAZY? Did she get this because she's so interested in preventing AIDS? Or did she get this because she agreed to push circumcision?

Here she is on Washington Post, and earlier on the BBC seeking acquiescence to the dubious claim that circumcision "reduces the risk of HIV by 60%," by peddling a device that is supposed to make circumcision "easier and faster." You'd think this were a paid informercial.

Actually, I think this is precisely what this is.

On the BBC, Binagwaho is accompanied by Tzameret Fuerst, CEO of the company that sells the PrePex device (who also happens to be the wife of the inventor of the device). Conflict of interest much? It doesn't help much that video on the BBC is a clip from "The Health Show," who also just happens to be funded by Bill Gates, circumcision promoter extraordinaire.

There is not a doubt in my mind that if we look behind who's behind this paid ad we'll find the same people. I'd bet that if we were to check out this woman's paychecks, they'd all be signed by Med CircTech, Bill Gates, PEPFAR etc.

I don't trust this woman further than I can throw her. She is a paid puppet and she has absolutely no idea what she's talking about. Is this woman not aware that, according to a demographic health survey taken in 2005, the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8 vs 2.1. in her own country? According to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Rwanda. (In America, 80% of the male population is circumcised from birth.) It is disconcerting that the Health Minister is either not aware of the facts, or she is deliberately ignoring them.

If circumcision is so effective at preventing HIV, why isn't this effect evident in other countries that circumcise? According to USAID, HIV transmission was higher among circumcised men in 10 out of 18 countries. Why are HIV transmission rates higher in America, where 80% of the men are circumcised from birth, than in Europe, where circumcision is rare?

This is nothing but a paid advertisement for Med CircTech, who is trying to ride the circumcision/HIV gravy train. This woman is no real authority on epidemiology, surgery, urology or even pediatrics. The Washington Post should be ashamed for agreeing to publish this disgusting rubbish infomercial that isn't even fit for television. SHAME on you Agnes Binagwaho, you are a sellout to your own country. SHAME on you, Washington Post, you are a sellout to decent journalism.

CIRCUMCISION: BBC Runs Paid PrePex Ad

2011-12-07T09:28:00.001-08:00

It was something I would expect to find only on one of those cheesy infomercial channels, but there it was on the BBC website.

In the heading underneath the video, you can see it, as if it were irrefutable fact:

"Male circumcision reduces the chances of men in heterosexual relationships becoming infected with HIV."
This should have been my first clue.

This would more accurately read "horrendously flawed and heavily manipulated "research" suggests that male circumcision *might* be responsible for reducing the chances of sexually promiscuous men in Sub-Saharan Africa with multiple partnerships, who don't wear condoms, from becoming infected with HIV."

I was expecting more from a British, non-American news outlet.

At first glance, you would think that the people portrayed might be genuinely interested in HIV prevention in Africa, but upon closer inspection, you find that it's simply more circumcision propaganda, particularly the promotion of the PrePex circumcision device.

How does circumcision prevent HIV?

It's disconcerting enough to hear a woman mindlessly chant the well-worn line that "circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission in men by 60%." (What does this actually mean, anyway? 60% of what?)

Note: The woman that appears is the Health Minister of Rwanda. According to a demographic health survey taken in 2005, the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8 vs 2.1. (See p. 10) According to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Rwanda. (In America, 80% of the male population is circumcised from birth.)It is disconcerting that the Health Minister is either not aware of the facts, or she is deliberately ignoring them. I suspect she may be receiving a bribe from Bill and Melinda Gates, PEPFAR or whatnot to boldly ignore the situation in her own country.

What is truly disturbing is to see a video on BBC, where a man touts that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV by making the head of the penis tough and callused like the sole of the foot, acting like a "barrier," as if it were matter of fact.

"A person living without shoes, they have very hard skin. They are walking on stone every day, without any wounds. So it's the same thing with the penis."

"Researchers" may claim that circumcision "reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 60%," there is not a single doctor, scientist or "researcher" that can say with certainty that the callused penis acts as a "barrier" against HIV. To be certain, there is absolutely no scientific basis for this claim.

In actuality, this, the theory that the keratinized surface of the penis in circumcised male resists infection, while the tender mucosa of the glans and inner of the intact male are ports of entry, is perhaps the oldest hypothesis on the mechanism whereby circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV.

It has also long been debunked.

One study found that there is "no difference between the keratinization of the inner and outer aspects of the adult male foreskin," and that "keratin layers alone were unlikely to explain why uncircumcised men are at higher risk for HIV infection." Another study found that "no difference can be clearly visualized between the inner and outer foreskin."

To be sure, while "researchers" insist with skewed statistics that there is a "correlation" between circumcision and a reduction in HIV transmission, there is not a one that can demonstrate precisely how this happens.

Few people know this, but the famous big three "studies" from Africa lack a working hypothesis. The claim that circumcision "reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 60%" is pure speculation; there is not a single doctor, scientist or researcher who can provide a demonstrable causal link between the foreskin and HIV transmission.

And yet, here we have it, a man on a video on BBC, pretending to tell us exactly how circumcision works.

Why the BBC allows such drivel on their website is mind-boggling.

Conflicts of interest
In the video, a particular woman stands out. Her eyes are wide and glowing, and she tells us, grinning like a french poodle, the wonders of circumcision, and how this new device does away with "that unwanted foreskin." "Unwanted" by whom? Why is she so enthusiastic about circumcision? Particularly this new "PrePex" device? And why does it seem like she's more excited about getting millions circumcised, than she is about HIV prevention? Why is the fact that, even if "studies" were correct, circumcision is not "100% effective" an afterthought?

The enthusiastic woman in the video is Tzameret Fuerst, CEO of Circ MedTech, the company marketing the PrePex device. If my presumptions are correct, she is the wife of Oren Fuerst, co-inventor of this device. Millions of men circumcised means that millions of PrePex devices will be bought and used. She's cashing in on the HIV gravy train, and that's why she's smiling.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
~Upton Sinclair

But this would not be the only conflict of interest this woman has. PrePex was invented by Israeli researchers Oren Fuerst, Ido Kilemnick, and Shaul Shohat.

Why do I mention this fact?

I find it increasingly disturbing, the idea that there are Israelis, and Jewish people intent on evangelizing circumcision to other parts of the world. Shusterman Foundation paid Neil Pollock, a professional mohel and child circumcisor by trade, to promote infant circumcision in Rwanda. The Jerusalem AIDS Project (JAIP) created Operation Abraham, which is an organization whose sole purpose is to promote circumcision any which way it can. They've gone as far as Africa, Mexico, and even America to do just this.

A disproportionate number of "researchers" and outspoken members of medical organizations just "happen" to be Jewish. Aaron J. Fink, the very inventor of the idea that circumcision might prevent AIDS was Jewish. Stephen Lewis, former head of UNAIDS, is Jewish; he founded AIDS-Free World in 2007, and he uses this organization to gather funding for male circumcision programs. Daniel Halperin, a lead circumcision "researcher" is Jewish (his grandfather was a mohel). On May 28th 2010, at the UNC School of Medicine, Halperin lectured on "Moyels without Borders?: Barriers to Scale-up of Circumcision."

The list goes on.

So in the end, what's this all about?

Is it really about HIV prevention?

Is it about cashing in on the opportunity? Striking while the iron's hot?

Or do people's intentions on spreading circumcision run deeper than that?

Is this really about HIV prevention? Or is it about popularizing and safeguarding a religious and cultural tradition that has come ever under scrutiny? (Cases, in point, the San Francisco Ban, efforts by the Dutch to discourage circumcision etc.)

All I've gotta say is, there's something fishy going on around here.

This video on the BBC website is nothing more than a paid advertisement for the PrePex device. It's rubbish "as-seen-on-TV" telemarketing that isn't even fit to be on infomercial channel, and the BBC ought to be ashamed for publishing it.

Disclaimer:
The words in this blog belong strictly to Joseph4GI, and do not necessarily reflect the views of other intactivists. Please do not conflate my pointing out of conflicts of interest with anti-Semitism. It is simply matter-of-fact that circumcision is an important and indispensable religious custom to Jews, one that they have historically fought to defend for centuries. Being both Jewish and a circumcision "researcher" presents a conflict of interest, because it places one in the awkward position of reporting accurate findings, and questioning the propriety of what, for Jews, has been a historically controversial and ethically problematic religious practice.

Other posts of interest:
Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

2011-11-27T17:57:00.001-08:00

It's been a while... There's so much I want to write about... There is so much I want to say... I've just been busy with life... work... family... I've been just so overwhelmed...

But I thought this warranted a post.

Often, when circumcision is promoted in this country, the so-called "benefits" of his non-therapeutic surgery are terribly exaggerated, while the risks are completely downplayed, if mentioned at all.

The only ones most parents in this country will hear about, if physicians even bother mentioning them are "pain and discomfort." Few will mention that circumcision could result in MRSA infection, a botched circumcision requiring future correction, partial or full ablation, and even death.

Yes, death is a risk or "complication" of circumcision, but it is rarely mentioned, if at all.

This is what is known and recognized by medical organizations in this country as "informed consent."

An estimated 117 deaths occur every year in the United States due to circumcision. This is a rough estimate, and more conservative than its predecessors (in the past, estimates have been as high as 200 or more deaths per year).

It is hard to get an accurate estimate on the number of deaths in the United States, because deaths due to circumcision are rarely reported as such, if reported at all. At 1.3 million circumcisions a year, circumcision is a money-maker for American medicine, and doctors have an investment to protect. Reporting adverse circumcision effects puts the yearly stipend in jeopardy, not to mention the disrepute it would bring to American medicine.

Doctors have reputations to uphold, and pocketbooks to line and protect from lawsuits. With so much to lose, there is incentive to hide the evidence. And, parents who would like to maintain their illusion of circumcision being "harmless," and perish the thought that they were actively involved in any way in the death of their son, often agree to keep the death "secret," or report it as the doctor says.

Deaths due to circumcision are often reported as caused by something else, such as "cardiac arrest," or "septic shock." Reporting secondary causes of death hides the fact that they were caused by the circumcision that preceded them. Additionally, hospitals are not required to report deaths caused by circumcision.

Reporting deaths from circumcision would open the floodgates to lawsuits by angry parents and angry men. Reporting deaths from circumcision means loss of revenue. Reporting deaths from circumcision means the "benefits" have to be reconsidered. Reporting deaths from circumcision means that American medical organizations are being irresponsible. Reporting deaths from circumcision means "culture and tradition" is put in danger.

For these reasons, we will never know for sure how many children die as a result of their circumcisions. Reputations to protect, culture and tradition to safeguard, and floodgates to keep sealed.

Meanwhile, boys continue to die.

Connor James was born on Thanksgiving Weekend, Friday, November 25th in Pittsburgh, PA. On Saturday, November 26th, Baby Connor bled to death following his circumcision. Circumcision claims yet another life.

Last year, Joshua Haskins suffered a similar death. After struggling to survive in a NICU with a congenital heart problem, doctors thought it gracious to pressure his mother to have him circumcised "now that he's strong and healthy." Doctors, and even Josh's mother herself insist that Joshua died because of his heart problem (which wasn't aggravated by his circumcision?), although her blog records, which were saved before they were taken down, relate clearly that Joshua had been bleeding uncontrollably, and that it wasn't until 7 hours that doctors caught the nicked vein and decided to stitch it up. By then it was too late.

Would Joshua Haskins still be alive today, had they found the vein in the nick of time?

Who knows.

One thing is for sure though; Joshua was healthy and strong before his circumcision, which unquestionably did cause the complication. Joshua Haskins didn't have to die.

Neither did Connor James.

Neither did countless others before him that we will most likely never know about.

Circumcision KILLS, people.

Death is one of the "risks" of this procedure.

Considering that there is no medical or clinical necessity to circumcise a perfectly healthy child, is it really worth it?

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing risky surgery on a healthy, non-consenting individual, let alone elicit any kind of a "decision" from parents?

A week from today, Bay Area Intactivists, an intactivist group in San Francisco, will hold a candlelight vigil in remembrance of all male, female and intersex children who have lost their lives due to unnecessary genital surgery.

Rest in peace, Joshua Haskins.

Rest in peace, Connor James.

Rest in peace, Amitai Moshe.

Rest in peace, all of you who died before your time due to this human tragedy.

May one day infant genital mutilation be a thing of the past.

CALIFORNIA: Triple-think?

2011-10-09T23:04:00.000-07:00

I wonder just what is Governor Brown on.

On the one hand, he signs AB768, making it illegal to ban circumcision, protecting "religious freedom" and "parental choice." Parents can circumcise their sons all the way up until they turn 18, and they have no capacity to refuse.

And yet, he also signs AB499, which "allows" children 12 and above to "choose" to get Gardasil, a shot that is supposed to prevent HPV, without parental consent.

So while AB768 is supposed to "protect" so-called "parental-choice," AB499 basically takes it away.

To confuse things even further, he also passes a law that prohibits the use of tanning beds for children under 18.

Limiting circumcision to medically necessary procedures and to consenting adults 18 and above is precisely what intactivists were seeking to do in San Francisco, but for whatever reason this was a no-go.

Am I missing something?

Muncie Circumcision Case: HIGHWAY ROBBERY

2011-10-09T05:00:00.000-07:00

So apparently, a doctor can just simply get away with doing what he wants with your son. He could just cut off part of his penis, with or without your consent, and you're supposed to just live with it.

"Oops, I'm sorry" is somehow supposed to cover permanent damage.

One doctor Michael R. Burt was recently indicted in a lawsuit for circumcising a boy against his parents' express wishes.

What is sad is that the boy comes from a family where circumcision is not practiced, the parents believe circumcision is genital mutilation and they were making it a point to make sure this didn't happen to their children. Now, the boy will have to live being different than his family members.

Well, it looks like the jury has decided this doctor should get off the hook without paying any damages.

Burt's attorneys acknowledged their client had made an honest mistake, but insisted "no evidence was presented to indicate being circumcised would prevent the youth from having a happy and productive life."

As if resilience from abuse were even relevant.

With the proper counseling, victims of rape and child abuse grow up to have happy and fulfilling lives, but this does not excuse the actions of the perpetrator.

No amount of counseling is going to give this child his normal intact organs back.

He's going to have to live with permanently marred organs for the rest of his life, and his parents are going to have to live with the fact that a doctor abused them and their child, and there is legally nothing that they could do about it.

For whatever reason, one witness thought it gracious to downplay the sensitivity of the penis by stating that "a penis could not be used to read books published in Braille for the sight-impared."

For that matter, a clitoris can't be used for the same purpose either.

On the commentary pages for the articles linked to above, many defend this doctor for being "wonderful, caring and gracious," and that the child will be "just fine."

NOBODY KNOWS THIS FOR SURE.

Nobody knows that the child would indeed not resent the fact that he was forcibly without his consent, even against his parents' express wishes.

Dr. Burt may be wonderful, caring and gracious, but the court is pardoning him for being completely irresponsible.

Whether or not this boy will be OK or not is secondary. The fact of the matter is, the doctor went strictly against the parents' express wishes. Any way you slice it, circumcision is a permanent removal of part of a person's body.

A sad day in America it is when doctors simply aren't expected to be responsible for their actions.

This doctor is being completely irresponsible, and the courts are a disgusting shame for absolving him.

EDIT (same day): An afterthought I had:

Said one of the doctor's lawyers, "Let's pay (the boy) $15 a day until he dies? That's nonsense! [That would] open the courthouse door to every kid who's been circumcised."

Well, at least the children whose circumcisions were performed against the express wishes of the parents.

In other words folks, practicing justice is unfathomable because it would set an inconvenient precedent.

Heaven forbid doctors be held liable for reaping profit from non-therapeutic surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals...

Pro-Circumcision Jewish LGBTs - The Height of Hypocrisy?

2011-10-07T09:10:00.000-07:00

I think it's bad enough that there are gays and lesbians who advocate for child circumcision.

Gay friends that I have in the intactivist movement tell me that in America, a good majority of US gay guys say they absolutely prefer the circumcised penis and are in favor of infant circumcision. Some will go as far as to refuse a partner if he is not circumcised.

This boggles the mind.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that up until relatively recently, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness that parents could seek to "cure" in their children. It's almost as if they've forgotten that they've been fighting for "tolerance," "acceptance" and the freedom to be who they are, as they are.

The gay motto seems to be "I'm not going to fit myself into a little box just for you."

They've recently lauded the collapse of the infamous "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Oh but that foreskin? Ew gross! Put it away or cut it off!

But Jewish gays and lesbians defending circumcision as a "religious freedom" have GOT to be at the height of hypocrisy.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to the Torah, homosexuality is an abomination to god. It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to their own religion, homosexuals are cut off from their own people.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 18

In response to Governor Brown's signing of AB768, the law that sanctions male infant genital mutilation in the so-called name of "religious freedom" by mandating its medical validity, openly gay politicians who identify as being Jewish have taken the opportunity to come out and try and impress potential religious voters.

As always, it seems obligatory to draw attention away from religious conviction by feigning an interest in medicine. According to State Senator Mark Leno, Brown's signature ended "any confusion or ambiguity [concerning] state control over medical procedures conducted bylicensed health care professionals." District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener added that the governor's signature placed "California firmly on record as supporting religious minorities and supporting the right of the doctors to perform medical procedures without interference by government." One must wonder, how surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals is "medical."

But openly gay San Francisco mayoral candidate Bevan Dufty's comment was the boldest:

"As a Jew, I believe that our religious traditions should be removed from the balloting process."

Yes, it's a good thing we've elected politicians who make religious traditions, such as gay-bashing, illegal.

I've got to ask, if these Jewish LGBTs are so much in favor of "religious freedom" and "parental rights," do they support a parent's right to send their gay son to get electro-shock therapy?

Do they support a parent's right to send their lesbian daughter to straight camp? And if they fail to "straighten up," do they support a parent's right to put their gay son out on the street?

But most of all, do they support parents teaching their children that gays and lesbians are going to burn in hell, as they do in the Westboro Baptist Church?

Shame on Jewish LGBTs for supporting the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting children.

Do they forget? The circumcision of girls is a "religious custom" as well. The federal ban against all genital cutting infringes on "religious freedom" and parental choice as well. Are they concerned about that?

I just don't understand.

You would think that two of the most oppressed minorities in the world would instantly "get it."

EDIT(Added approx 10 mins. later): I just thought of this; "researchers" have been trying for the longest time to pathologize normal intact male genitals as the source of all disease. They're currently in Africa trying to stigmatize the act of being a whole male. But remember when HIV was the "gay disease?" I'm telling you, something is wrong with this so-called "research..."

CALIFORNIA: Charlatanism Officially Protected

2011-10-02T20:49:00.000-07:00

It's official.

Governor Brown has signed AB768, which decrees that the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is "medically beneficial."

I could be mistaken, but this could very well be the first law in all of the United States that dictates the medical validity of a surgical procedure on healthy, non-consenting individuals, without evidentiary hearings of any kind.

I'm at a loss for words.

The law basically defies the whole of Western medicine, and absolves doctors from reaping profit from non-medical procedures performed on healthy non-consenting individuals.

By California law, males 17 years and below have no capacity to refuse a permanent disfigurement on their genitals, and doctors and other individuals responsible are absolved.

What a sad day in the fight for equal rights.

No, children's rights.

No, basic human rights.

They day will come when this law will be overturned, and all who signed it will be ashamed of themselves.

Federal Level
The law proposed on the federal level is a bit more brazen, outright calling on our federal government to protect circumcision in the name of "religious freedom" and "parental choice." Not only does it defy all of Western medicine, it also flies in the face of the 1st and 14th Amendments.

Readers, if you are opposed to the "Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act" (H. R. 2400) and would like to take action to stop it, I strongly suggest you use POPVOX to contact your Representative. It is also a good idea to contact other Representatives, particularly those on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is considering the Bill. When you write, be sure to include a clause which specifically says "I oppose H. R. 2400."

I personally have used POPVOX and I got a form reply from my representative Sam Farr, so I know it works. POPVOX makes it easy for you to contact your Representative about this and other issues. I highly recommend readers register with POPVOX and contact their Representative concerning this bill.

Click here to go directly to the H. R. 2400 bill on POPVOX.

Let your voice be heard!

It could make all the difference.

Visit the following links for another set of analyses regarding the the circumcision protection laws:

Califronia Law

Federal Law

URGENT: Governor Brown to Sign AB768

2011-09-24T21:26:00.000-07:00

Recap
I've already written about the legal circumcision battle that has been waged on the state and federal levels.

The long and the short of it is that Congressman Brad Sherman and his former employee California State Assemblyman Mike Gatto are trying to pass measures that basically decree that infant circumcision is "medically beneficial."

Respected medical organizations in and outside of the United States have consistently stated that there is not enough evidence to endorse the practice. If made into law, the measures would codify statements that no medical organization in the world has ever dared to make.

While Gatto's law in California focuses on dictating the medical validity of non-therapeutic elective surgery, the bill Congressman Sherman has introduced in the House of Representatives, the "Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011", specifically asks the government to sanction circumcision as a religious practice, challenging the 1st Amendment, and bringing into question the validity of the U.S. Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996, which, by definition, also infringes on "religious and parental rights."

Here's the Latest...
Whereas the bill on the federal level, also known as H. R. 2400, was assigned to the House Comittee on Energy and Commerce on June 24th this year, and has not made it past this point, the bill on the state level, also known as AB768, has already been approved unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee (5-0) and the State Senate (37-0), and by the Legislature. Amendments made to the bill have been passed by the Assembly and is at Governor Jerry Brown's office to be signed. Being presented as an "urgency bill necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety," it will take effect immediately as soon as it is signed. If it passes, California will be the first state to enact a law that defies all of medicine.

Urgent
Governor Brown has until October 9th to sign or veto AB768, which says that "Male circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits" and that "No city, county, or city and county ordinance, regulation, or administrative actions shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of a parent's authority to have a child circumcised."

In short, AB768 codifies medical statements that take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West, and absolves medical professionals for non-therapeutic surgery on minors based on them. The measure is a clear attempt at sanctioning religious practice under the guise of medicine, and flies in the face of the First (freedom of religion), Fourth (security of person), and Fourteenth (equal protection under the law) Amendments of the US Constitution.

If you oppose measure AB768, please go here, scroll down to AB768, choose "con" and ask Governor Brown to veto it.

Contact Your Representative
If you are opposed to the "Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act" (H. R. 2400) and would like to take action to stop it, I strongly suggest you use POPVOX to contact your Representative. It is also a good idea to contact other Representatives, particularly those on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is considering the Bill. When you write, be sure to include a clause which specifically says "I oppose H. R. 2400."

Let Your Voice Be Heard!
The chances that the Governor will veto this bill are slim, but don't let this stop us from speaking out! Even if he does sign, he and his staff will had to have seen our response. Nothing is ever going to be accomplished if we keep quiet.

What I Wrote to Governor Brown...
Dear Governor Brown,

I was writing to ask that you please use your power to stop the passing of AB768, the law to "protect" infant circumcision.

There are more reasons than one.

First of all, the bill would codify into law statements that absolutely no medical organization in the world has dared to make. The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. In fact, every American medical board has consistently refused to recommend circumcision for infants, saying there is not enough evidence.

No respected U.S. based medical board recommends circumcision for U.S. 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.

But secondly, this bill is a case of special pleading. It says clearly in our constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

If this bill gets passed, it would be a direct challenge to the federal ban on female genital cutting, because it violates "religious and parental rights."

This bill would defy all of modern medicine, protect religious interests and open up a can of worms.

Sir, I call upon you to please do what is right as governor and halt this bill from passing.

Thank you for your concideration.

Intactivists Give Abigail R. Esman a Run for Her Money

2011-09-22T10:14:00.000-07:00

In response to recent efforts by the the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) to discourage the non-theraputic circumcision of boys, Abigail R. Esman uses her blog at Forbes to go on a libelous diatribe against the organization, spouting lies and false claims.

When one reads her headline, which reads "Circumcision Makes You Crazy. So Holland Moves To Stop It.", one gets the misleading impression that the KNMG actually is actually claiming that circumcision drives men insane, and that they want to move to stop circumcision on these grounds.

At least, that's what I thought until I decided to read through her post.

The amount of outright lies and blatant misinformation was astounding. I wonder if Forbes is aware that one of their contributors is embarrassing them with horrible writing.

And, as if this weren't enough, she starts deleting voices of dissent in her comments section, ultimately just closing the comments section down. I've decided I'm going to pick apart her silly post on my blog, piece by piece.

She begins:

"Calling the practice "a violation of human rights" and a precursor to mental illness, Holland’s Royal Society of Medicine is encouraging the country’s parliament to place a ban on male circumcision."

The KNMG does indeed call the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors a violation of human rights. But where on earth do they say that circumcision will in fact lead to mental illness? Is she not even going to provide a link so that we can read what in fact the KNMG says? Or are we simply expected to take her word for it?

The KNMG's 2010 position statement on male circumcision can be accessed here.

There is absolutely nothing in there that says that circumcision "makes you crazy."

The next few sentences are interesting:

"Of course, such proposals come up regularly – there’s one out now in San Francisco, for instance – but they are usually the work of political groups; after all, the idea of banning circumcision is itself politically based."

Regularly? Where? I happen to be a Californian, and to my knowledge, in all my years as an intactivist, this is the first and only proposal in this state that I've ever heard of, quite possibly the last in a very long time.

And the idea of banning circumcision is itself politically based? One would wonder how she actually came to such a conclusion. And I wonder if she thinks this, the idea that banning circumcision is "politically based", applies to ALL circumcision, or just male circumcision.

It gets more interesting:

"That [a proposal to ban the male circumcision of minors] comes from a medical association, however, suggests something significantly more sinister, if for no other reason than the fact that the arguments they offer to support the measure fly in the face of actual science."

This she claims without giving a single example. Again, we're expected to take her word at face value.

And speaking of lies and political ends, let's talk about what Abigail R. Esman is trying to insinuate. She seems to be implying, with no proof whatsoever, that failing to circumcise males on a great scale increases the risk to public health, and that it is a direct cause of health issues. She also seems to be implying that there is already prevalence of circumcision in the Netherlands that would be threatened by the KMNG's proposal, thereby putting Dutch public health at risk of all the health issues that the foreskin causes. She is either ignorant or she hopes her readers aren't smart enough to know better.

The Netherlands is a country where circumcision is in fact rare and limited to Jews, Muslims, and to procedures that are medically necessary. STD transmissions are in fact lower in the Netherlands, where circumcision is rare, than in America, where the majority of men are circumcised at birth.

To be sure, America has the highest rates of HIV transmission in the industrialized world. 80% of American males are circumcised from birth, while in most countries in Europe, circumcision is uncommon. Despite this, our country does poorly when it comes to the transmission of STDs.

In fact, AIDS rates in some US Cities rival hot-spots in Africa. In some parts of the U.S., they're actually higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. According to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda. The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C., March 15, 2009, "[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." (Hader once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe.)

Esman continues:

"And it’s not just the doctors. Indeed, the move, coming on the heels of a so-called “modified ban” on kosher and halal slaughter, demonstrates just how far Europe has come in its response to what it sees as a threat on Western democratic values posed by its growing Muslim population; increasingly, as I argued after the Norway massacre, Europe is at serious risk of transforming itself into a white, Christian supremacist state in its efforts to avoid becoming an Islamic one."

It's very interesting how just after accusing doctors of having some sort of racist political agenda, Esman proceeds to talk about the systematic oppression of Jews and Muslims by "White Supremacist Europe," as if the people responsible for all of the other issues she brings up were "one and the same." Have Europeans all unanimously embraced Christianity now? And incidentally, how is bringing up other issues proof that doctors at the KMNG are all politically and racially motivated? Has it not occurred to her that the KMNG may actually be motivated by human rights? What does she think of governments cracking down on female circumcision? Does she stick up for Islamic practices then? Or is that "different?"

Moving on...

"According to the Dutch medical society, for instance, circumcision — practiced by Dutch Muslims and Jews and standard procedure for almost all newborn males in the USA..."

According to recent CDC reports, the rate of infant circumcision in America has dropped to approximately 55%.

I know she lives in the Netherlands... should I give her the benefit of the doubt?

"...can result in castration (just how many times does that happen, I wonder?) or death; cause infections; create “mental anguish”; cause sexual problems (we all know about Einstein’s sexual issues, right?), and more."

Well it can.

How many times can castration happen? How many times would it be acceptable? Especially given the fact that circumcision is medically unnecessary in healthy minors? If Esman would have bothered to check, she would have found the David Reimer case. There have been other documented incidences of castration, particularly in Jewish and Islamic circumcision rituals. She would have found that there have been quite a number of lawsuits in the in the States because, mohels specifically, have severed the heads of the penises of a few infant boys. She would have found that a New York rabbi gave herpes to three babies, one of whom died, by sucking on their wounded penises, an ancient practice performed by ultra-orthodox rabbis called "metzitzah b’peh." She would have found other documented cases of death. She would have found that MRSA infection is actually a big problem at hospitals. She will have found that, according to studies in Israel, ritual circumcision is a risk factor in UTI. She will have found that circumcision botches are so common that there are actually doctors who specialize in repairing them. And she will have found that there are studies that show that circumcision can cause sexual problems.

Obviously she really couldn't care less.

"And here’s the kicker: “no medical association anywhere in the world,” they claim, endorses male circumcision for health reasons."

And the KMNG is accurate. In particular, no medical association in the world endorses *infant* male circumcision for health reasons.

As if to try and sound matter-of-fact, she continues:

"This, of course, is an outright falsehood, and surely they know it. In fact, the California Medical Association, faced with a similar proposal, recently wrote the following statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee: “”From political to religious, there are many differing views on the practice of male circumcision. However, in the medical world, the CMA has long endorsed the concept of newborn circumcision as an effective public health measure.”"

This paragraph speaks to Esman's ignorance on the matter. As I explained in a reply that she has deleted, it is clear she merely copied and pasted this quote straight out of amednews.com, which was issued by one Ruth Haskins. If Esman would have tried to verify this quote, she would have found out that Ruth Haskins either suffers from Amnesia or was outright lying. There was a resolution to endorse circumcision back in 1989, but it lapsed years ago.

Esman continues by quoting the AAP, and even here, she must admit that their policy does not endorse routine neonatal circumcision, just as the KMNG has said. In fact, in their latest position statement, they declare, much to her chagrin, that "[the] ...benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised."

I told her in my reply, I've said it before, and I will keep saying it, 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.

For some unexplained reason, she feels it is necessary to insert the next paragraph:

"Meantime, Holland’s wise doctors have yet to issue any formal statement about the far more serious problem of the country’s enormous infant mortality rate (among the worst in Western Europe) and high breast cancer fatality rate (the fourth highest in Europe, and rising)."

Notice how instead of writing about these other issues, which apparently are worse problems that are being neglected, she writes an entire blog post about her disdain for the KNMG's positon regarding the non-theraputic circumcision of healthy minors.

She says:

"To be sure, the KNMG... has not called for an outright ban on the procedure; they are far too politically clever for that."

I'd like to point out how in her opening sentence, Esman was alleging:

"Calling the practice “a violation of human rights “ and a precursor to mental illness, Holland’s Royal Society of Medicine is encouraging the country’s parliament to place a ban on male circumcision."

The KMNG is either calling for a ban, or they are not. So which is it?

"Claiming that such a ban would only put the practice into the hands of the unskilled, they have rather recommended a “change in mentality” among those groups which practice circumcision in the Netherlands – namely Jews and Muslims, those same minority groups which happen also to be affected by the ban on ritual slaughter."

My, yes! What a coincidence isn't it!

"Because what this is really about is not health at all, but culture."

This is quite possibly the most intelligent sentence in Esman's entire blog post. I hadn't realized it before, but Esman actually admits what her real problem with the KMNG is all about.

Esman would be disingenuous if she failed to declare to her public an important conflict of interest; she is Jewish, where the circumcision of infants is a religious requirement and central to her ethnic and cultural identity. She has reasons to defend circumcision that betray an interest in public health.

Some may say that I'm racist in pointing out that the circumcision of male infants is an important custom to Jews, but that's not any more racist in pointing out that whaling is a custom that is important to the Japanese, and that this conviction to culture betrays an interest in "science" and "research." It is not biggotted or racist to point out that female genital cutting is an important custom to Malaysians and Indonesians.

It is rather dishonest to be defending circumcision by feigning an interest in public health, when your true convictions lie elsewhere.

"As radical Muslim groups increasingly put pressure on Holland’s politicians to change policies in order to accommodate their religious preferences – from censoring art exhibitions to (speaking of medicine) requiring that female Muslims be treated only by female physicians (an effort that thankfully failed) — indigenous Dutch are responding with a stronger nationalism and a tightened grasp on their Christian roots – even to the point of mangling the truth."

Mangling the truth indeed.

It is interesting to see Esman pick and choose just what religious impositions the Dutch should and should not respond to. She seems to be thankful that the effort to require female Muslims to be treated only by female physicians has failed, but is dreading the KMNG actually wants to see to it that surgical procedures in minors are actually medically indicated.

For better or for worse, female genital cutting is also seen by many, especially some sects of Islam, to be a religious custom. I can only assume that European governments cracking down on this religious custom is something Esman is grateful for. Does Esman really care about public health? Does she really care about "culture?" Or merely just her own?

Invisible Addition
Here's something interesting:
If you try saving her blog post as a PDF using PDFMYURL, an additional paragraph appears as follows:

ADDENDUM:
The following links present some of the latest studies and reports on the subject, all demonstrating the health benefits of male circumcision both in Third and First World countries. Note that the most recent reports have led to determinations by the CDC, WHO, UNAIDS and AAP to revise their positions on the issue, definitive supporting male circumcision at birth.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-16/a-z/sc-health-0216-circumcision-20110216_1_circumcised-men-john-geisheker-health-benefits-geisheker-health-benefits
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=124426

Abigail R. Esman gives the word "idiotic" a whole new different meaning.

The links she provides do indeed allege all the usual "health benefits of circumcision." Her claim that recent reports have led any of the organizations she mentions to endorse infant circumcision, however, is false.

The WHO/UNAIDS have definitely endorsed the use of circumcision in adult men in AFRICA, and the CDC is the American health organization that has embraced the latest studies the most, however there have been no such revisions "definitive supporting male circumcision at birth."

Once again; 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.

Abigail R. Esman is either willfully ignorant, or she is outright lying through her teeth.

Trouble in the Amen Corner
As if Esman's inflammatory post weren't enough, she continues to make a fool of herself in her comments section. It seems Esman simply had no idea what she was getting into. I don't think she was actually expecting to encounter people who actually knew what they were talking about. By the end, it was clear that she was losing and she couldn't handle all the replies that were clearly destroying everything she had to say. She resorted from deleting comments to eventually just shutting down the comments section.

She is gravely mistaken if she thinks she's just going to circumcise her comments and make herself appear to be the victim. I saved some of the most juiciest comments and am posting them here.

ml66uk
The position of the KNMG seems to be motivated by a concern for human rights rather than an attack on Muslim or Jewish faiths. Personally, I think that everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they have parts of their genitals cut off. It’s illegal even to make a pinprick on a girl’s genitals though some people regard that as their religious right or duty. Why don’t boys get the same protection? It’s *their* body.

The AAP doesn’t actually recommend male circumcision in their official position statement, and the CMA’s policy doesn’t seem to be publicly available, so the KNMG may have been unaware of it. The Canadian Paediatric Association has been recommending against circumcision for years btw.

“standard procedure for almost all newborn males in the USA”?

Hardly. The rate seems to be below 60% and dropping. The USA and Israel are the only two countries in the world where more than 50% of baby boys are circumcised btw.

Drops in male circumcision since 1950:
USA: from 90% to about 55%
Canada: from 48% to 17%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1-2% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.4% (“routine” circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

jaywalk
I agree that this article badly needs a correction. Saying that it’s standard procedure for almost all US males is an outright false statement.

Also, standing up for the right for an infant to keep all of their body parts, including from sensitive sexual areas when they can’t consent to the removal does not make someone a racist anymore than standing up against a hypothetical satanic ritual or tribal child sacrifice would also not be racist or anti-religious. It’s not the religion being attacked, it’s the damage to another human being. If your religion called for murdering another human for being impure, I’d be against that as well. It would have nothing to do with being against the religion in that case, either – only the act.

I was circumcised as an infant, and deeply regret that decision by my parents. It’s my body, and if there is no medically imminent need to have a part of it removed, that choice should be left up to me.

torell
Uhm, Forbes, it’s The Netherlands, not Holland – Holland is only a part of The NL – it’s like calling the USA ‘Texas’.

Second, “In other words, doctors in the Netherlands have clearly put themselves in a position of being willing to put public health at risk in order to achieve racist, political ends – and to lie in order to do so.”

Since RIC (routine infant circumcision, as practiced in the US) is non-existent in the NL anyway, they’re talking mainly about religious circumcisions here. The public health in the NL is hardly being put at risk by outlawing the approx. 10,000 religious circs that are done each year. You see, since RIC is non-existent in the NL, that means that boys have *always* been left intact. And guess what? WE (yes, we, I’m Dutch) are kicking YOUR (Forbes is American) butts with much lower HIV and other STD rates that are supposedly helped by RIC.

Also, since medicine in the NL is not for profit as it is in the US, they have no reason to lie. It seems to me drs who make a ton of money off of RIC have more reason to lie about ‘benefits’ of RIC, than drs who make what they make regardless of whether they do RICs or not, have a reason to lie about RIC being physically and mentally damaging.

And lastly – political motives? Uh, no. In the NL, drs have no influence on politics unless they’re a politician in their spare time. The NL does NOT work like the US. If you’re going to try to slam someone or something, you’d do better to have sufficient background information.

And rascism, really? You find something that’s proven physically and mentally damaging and you’re going to not try to outlaw it because muslims and jews want to practice it… THAT’s racist – not protecting babies and children because they’re jewish or muslim. Allowing them to be harmed because they’re a certain race or religion. *That’s* bad.

Abigail R. Esman responds:
I will answer this one post only.
1. I live in the Netherlands. “Holland” and “The Netherlands” are used in that country interchangeably, which you yourself would know if you either lived in that country or spoke Dutch.

2. As a matter of fact, this effort was made by doctors in the Netherlands to encourage the Parliament to consider legislation. Just as the AMA has the ability to encourage the American government– via the Surgeon General’s office, the FDA, and other government bodies — to consider health issues, so, too, in the Netherlands.

3. I defy you to find me the studies that counter the significant body of published literature, some of which is cited in my piece, that specifically point to the substantial health advantages of circumcision in preventing fatal diseases both in men and women. These studies are cited by all of the organizations cited by Ms. Netherton, below. I am pleased to see that, despite herself, she does recognize their authority in advancing the benefits to the male and female population of circumcision.

4. This is not about maintaining a practice because Jews and Muslims want it. It is about not twisting the facts of science to suit a political agenda.

To the person below who refers to “urinary infections” – I simply wish to point out that cervical cancer, HIV, penile cancer, and human papilloma virus are not urinary tract infections. I presume that he knows this and is simply avoiding the fact, but perhaps not.

I will leave to the medical professionals the matter of pointing out the endless number of medical errors posted in various comments here.

marcetienne
As for cervical cancer, HIV, penile cancer, and human papilloma virus, the Australian medical association and numerous others in Australia and New Zealand and others have answered that.

5.2 Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
The published evidence concerning the relationship between circumcision and STD is often conflicting(41). An Australian study from 1983(42) suggested herpes genitalis, candidiasis, gonorrhoea and syphilis were all more common in uncircumcised men. A more recent Australian study(43) , however, suggested that circumcision has no significant effect on the incidence of common STD’s. One study has suggested a higher risk of non-gonococcal urethritis among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men(44). Genital ulcer disease, on the other hand, has been reported as being more common among uncircumcised men, and those with a genital ulcer are more likely to contract HIV.

There is increasing evidence, particularly from sub-Saharan Africa, which suggests an increased risk of female to male transmission of HIV in uncircumcised men(45-48). However, how much circumcision could contribute to ameliorate the current epidemic of HIV is uncertain(49). Whatever the future direction of this debate it can not be seen as an argument in favour of universal neonatal circumcision in countries with a low prevalence of HIV.

5.3 Human papilloma virus and carcinoma of the cervix
A recent international study reported an increased risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection in uncircumcised men who indulged in high-risk behaviours, compared with circumcised men(50). Monogamous women whose male partners had six or more sexual partners and were circumcised had a lower risk of cervical cancer than women whose partners were uncircumcised. Public health measures aimed at early detection have been shown to decrease cervical cancer fatalities; targeting sexually promiscuous men to decrease risk taking and increase condom use may inhibit sexual transmission of HPV and prophylactic vaccination against HPV is being developed. At present there are no data to suggest advocating neonatal circumcision would be of additional benefit to these strategies(51).

5.4 Carcinoma of the penis
Carcinoma of the penis is a rare condition, with an annual incidence of approximately 1:100,000 men in developed countries, regardless of whether there is a high or a low circumcision rate(4,5). There is evidence that neonatal circumcision confers protection from carcinoma of the glans penis but not of the penis shaft(52-56). Even though the evidence suggests neonatal circumcision does reduce the risk of carcinoma 10-fold, universal circumcision is clearly not justified on these grounds(46).

Other risk factors for penile cancer include phimosis (which is limited to uncircumcised men), genital warts, increased number of sexual partners and cigarette smoking(57,58). It has been hypothesised that good penile hygiene may help prevent both phimosis and penile cancer(59).
http://www.nocirc.org/position/racp2002.php

torell (Comment Deleted)
Nou ja zeg. Ik zal die onzin morgen wel verder lezen, maar als jij werkelijk zoveel over Nederland weet, dan zou je voor punt 1 weten dat mensen die niet in Noord- of Zuid-Holland wonen absoluut anti ‘Holland’ zijn. Holland is alleen toegestaan voor ons als het om Oranje gaat. Jij zal inmiddels wel zo’n beetje weer wakker zijn, maar ivm het tijdsverschil verwacht je mijn antwoord maar jouw tijd morgenavond.

It’s incredibly unprofessional to suggest you don’t even believe I speak Dutch or have lived there, so I’m not even sure why I’m bothering with you.

It should be common sense not to chop off the most sensitive part of a boy’s penis.

Like I said in my Dutch reply, I’ll read your comments tomorrow, as it is now bedtime here. Thanks you so much for taking the time to read the comments and take time out of your busy day to make sure people know you are actuall smartest. (Although that remains to be seen).

fortheking
Hi Abigail,

Let me begin by stating I have never read any of your other work and am solely going by your statements above, as well as your intro and website on the right of this article. I assume you are an American living in the Netherlands. I was born and raised in the Netherlands, but have lived nearly half of my life in the United States. It seems we both have a vantage point that includes both cultures.

I find several issues with your piece, and would like to address them one by one. I am looking forward to your reply.

1. You state early on that “after all, the idea of banning circumcision is itself politically based.” That’s quite the statement, and I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. Do you believe that ALL banning of circumcision is politically motivated, or just male circumcision? How about the legal banning of female circumcision – do you believe that is politically motivated?

2. You state “…doctors in the Netherlands have clearly put themselves in a position of being willing to put public health at risk…” in reference to their proposal to ban circumcision. I would like to see some documented evidence – especially since you live in a country where historically virtually no indigenous male has been circumcised – showing that lack of circumcision on a great scale (such as in Holland) shows increased risk to public health, and more importantly, DIRECT causation of other health issues. Your piece lacks this very important information.

3. In your 3rd paragraph, you swiftly move to explain the push for a ban on circumcision (circ for short from now on) w/ Europe’s desperate desire to combat the growing ‘threat’ of Islam, and state that “Europe is at serious risk of transforming itself into a white, Christian supremacist state.” What you fail to recognize is that Europe, particularly Western Europe, and considering this article, especially Holland, is far from what could be considered a Christian state. You’d need quite the evidence and premises to suggest that a ban of circ is motivated by the “Christian whites” in Holland.

4. You state that the Dutch medical association is wrong in stating that no medical association in the world recommends routine circumcision.

Setting aside the AAP’s comments on circumcision preventing certain medical issues, the AAP does NOT recommend routine circumcision in infants (as you write as well, however you include it in your paragraph on medical organizations recommending it – misleading). In fact, on their website, which automatically redirects to another, is states: “Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised. Because circumcision is not essential to a child’s health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks.”

The only medical organization you mention as recommending circ is then the CMA whose statement was recently published in order to pass a bill (AB-768) in the CA legislation preventing future proposals to ban circumcision from entering the ballot. Clearly politically motivated, which you seem to loathe (see 1.). Fact is, there is no medical organization in the world that routinely recommends male infant circumcision.

5. You state: “Meantime, Holland’s wise doctors have yet to issue any formal statement about the far more serious problem of the country’s enormous infant mortality rate (among the worst in Western Europe) and high breast cancer fatality rate (the fourth highest in Europe, and rising).” This is not only indicative of poor journalism, but of poor debating skills. Bringing up completely unrelated topics to insinuate that Holland’s doctors should focus on something else that’s more ‘attention deserving’ or that they are somehow not credible is logically incredibly fallacious.

As far as your comment above to which I am replying (I have not read the original post to which you are replying), you seem to focus on the supposed medical benefits of circumcision, and are asking for studies that debunk others, or conclude the opposite. (Again, please keep in mind that I have no read the other comments, so I apologize in advance for being repetitive).

A. HIV/STD’s: The claim that routine infant circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/STD’s has been debunked and countered in several ways:

A1. Infants do not have sex and do not catch HIV or STD’s from penile exposure to those diseases. IF there truly is reason to believe that circumcision lowers (we all know it does not prevent… only condoms or abstinence does) the infection risk, why not present this to a child that is older and can make a decision for himself as to what will happen to HIS body? There is no logical or ethical reason to remove a healthy body part on our infant males because in the future it might possibly allow them to catch an STD. The very suggestion of that seems preposterous.

A2. It should be noted that the country where the vast majority of sexually active males are circumcised (United States) has one of the highest STD/HIV infection rates of any industrialized country in the world, and surely more so than Holland. While correlation is not causation, it is clear that circumcising male neonates does not decrease HIV/STD prevalence when compared to countries where circ is not routinely performed.

A3. There have been quite a few studies that show there is no correlation between circumcision and lower prevalence of HIV. One of those was published by BBC/The Lancet on July 7, 2009. The article reported on a Ugandan HIV circumcision study ending early because it showed that circumcising men who already have HIV does not protect their female partners from the virus. The research, from the Lancet, has shown no benefit in men who already had the virus and was stopped early because of the continued risk to women.

An intensive study by the USAID also showed that circumcision does not lower the risk/prevalence of HIV. Published here: http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf

I will post a separate posts containing several studies that show no correlation or in fact an increased risk (circ = increased risk of HIV contraction).

This Reuters article states that circumcision does not affect HIV status in US men: http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/12/04/us-aids-circumcision-idUSN0345545120071204

The MOST interesting thing about any of these studies is that the participants were all sexually active adults. Infants are not sexually active.

A4. There are only three proven and undisputed ways of lowering HIV prevalence and contraction: Condom use, abstinence, and monogamous relationships for life.

B. Penile/Cervical cancer

B1. Penile cancer is incredibly rare. In fact, it occurs less often than male breast cancer does. Even the studies (which have also been debunked) that suggest it is more common in uncirced men show we’re dealing with a miniscule difference, we again would have to ask ourselves whether routinely removing a healthy body part from infant males (among whom penile cancer is non-existent) is worth the risks of circumcision side effect that even you mention and that occur far more often than penile cancer does.

B2. Suggesting we should routinely remove a healthy part (foreskin) from newborn males because it potentially decreases the already miniscule risk of them getting penile cancer later in life is a serious ethical issue. Nowhere in the medical world is healthy tissue removed from infants to prevent illness of such low prevalence. For the same reason we do not remove healthy breast tissue from newborn males (and, breast cancer in men is more common than penile cancer in men), we should not remove penile cancer from newborn males.

C. In your article, you suggest, basically summarize, than a push for a ban on infant male circumcision is rooted in antisemitism, and/or a push by ‘white supremacist Christians’ to regain control of their culture in the face of ‘intruding Islam.” It is disappointing to me, that as an award-winning journalist, is has (presumably) not occurred to you that the push for such might not have anything to do with religion or politics but simply with human rights.

“We” have lawfully banned circumcision (from the tiniest pinprick, to full removal of female genetalia) on females, whether that is done out of cultural reasons OR religious reasons (by the way, it’s eery how arguments pro male circumcision mimic those of pro female circumcision). We do not allow parents to scar their children’s faces with burning hot iron as is common cultural and religious practice among certain African tribes. We do not allow foot-binding as still practiced in certain parts of China, nor do we allow anything else that physically alters our children’s bodies for LIFE without a medical need.

We HAVE TO acknowledge that we prevent male infant boys from having the SAME genital rights by law as female infants do and ask ourselves if our reasons are truly strong enough and morally and ethically justifiable.

fortheking
As promised, the studies…

(PS: despite many typo’s that are easy to figure out, I feel the need to correct myself in B2. last sentence, should be “should not remove healthy penile tissue”)

The following studies either show no relationship with circumcision status or a higher risk in circumcised men.

No relationship to circumcision status (13 studies):

1. Hira SK, Kamanga J< Mcuacua R, et al. Genital ulcers and male circumcision as risk factors for acquiring HIV-1 in Zambia. J Infect Dis 1990;161:584-5.

2. Pépin J, Quigley M, Todd J, et al. Association between HIV-2 Infection and genital ulcer diseases among male sexually transmitted disease patients in The Gambia. AIDS 1992;6:489-93.

3. Bollinger RC, Brookmeyer RS, Mehendale SM,l et al. Risk factors and clinical presentation of acute primary HIV infection in India. JAMA 1997; 278:2085-9.

4. Chiasson M, Stoneburner RL, Hildebrandt DS, et al. Heterosexual transmission of HIV-1 associated with use of smokable freebase cocaine (crack). AIDS 1991;5:1121.

5. Carael M, Van De Perre, PH, Lepage PH, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus transmission among heterosexual couples in Africa. AIDS 1988;2:201-5.

6. Moss GB, Clemerson D, D'Costa L, et al. Association of cervical ectopy with heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficency virus: results of a study of couples in Nairobi, Kenya. J Infect Dis 1991;164:588-91.

7. Allen S, Lindan C, Serufilira A, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus infection in urban Rwanda: demographic and behavioral correlate in a representative sample of childbearing women. JAMA 1991; 266:1657-63.

8. Seidlin M, Vogler M, Lee E, et al. Heterosexual transmission of HIV in a cohort of couples in New York City. AIDS 1993;7:1247-54.

9. Konde-Lule JK. Bergley SF, Downing R. Knowledge attitudes and practices concerning AIDS in Ugandans. AIDS 1989;3:513-18.

10. Van de Perre P, Clumeck N, Steens M, et al. Seroepidemiological study on sexully transmitted diseases and hepatitis B in African promiscuous heterosexuals in relation to HTLV-III infection. Eur J Epidemiol 1987;3:14-8.

11. Quigley M, Munguti K, Grosskurth H, et al. Sexual behavior patterns and other risk factors for HIV infection in rural Tanzania: a case control study. AIDS 1997;11:237-48.

12. Hudson CP, Hennis AJM, Kataaha P, et al. Risk factors for the spead of AIDS in rural Africa, hepatitis B and syphilis in southwestern Uganda AIDS 1988; 2: 255-60.

13. Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. JAMA 1997;277:1052-7.

A higher risk in circumcised men (4 studies):

1. Barongo LR, Borgdorff W, Mosha FF, et al. The epidemiology of HIV-1 infection in rural areas, roadside settlements and rural villages in Mwanza Region, Tanzania. AIDS 1992;6:1521-8.

2. Grosskurth H, Mosha F, Todd J, et al. A community trial of the impact of improved sexually transmitted disease treatment on the HIV epidemic in rural Tanzania: 2. Baseline survey results. AIDS 1995;9:927-34

3. Chao A, Bulterys M, Musanganire F, et al.Risk factors associated with prevalent HIV-1 infection among pregnant women in Rwanda. National University of Rwanda-Johns Hopkins University AIDS Research Team. Int J Epidemiol 1994;23:371-380.

4. Urassa M, Todd J, Boerra JT, et al. Male circumcision and susceptibility to HIV infection among men in Tanzania. AIDS 1997;11:73-80. [study 1]

http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/dyh127v1.

Int J Epidemiol. 2004 Mar 24 [Epub ahead of print]

Trends in antenatal human immunodeficiency virus prevalence in Western Kenya and Eastern Uganda: evidence of differences in health policies?

Moore DM, Hogg RS.

Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To observe recent trends in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence in antenatal clinic attendees to determine if previously noted falls in HIV prevalence are occurring on both sides of the Kenyan-Ugandan border. Design An ecologic study was conducted at the district level comparing HIV prevalence rates over time using data available through reports published by the Kenyan and Ugandan Ministries of Health and UNAIDS.

METHODS: Sentinel sites were compared with respect to population, ethnicity, language group, and the prevalence of circumcision practice. The prevalence of HIV found at each sentinel site was recorded for the years 1990-2000 and analysed visually and by conducting bivariate correlations.

RESULTS: Ethnographic analysis revealed a wide mix of ethnic and language groups and circumcision rates on both sides of the border. All sentinel surveillance sites in Uganda showed trends towards decreasing HIV prevalence, with three of five sites showing statistically significant declines (r = -0.87, -0.85, -0.86, P < 0.05). In contrast, all of the surveillance sites in Kenya showed trends toward increasing HIV prevalence, with two of the five sites showing statistically significant increases (r = 0.62, 0.84, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS: The declines in HIV prevalence occurring in Uganda are not being seen in geographically proximal districts of Kenya. No obvious differences in ethnic groupings or their associated prevalence of circumcision appeared to explain these differences. This suggests that decreasing HIV prevalence in Uganda is not due to the natural course of the epidemic but reflects real success in terms of HIV control policies.

PMID: 15044420 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Joseph4GI (Myself; this comment was deleted.)
You will reply as many times as you see fit to counter your dissenters. (And I was right)

Realize that you are writing in English. Most English speakers do not live in the Netherlands or speak Dutch. If your writing is aimed towards residents of Holland who speak Dutch, then write in Dutch.

You can cite all of the “studies” you want. The fact remains that every single medical organization you name has stated that there is not enough evidence to endorse infant circumcision. They must all point to the risks, and they must all say that there is not enough “benefit” to warrant them.

I defy the author to deny the fact that while circumcision is limited in her own country, it fares better in all the so-called benefits she sites than countries where circumcision is prevalent. In the US, Approx. 80% of all males are circumcised, and yet STD transmissions, even HIV, are the highest there. The US has higher HIV transmission rates than even Africa. Deny that, Abby, deny that.

Deny the fact that you are Jewish and that the only reason you’re interested in any “medical benefits” and “research” is because you know that arguments of “religious freedom” and “parental rights” don’t get you anywhere.

Thank you for pointing out that cervical cancer, HIV, penile cancer and HPV are not urinary tract infections. I’m not exactly sure why you feel you must point this put. Do you think demonstrating your ability to differentiate between these gives you any credibility?

It sounds like you’re trying to insinuate that infant circumcision actually makes a difference and that the world’s medical organizations back you up.

I defy YOU, Abigail Esman, to furnish a single study that has proven there is any connection between infant circumcision and the prevention of any of these diseases. I defy you to produce a single statement from a well respected medical organization that endorses infant circumcision to reduce the likelihood of these diseases. I defy you to deny the fact that despite a high prevalence of circumcision, the US does poorly when compared to it’s European counterparts, including the Netherlands.

It would be better for you to leave making value judgements regarding circumcision to medical professionals, rather than embarrassing yourself further.

cyndavaz (Comment Deleted)
“This is not about maintaining a practice because Jews and Muslims want it.”

Of course it is.

BTW – are Muslims allowed to cut the genitals of their little girls where you live? Doubtful.

But for some reason, certain religious groups cling to the notion that subjecting boys to this barbarism is perfectly acceptable. Double standards much?

barefootintactivist (Comment Deleted)
1. Who cares what you call the country. The problem is your misinformed article promoting the genital cutting of infants.

2. First of all, you’re wrong: the doctors have explicitly and repeatedly said that they don’t think legislation is a good idea, because the procedure would go underground. Second of all — where were you writing articles when the USA banned female genital mutilation (down to the slightest pinprick), withOUT religious exception, in 1997?

You are aware that female circumcision is considered a religious mandate for hundreds of millions of people in Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia?

You are aware that up until recently, some girls were being circumcised in America as a “cure for masturbation,” the same reason that it became popularized in the US?

3. Sorrells et al, 2006 found that circumcision involves amputating the 5 most sensitive parts of the penis, confirming Taylor et al’s earlier studies showing that the foreskin of the penis contains the most highly innervated part of the entire male genitalia, the “Ridged Band” of nerve endings.

USAID found in 2009 that in 10 of 18 countries with data available, circumcised men were MORE likely to have HIV. All of the rest of your “medical” claims have not only been de-bunked time & time again (many Western countries where circumcision is virtually non-existent have less problem with infections, STD’s, and HIV than the US), but perhaps MORE IMPORTANTLY — children don’t have sex! Why the hell do they need protection from sexually transmitted diseases when they are BABIES? If they are dumb enough to believe all of the de-bunked myths that cutting off half the skin on their penises will offer protection from STD’s, they can have it done to THEMSELVES as consenting adults.

4. Look in the mirror and ask yourself who is twisting the facts to fit a personal political agenda. 85% of the world’s men are intact. Girls in the US are protected from the slightest pinprick. Male genital mutilation rates are plummeting even in this country. Yet you continue to promote it as a “public health measure,” and anybody who disagrees with you is a “racist” who is pushing “ethnic cleansing for the 21st century.”

Apparently you will leave it to the medical professionals to decide on this — except when they disagree with you. KNMG represents over 40,000 Dutch doctors and tens of thousands more health professionals. They are taking a brave stance against the harmful & unnecessary genital mutilation of children in the face of unfounded criticism from ignorant people such as yourself. ADULTS are free to do whatever they want to their OWN genitals.

Speaking of which, feel free to go have yourself circumcised next time you think it’s a bright idea to trivialize genital mutilation. Then see you how much you like it. Just don’t force it on children.

~Barefoot Intactivist

marcetienne
This article is ignorant and misleading.

First, the Dutch medical association’s report is the most detailed report by any national medical association on the topic and is backed by 7 other national medical associations in the Netherlands.

Second, the British, Australian and South African medical associations made similar, though not as detailed or hard-hitting, findings. For example, the British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons’ 9/09 report did not suggesting banning infant male circumcision but it declared:

“There is no evidence to support routine circumcision of newborn and infant males.”

“There is evidence that circumcision does result in memory of painful experiences, and is not quite as simple and low risk as your report suggests.”

“The stated benefits of protection against urinary tract infection are marginal, and do not justify mass circumcision. Our changing understanding of the relationship between urinary tract infection and chronic renal disease further weakens the case for routine circumcision.”

www.smh.com.au/national/letters/no-evidence-to-support-routine-circumcis…

The South African Medical Association denounced infant male circumcision as unethical and illegal and expressed “serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information.”

Not a single national medical association recommends routine infant male circumcision. The California Medical Association, cited in this article, made a quick one-liner about prior beliefs without analyzing the more recent evidence discussed by the British, Dutch and other medical associations. And the quote from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) had to do with the studies on HIV reduction in Africa and was not conclusive at all as to anything except that the AAP needs to re-examine it’s prior position. At this point there is still no national medical association that supports routine infant circumcision.

The author is also oblivious to the double standard that the Dutch medical association points out. Even the slightest ceremonial incision on a girl’s vagina is illegal and considered a human rights violation. But male circumcision is allowed even though it’s gynecologically equivalent to removing the clitoral foreskin (or, “hood”), one of several forms of female circumcision all of which are illegal and which also have some of the same or similar purported (but false) medical “benefits.”

It’s a complete double standard to argue that parents should have a “right” to mutilate their baby boys’ genitals while baby girls’ genitals are fiercely protected from any such mutulation.

Male circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis, which has over 20,000 erogenous nerve endings and acts as a natural buffer and lubrican during sex. www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe

Studies based on self-reports are mixed. But the ones showing now loss in sensitivity were done either on men who were cut as adults for medical purposes, or on men in African who came straight from the clinics that financially benefit from the circumcisions. By contrast, a study of Korean men who were cut as adults out of mere tradition (introduced by U.S. military) found about half of the men reported significant losses of pleasure in masturbation, and 20% reported significant losses in pleasure during sex. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x/full

Regardless, removing a girl’s clitoral hood is illegal irrespective of whether it removes sensitivity. Boys should have the same protection. and readers should look at what the national medical associations have recently been saying about infant circumcision before believing the usual prevalent myths.

rolandday
Esman is true to her Jewish roots and is faithfully spouting the usual defense of an antique practice that violates the human rights of children.

The most important statement on human rights is the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). That covenant guarantees a right to security of the person – a right which is violated by involuntary circumcision of children.

One might think that Jews have a right to circumcise their children because it is part of their religion, however that is not the case.

The above mentioned covenant gives parents the right “to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.”

The foreskin is a healthy functional body part. Parents are not empowered to amputate or to consent to the amputation of the foreskin by circumcision. That is beyond their rights under international human rights law.

Children are entitled to having their human right to the security of their person protected.

That is what the Royal Dutch Medical Association is saying.

One is surprised that a magazine of Forbes’ sterling quality would stoop to printing such garbage.

jaywalk
I wonder if the author would consider these Jews as rasicsts? http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

Can you be racist against your own race? And just because a race of people mainly follow one religion, does disagreeing with one practice of that religion then make you a racist?

stormwatch
Back in the 1970s, Brazilian psychoanalyst Moisés Tractenberg wrote about the mental side effects of circumcision. He, a jew, found circumcision to be destructive to the human psyche and morally indefensible.

isaac
listen i am a jewish man. i am so glad i escaped having this done to me. my jewish mpther protected me from a world who would have thought it strengthened their identity to remove part of my dick.

for men AND WOMEN: if you are uncircumcised you have a foreskin, and smegma. if it said so in the koran (which i am sure you would be quick to point out that it does not) then it would be okay for your own clitoral hood to have been removed at birth; altered in your most personal area by an elderly person/razor? how would it be to live with the knowledge of erogenous tissue having been removed?

before Israel was created many arabs had the clitoral hood removed at birth, whether they were Jewish or Muslim or Christian, and they did it at that bar/bat mitvah instead instead of eight days.

It is a removal of erogenous tissue, it is worse than rape it is mutilation. i said “no” many times and was spared, but their are men like me who had it done to them anyway. Loss of part of their dick with no socio-cultural support to explain the abuse except made-up diseases.

please stop supporting this horrible treatment of children.

whatUneverknew
This article is absurd. I’m saddened to think that anyone would actually BELIEVE that the idea that circumcision should be discontinued from a medical perspective comes from racism or hate. Foreskin is a normal body part, and amputation of a healthy organ is NOT medicine. If you have no diagnosis, then it is completely invalid to remove a body part. This is standard worldwide accepted medical ethics. That this sentiment comes from Doctors is highly appropriate (though it’s also appropriate for it to come from those human rights campaigners who say that men deserve to refuse amputation of their healthy genitals, ‘cause they do). It is upon them to serve the rights of their patient, and not go lopping healthy parts off just because parents have religious reasons, or ideas about what problems might occur with those parts in the future. The reason that this SINGLE exception is made in the face of such an otherwise obvious incongruence with ethics comes from cultural blindness, which the author obviously suffers from.

It is NOT true that “almost all newborn males in the USA” are circumcised. The CDC has shown the hospital rate of 2009 to be slightly over 32%, so we can imagine that the overall rate is less than 40%.

I can’t speak to the other belligerent accusations of racism, but I will say that the people responsible for all of these other issues are not even the same people, (and if you think being Dutch qualifies as being the same people, you’re being bigoted yourself) and it doesn’t serve anything but misdirection on THIS issue to bring them up as if they were proof.

As to the mounds and mounds of ‘evidence’ of circumcision’s health benefits I say: consider the source. Remember that cultural blindness? There are a few VERY active people trying to prove a medically valid reason for infant circumcision and if you pay attention, you will see the same names on most of the work. Even if it were so, popular opinion does not negate a man’s right to his own body. Even Muslim and Jewish babies have rights Ms. Esman.

chooseintact
“3. I defy you to find me the studies that counter the significant body of published literature, some of which is cited in my piece, that specifically point to the substantial health advantages of circumcision in preventing fatal diseases both in men and women. These studies are cited by all of the organizations cited by Ms. Netherton, below. I am pleased to see that, despite herself, she does recognize their authority in advancing the benefits to the male and female population of circumcision.”

If we’re going to speak of fatality risk, the risk should be discussed in context. What is the risk of death from these diseases? How are the diseases acquired? What is the absolute risk of each, which we need if the numbers cited in the original post are to mean anything in context? Relative risk isn’t enough.

More importantly, where is the discussion of ethics? The ability to achieve a potential benefit does not grant it an ethical exemption. The decision is not cost-free. It takes more than just saying “science” to justify imposing surgery on a non-consenting individual. The health (i.e. lack of medical need) of the individual at the time of the proposed surgery is also science. Absent this consideration, almost any intervention can be justified with the incomplete logic offered by Ms. Esman. Making a one-sided claim is incomplete and merely begs the question one wants to answer.

Ms. Esman implies that the complications cited aren’t common. If we grant that, the question remains: how many complications are too many? Is a recipient of a complication wrong for objecting simply because Ms. Esman, his parents, and/or the CMA approve of non-therapeutic circumcision, regardless of his preferences for what should or should not be imposed on him? What about the unavoidable harm caused in every case, since even the most according-to-plan circumcision involves physical harm?

Also, it’s factually incorrect to state that circumcision is “standard procedure for almost all newborn males in the USA” under any interpretation of statistics or consideration of the reality of (problematic) proxy consent.

Abigail R. Esman Speaks:
Note to commenters:

It was said by one member of this discussion that I will answer as often as I need to to defend my position. I believe that my position is defended clearly enough by medical experts and the substantive evidence I’ve provided in the piece. However, I will add several points, some of which relate to the piece directly, and others which refer to the behavior of those commenting on this post.

(Right. ;-))

1. I have deleted some comments and will continue to do so when they are either (a) defamatory and abusive; (b) racist or imply an anti-Semitic tone; (c) involve a personal attack on me or on another commenter. The rules of conduct for participation on this site are clear.

(Readers, you be the judge.)

2. As with right-to-life issues, there are many false reports and emotionally-hamstrung propaganda sources that will happily distort the truth for those who seek it. Nonetheless, I stand by my reporting.

(By using false reports and emotionally-hamstrung propaganda sources that will happily distort the truth for those who seek it! X-D)

Several resources (which ones?) continue to show that the majority of ma[l]es born in the USA are circumcised at birth (http://www.circinfo.net/rates_of_circumcision.html) though it is intriguing (and not surprising) to note that those with lower levels of education are less likely to have their sons circumcised. Estimates run as high as 91 percent.

(Case in point: *I* provided a recent link to the latest CDC reports. She, instead, insists on a website run by I a known circumcision zealot! X-D)

3. In reviewing the literature, it is important to distinguish between emotionally-charged re-interpretations of objective statements and the actual science involved.

(LOL! And then she spews the following gem:)

The scientific evidence is abundantly clear: circumcision reduces the rate of diseases in men — and consequently in their partners. That medical associations have refused to call it mandatory simply shows that it is not a medical necessity. And indeed, it isn’t – not, say, the way that removing an inflamed appendix is, or removing a cancerous tumor. But medically advisable? Yes. Like vaccinations, for instance. And that is the point that the medical associations have made.

(Medical associations have made no such point. Far from simply "refusing to call it mandatory," or saying that it is "not a medical necessity," medical associations ALL say that there is not enough evidence to endorse the procedure. 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.)

4. Please note, once again, that comments that do not constructively add to the discussion, are in any way racist, defamatory, involve personal attacks, or in other ways violate the rules of conduct for this site, will continue to be removed.

mrsnetherton
Circumcision does NOT provide you immunity to diseases. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand? U.S. has one of the highest rates of circ’d men and also one of the highest rates of STD’s. If the scientific evidence were so great, you’d think we wouldn’t have so many STD’s. But, wait, EVERY world health organization believes that the “science” you speak of isn’t convincing enough to recommend infant circumcision. Use a condom. Don’t amputate healthy, functioning and vitally important sexual organs. (which goes against all medical bio-ethics of a non-theraputical surgery of a minor)

You got your statistics from circinfo!?!? LOL is all I have to say to that.

Try going to the CDC or a more reputable site lol.

My first comment didn’t go through, So i’ll say it again.

Not only is circumcision of all kinds against basic human rights, it’s immoral and unethical by personal and medical standards. Any *potential* benefit you cite, has already been thoroughly reviewed by ALL world health medical organizations and they have ALL concluded that ANY *potential* medical benefit is NOT worth the risk of infant circumcision. This is abundantly clear.

Also, you completely took a citation from the AAP out of context. Go on and continue to read their statement which says that the evidence you cited is NOT enough to recommend infant circumcision.

Just for arguments sake, even if they did recommend it (which of course they do not), does that justify chopping off a healthy body part of a non-consenting minor? Absolutely not. Amputations of body parts is NOT a form of modern, preventative medicine.

steph
I truly can’t believe this article, but I’m reluctant to be too critical in fear that I’ll be accused of supporting ethnic cleansing. We ridicule those who object to male circumcision, but not those who object to female circumcision. Those who object to female circumcision are hailed as human rights’ heros, while those who object to male circumcision are snubbed as liberal wack-jobs. Female circumcision is a mutilation, while male circumcision is a parent’s right. We can preach science and studies until we are blue in the face, but in the end it shouldn’t matter. Ethics should trump science.

I’m a labor and delivery nurse, and see parents attempt to make decisions about circumcisions all the time. In an attempt to be arbitrary and impartial, doctors now tend to totally stay out of the decision making. They assume that parents have done their due diligence. The result is that parents make their decision in ignorance, based on hearsay, speculation, and fear. That’s not good medicine, and wouldn’t be tolerated as ethical practice in any other medical procedure. Why with this one?

tlctugger
The bias of author Esman is quite transparent. Holland’s published policy on male circumcision is quite rational and does not ignore science. It is 17 well-footnoted pages. It even includes WHO findings the WHO itself is choosing to ignore, like Wawer/Gray 2009 (Cut Ugandan men 50% more likely to infect partners with deadly HIV) and Bailey 2010 (cut Kenyan men no less likely to have HIV).

What Holland’s statement does that other policies don’t is acknowledge the human rights of male infants. Any evidence regarding STIs is interesting to adults but irrelevant to infants, WHO DON’T HAVE SEX. The decision about how to weigh the evidence and whether to amputate can be made by the OWNER of the genitals at a rational age.

tlctugger
It’s interesting that a man claiming to represent the California Medical Association suddenly says the CMA has long supported forced genital cutting. There is ZERO evidence of such a policy at the CMA web site or in any CMA publication, and in fact the state of California de-funded routine circumcision from Medicaid in 1982.

Circumcision is not a medical procedure when there is no diagnosis of defect or disease, nor any record of other less destructive remedies tried before falling back to the to last-resort step of amputation. By any rational standard amputating healthy normal body parts is malpractice, mayhem, wounding, battery – illegal. The lack of enforcement to punish this crime is a cultural loophole like letting people drive 5 miles an hour over the limit.

We protect every other body part of every other gender at every other age. Let’s just protect male infants too.

jackieno
There have been many that have noted that HIV reduction from male circumcision is not observed in the real world and that the AFRICA studies have many flaws. The other side of this is that if male circumcision lowers HIV risk (the allegation is a risk change of about 3.2% down to 1.78%) then the same benefit would be provided by female circumcision — same type of tissue and cells and similar moist places issues. Two studies say they female circumsiion shows the same benefits. So why is that not mentioned much? Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone Female Circumcision was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, and union status. Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse? (3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment) International AIDS Society. Kanki et al. reported that, in Senegalese prostitutes, women who had undergone Female Circumcision had a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not. Kanki P, M’Boup S, Marlink R, et al. “Prevalence and risk determinants of human immunodeficiency virus type 2 (HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in west African female prostitutes Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID

The reason not to do this in either case, even if this small risk reduction can be detected in the real world, is that both forms of circumcision deprive the owner of the genitals of a source of pleasure for life. That is not really mentioned in the piece above. Somehow those that have bought into male circumsiion miss the point of taking away main male pleasure zones!

We would never cut off genital parts of girls and harm their sensor system, so why would we do this to boys?

BTW, Why was my previous post taken down?

Abigail R. Esman:
Posts will be removed if they violate the terms noted above, if they plagiarize, or otherwise violate terms for use of the site. Several posts seem to have gotten caught in spam because of length or a poster posted too frequently or too quickly.

However, the repeated harangues by a few here have gone far enough, and I will shut down comments completely unless new ideas and real contributions to the discussion begin soon.

fortheking
Abigail, I would still love for you to engage my post, as I am desiring a genuine discussion. Simply stating that those who challenge you (on your points that circumcision should be advised because of it’s potential benefits as indicated by certain studies), are wrong without taking into account the many studies they (myself included) have included to show you otherwise is not much of a discussion and comes across as narrow-minded.

I’d also like to read your thoughts on the ethical implications of suggesting the routine removal of healthy tissue to prevent (going by your statements) miniscule potential risk increase of cancer, in light of the fact that we do not routinely remove any other healthy tissue from newborns, even when studies indicate removal would significantly (vs. miniscule) reduce risk of cancer (such as breast tissue removal) in their future.

Would you not agree that logically, removing any body part, or PART of a body part would reduce the occurrance in said body part? You suggest in one of your comments that the KNMR and any other medical organization should advice circumcision because it reduces risk of cancer occurrance and UTI’s – am I correctly rephrasing you? —> Would you not agree that if medical associations begin to advice the surgical removal of healthy body parts because leaving them ‘as is’ slightly increases infection risk, they would have to recommend surgical removal of nearly every other healthy body part on newborns? Do you perhaps now understand why no medical organization in the world DOES advocate for circumcision, EVEN if they would go by certain studies (assuming they are correct in their conclusions)?

By the way, not that this contributes anything to the discussion, but since I don’t want you to feel like this is ‘personal’: I am an evangelical Christian (and with that a minority voice on circ w/in my circles) who lives in the US, who has a BA in Theology, a Masters in Apologetics. I am what most would consider very Pro-Israel, and abhor anti-semitism. One of my favorite college classes (on the Holocaust and the problem of evil) was taught by a Messianic Jew whom I dearly love. I’ve read numerous articles and have sat under several speakers on the topic of Sharia Law and Jihad. I am both Dutch and American, and a mother of a little boy who was about to be circumcised (afterall, we do live in the US, in one of the states where the circ rates are still very, very high), until I spent hours upon hours reading up on the ethical implications, the function of the foreskin, and the fallacious logic used in advocating for the procedure.

I’m not out to ‘get you’, but I AM passionate about truth. When I see a piece or journalism like yours, that makes several statements containing logical fallacies (see my first reply), statements that do not cite their sources (you have yet to provide the studies, even though others have, which you have blown off instead of engaging)/research, it needs to be called out.

I understand this an opinion piece, but when you write one of those, you have to realize you will be called out on those premises you use to draw your conclusion that are false or invalid. In turn, you should be ready to defend them, and to engage counter arguments without blatantly ignoring them (the reason posters repeat the same over and over) and mainly stating that you’re ‘sticking to your statements’.

Esman's "final word" post reads:
"As the result of incessant spamming, personal attacks and other violations of the rules of conduct by one particular member of this discussion, comments are now closed."

Could she have been refering to me?

At any rate, this entry was poorly written, full of misinformation if not outright lies, Abigail R. Esman is an insult to medicine, and Forbes should re-consider having her on as a contributor.

Legal Circumcision Battle Goes State AND Federal

2011-09-15T13:24:00.000-07:00

Why a Legal Battle?
On September 30, 1996, a law was passed that would prohibit any form of female genital cutting on non-consenting minors. Even the mildest form of female genital cutting is condemned as "female genital mutilation," and it is prohibited under federal law, without exception for religious rituals. The law, of course, allows for medically indicated procedures, and would not criminalize a doctor if the procedure were medically or clinically warranted.

Last year, the AAP tried to endorse a "ritual nick" in girls, under the pretext that doing so might dissuade parents from taking their daughters abroad to other countries to have more severe forms of female genital cutting performed. The AAP admitted that the proposed "ritual nick" would dwarf in comparison with male infant circumcision. May 2010 would not end before there was a world outcry, and an embarrassed AAP was forced to retract their statement. The message was clear; under absolutely no circumstances were medical professionals ever to come near a girl's vulva with a knife, not even for a "ritual nick."

The establishment of such a law would seem like a noble gesture, were it not for a glaringly obvious inconsistency; the federal ban on female genital cutting (AKA female genital mutilation) protects members of only one sex against the needless cutting of their genitals, defying the 14th amendment, which says that citizens shall not be deprived of the equal protection of the law. While "religious freedom" and "parental choice" would never be enough to justify the slightest "ritual nick" in girls, for whatever reason, these are acceptable alibis for the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting boys.

To human rights activists who see the genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting individuals of either sex as mutilation, also known as "intactivists," it seemed only logical that such a law which offered protection to only one sex ought to be challenged. If neither "religious freedom" nor "parental choice" are enough to justify the slightest "ritual nick" in girls, then it only follows that the same applies to boys. A law that views the genital cutting of one sex as "mutilation" regardless of "religious importance" but not the other is not only sexist, bigoted and self-serving in nature, but also unconstitutional. Boys deserve the same protection under the law.

MGMBill.org
To directly challenge this federal law that only offers girls protection from all forms of genital cutting, a group of intactivists have come together to lead initiatives on all levels (local, state and federal) to pass identical laws that would protect boys from genital cutting. The organization MGMBill.org seeks to eventually amend the currently existing U.S. Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 so that boys are also protected from needless genital cutting.

The text of the MGMBill's proposal is partly modeled after the original FGM Bill which was submitted to the House of Representatives on February 14, 1995, along with its companion bill in the Senate. In addition to protecting boys from circumcision, the MGM Bill would prohibit premature forcible retraction of the foreskin (which leads to genital infection, scarring, and other problems), and the cutting of ambiguous or hermaphroditic genitalia, so that intersex children are also protected from medically unwarranted genital cutting.

Lastly, the bill borrows from the U.K. Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2003 by:

(a) making it a crime for persons to assist with or facilitate the practice of genital mutilation on minors or non-consenting adults
(b) increasing the maximum penalty of offense to 14 years imprisonment
(c) specifying that genital mutilation may only be performed if it is medically necessary to the physical health of a child, and
(d) prohibiting persons in the U.S. from taking or sending children or non-consenting adults on circumcision holidays where arrangements are made to have their genitals mutilated in other countries under the pretext of a holiday or vacation trip.

The MGM Bill proposal has been submitted to every member of Congress seven times - most recently on January 10, 2011. MGMBill state offices have also submitted state level MGM Bill proposals to all members of various U.S. state legislatures. (If you would like to help these proposed bills become law, please visit MGMBill.org's Take Action page.)

Challenges in Achieving Democracy
The biggest challenges in bringing equal protection to boys under the law are interest groups who would like to see that male infant circumcision continue in this country, namely doctors who profit from the routine circumcision of infant boys (1.3 million boys are circumcised annually in this country), and religious organizations who consider the circumcision of infants to be an indispensable religious custom (the circumcision of infants and minors is an important religious custom for Jews and Muslims).

MGM Bill organizers have a difficult enough time getting their voice heard, but even when they do, they're faced with bias, if not outright ignorance from those in government who are supposed to set aside their own personal bias, listen to both sides of the debate and make a fair judgement.

MGM Bill organizers were finally able to get a Senate sponsor for their measure in the state of Massachusetts in January, 2007, and last March, the bill was given a public hearing by the Joint Committee on the Judiciary. The chair of the Committee, Cynthia Creem, a Jewish woman with a Jewish constituency, made it her personal agenda not only to make sure the Joint Committee on the Judiciary voted on this bill with an "ought not to pass" recommendation, but also to monitor any attempt to move such a bill in the future. According to people present, Senator Creem made it publicly clear that she wanted absolutely no part of the testimony, and kept her chair turned away for the duration of the proceedings. The head of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary was unable to suspend her personal bias long enough to listen to the testimony of concerned citizens.

This year, MGM Bill organizers were able to get enough signatures to put their bill on this year's November ballot in the city of San Francisco. Despite the unlikelihood of such a measure ever passing, it didn't take long for financial and religious interest groups to start a campaign to have the bill stricken from the ballot, before the debate even took place in November. Circumcision advocates were successful in getting the bill stricken from the November ballot, albeit in a rather farfetched manner. Using a pre-existing statute that was instated to prohibit local governments from establishing bans on the declawing of cats, circumcision advocates were successfully able to argue that "only the state could make laws regarding circumcision," and thus the judge struck the bill from the ballot. (The statute uses the term "healing arts professional," which can also refer to doctors that perform circumcisions.)

Here too, we see that circumcision interest groups wield the power of authorities in high places. In support of the bill, Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) sent in documents that Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi refused to read. She ruled that California law makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities. However, her ruling bypasses the question of the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants as legit medical procedure that doctors can even be performing. She was also ignorant to the fact that the proposed law made an exemption for medically necessary procedures. The law would have not prohibited doctors from performing circumcisions, only ensured that the circumcisions they performed in healthy, non-consenting minors were medically legit.

It is worth noting that while the most vocal opponents to the circumcision bill in San Francisco were religious interest groups, they chose to fight it using legal and semantic technicalities in a pre-existing law concerning medical practice, in lieu of the arguments of "religious freedom" and "parental choice." Could it be that even religious advocates of circumcision recognize that the arguments of "religious freedom" and "parental choice" have lost their validity?

The Fight Goes State AND Federal
In direct response to the proposed bill in San Francisco, Jewish Congressman Brad Sherman has taken it upon himself to introduce the so-called "Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011" (AKA H. R. 2400) in the House of Representatives, which would prevent municipalities from passing bills like MGM Bill.

On his website, Sherman argues that "To infringe [on] the religious rights of so many Americans, San Francisco should have some compelling medical reason; however, the medical literature actually shows clear benefits of male circumcision."

Here too, we see a politician with religious interests turning to "medical benefits" in defense of the non-therapeutic circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors; "religious rights" somehow seem insufficient enough to stand alone as an alibi. We also see an intent on twisting medical logic to fit his political needs; there needs to be a compelling medical reason FOR surgical procedures, not the other way around.

He says "According to a United Nation AIDS agency study, male circumcision offers a 60 percent reduction in HIV risk and the benefits are life-long," but conveniently fails to mention, or is oblivious to the reality concerning HIV and circumcision in his own country. (Despite a 80% circumcision rate, the United States has higher HIV/STD transmission rates than Europe, where circumcision is rare, even African HIV hotspots.)

Sherman continues “I agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics that parents should clearly have the right to freely decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their male children... In fact, American parents have chosen circumcision for over 75 percent of male children.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics has made no such statement. The AAP does say in their latest position statement that they "recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents," but it also says "... [the] benefits are not sufficient... to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised." Additionally, according to the latest CDC reports, the rates of circumcision have fallen in America down to approximately 55%. Either Congressman Brad Sherman is out of touch with reality, or he is being willfully ignorant to the facts.

In direct lockstep with Brad Sherman, his former employer, California State Assemblyman Mike Gatto has introduced a similar bill in the state of California. I have already thoroughly analyzed this in a previous post.

Similar to Gatto's Law, the "Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011" defies all of medicine, by attempting to codify medical statements that no respected medical organization has ever dared to make. The exact wording as it appears in Section 2 is:

(1) Male circumcision carries significant medical benefits, including lower risk of sexually-transmitted diseases, certain kinds of infection, and overall improved hygiene.

But Congressman Sherman is a little bit bolder than Mike Gatto, by unabashedly including a clause that specifies that the bill protects a particular religious practice. It states:

(2) Male circumcision is an important part of many world religions, including Judaism and Islam, and observers have safely embraced its practice for generations.

So not only does the proposed law attempt to dictate medical validity, it clearly states that its purpose is to grant legislative immunity to members of the religions named for a particular form of genital cutting under the so-called name of "religious freedom."

The law seeks to limit states and local government by prohibiting them from restricting genital cutting, male genital cutting specifically. Section 3 reads:

No State or political subdivision of a State may adopt or continue in force a law, regulation, or order that prohibits or regulates the circumcision of males who have not attained the age of 18 years and whose parent or guardian has consented to the circumcision, unless such law, regulation, or order--

(1) applies to all such circumcisions performed in the State; and

(2) is limited to ensuring that all such circumcisions are performed in a hygienic manner.

It sounds like Congressman Sherman wants not only to dictate the medical validity of the practice of circumcision on healthy, non-consenting individuals, but also to make it so that anyone, not just trained doctors, could practice circumcision on a non-consenting person under the age of eighteen, so long as it is performed in a "hygienic" manner, and for no further reason other than that a parent requests it. I'm not sure I can quite picture a 17-year old boy being restrained to be circumcised by a blind man with Parkinson's using an X-acto knife, because his father wanted him circumcised, so long as it was done in a "hygienic" manner. It is absolutely horrific to think that a male person's rights over his own body do not begin until the age of 18, that a boy 17 and under can be circumcised at a parent's request, and he has absolutely no capacity to refuse.

This Anti-anti-circumcision bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration.

The Problem With Circumcision "Protection" Laws
Perhaps the biggest problem with this legislation is that, like Mike Gatto's law in California, it enacts as statute value judgements about circumcision that a state legislature cannot and should not be making. How are the medical claims in this law confirmed? Are there any urologists, pediatrics or epidemiologists sitting in Congress? Will evidentiary hearings in order to substantiate the claims about circumcision be held? Will the public have the opportunity to be heard at these hearings? Will we know what STDs children are at risk of contracting, for example? Precisely what "kinds of infection" does circumcision prevent, and do these "kinds of infection" have alternative treatment? Will we know how exactly circumcision "improves hygiene," and why this "improvement" is needed? (Incidentally, in their last Circumcision Policy Statement, the AAP has specifically said that "there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene.") Will we know what are the risks and complications of performing circumcision on healthy, non-consenting individuals, especially infants? Will the functions of the prepuce be outlined in full detail?

Unconstitutional
Sherman's law flies in the face of the constitution in more ways than one. The 1st Amendment states clearly:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

From the Findings in Section 2, we see clearly that Sherman wants to enact a law respecting the establishment of religion. The free exercise of religion includes the immunity from having a religion forced upon one's self, and this law would protect the forcing of a religion on a non-consenting individual in a physical and irreversible way. This law abridges the freedom of speech of the child, not to mention the right to his body, and the right for him to petition the Government for a redress of grievances should the child grow up to resent what was done to him. It abridges the freedom of speech of those wishing to protect him.

The second finding also claims that religious practitioners of infant circumcisions have "safely embraced its practice for generations." The law would be ignorant of the fact that mishaps happen to children being circumcised, even when they are circumcised in a "religious" setting. The last few years have seen law suits raised against both mohels and doctors who cut the glanses off the penises of Jewish and gentile children. In one particular incident, a New York rabbi gave herpes to three Jewish babies, one of whom died, by way of the ultra-orthodox practice of sucking on a child's wounded penis (AKA metzitzah b'peh), bringing the practice into question. Circumcision botches are so common that there are doctors that specialize in circumcision corrections. Here again, Sherman seems to be oblivious, or willfully ignorant to the facts.

The 14th Amendment says:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The U.S. Female Genital Mutilation Act already defies the 14th Amendment, as it affords protection from genital cutting to only one sex. It seems Sherman seeks to strengthen this sexist discrimination by making it illegal for states to prohibit the genital cutting of the unprotected sex. Furthermore, the institution of a law that protects "religious and parental rights" places the federal ban on female genital cutting on shaky ground, because for better or for worse, it too infringes on "religious and parental rights."

Religious and Parental Rights Have Limitations
The US Constitution does allow great latitude on religious freedom. However, traditionally that freedom only extends to the individual. For better or for worse, there are laws that place limits on what parents are allowed to do with their children, even when it comes to "religious freedom." The marriage of minors is illegal, for example, as is polygamy. Parents may not allow their children to hold snakes or drink poison. Laws in many states prohibit parents from denying needed healthcare to their children without religious exception. Parents may neither slash their children's heads on the holy day of Ashura, nor have their daughters circumcised in order to fulfill a religious requirement.

Parents most definitely have the right--even the duty--to make many decisions for their children. Some decisions might include passing on religious teachings and practices, but the law (usually) draws the line at slashing or removing body parts from their children for the sake of ritual. A person's right to freedom of any kind (usually) stops at the point where it infringes on the freedom of another. H. R. 2400 grants immunity to parents that overstep the bounds of religious liberty to violate the religious freedom of their children, and prohibits the state from stepping in.

What's also troubling about H. R. 2400 is that it appears to be trying to foster a parental right to cut the genitalia of a child. The words of the bill itself do not establish a parental right to circumcise a boy per se, but the title seems to imply that there is already such a right that must be defended. There is no such parental right to have elective surgery performed on a completely healthy child. There is a long line of US Supreme Court cases that place limits on what parents can inflict upon their children. One such case is Prince v. Massachusetts. The Court stated, "Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare." The following assertions can be found in the majority opinion written for the above case:

"...neither the rights of religion nor the rights of parenthood are beyond limitation…The right to practice religion freely does not include the right to expose the community or the child to communicable disease or the latter to ill-health or death...

Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves."

Conclusion
By all standards, this law should have little hope of passing constitutional muster. The bill codifies false medical statements and defies the constitution by granting preference and immunity to members of particular religious groups that practice male (but not female) genital cutting. It jeopardizes the individual human rights, religious freedom and bodily integrity of healthy, non-consenting male minors under the age of 18, and allows parents to absolve anyone cutting the genitals of said individuals.

Furthermore, it jeopardizes the individual human rights, religious freedom and bodily integrity of healthy, non-consenting female minors under the age of 18, because the existence of a statute that is supposed to protect "religious and parental rights" gives religious practitioners of female genital cutting legal grounds to challenge the federal ban on all female genital cutting. Religious groups that practice the genital cutting of girls will seek to overturn the federal ban on all female cutting because it infringes on their "religious and parental freedoms." Congressman Sherman is going to open up a can of worms with this law.

As of now, it looks like the circumcision protection law in California will more than likely be instated (see update below). Given the fact that the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants is still widely practiced in this country, by Jews and gentiles alike, Congressman Sherman may find support to get his bill protecting his religious practice yet. It may seem as if intactivists should have never thought to legally challenge the status quo, but I think that it is quite the contrary.

The instatement of these laws may appear to be an obstruction of the intactivist cause, but by taking the legal circumcision battle to the State and Federal levels, Sherman and Gatto have inadvertently helped the intactivist movement. It's easier to fight codified sexism and discrimination than it is to fight de facto sexism and discrimination. The enactment of these laws brings the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors from a "non-issue" to the forefront. The issue is "official," on both the state and federal level, which means it can no longer be ignored. Codifying something into law means that eventually it can be repealed. Even if these laws pass, we shouldn't lose heart. Now that the issue of circumcision is in the limelight, we should seize the opportunity to educate others about it

Take Action
Are you opposed to the "Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act" (AKA H.R. 2400)? Would you like to take action to stop it? I strongly suggest you use POPVOX to contact your Representative. It is also a good idea to contact other Representatives, particularly those on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is considering the Bill. When you write, be sure to include a clause which specifically says "I oppose H. R. 2400."

California Update
Incidentally, the last time I wrote about the California bill, Gatto's measure had not only gone before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which unanimously voted 5-0 in favor of passing it under perfunctory if not dubious legal procedure, but it had also gone before the full State Senate, where it was unanimously approved 37-0. The bill has been approved by the Legislature, amendments made to the bill have been passed by the Assembly and has headed to Governor Brown, which he will most likely sign in order to please his Jewish constituents. Being presented as an "urgency bill necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety," it will take effect immediately as soon as it is signed. If it passes, California will be the first state to enact a law that defies all of medicine.

It may prove futile, but it is still possible to write to Governor Brown to ask him to veto this law.

Visit the following links for another set of analyses regarding the impending circumcision protection laws:

Califronia Law

Federal Law

ZIMBABWE: MPs Shun Deputy Prime Minister's Call for Circumcision

2011-09-02T21:02:00.000-07:00

According to BBC, Deputy Prime Minister Thokozani Khupe has called on Zimbabwe's male MPs to "set an example" in the fight against AIDS and get circumcised. And who can blame her, if she's bought the line (or maybe she has been paid to say?) that "circumcised men are 60% less likely to get infected with HIV?" (Actually, it doesn't.)

Of the eight MPs the BBC has spoken to, only one said he might consider it. Another has rightfully called it "madness," while another said he was setting a good example through his behavior.

Moses Mzila Ndlovu, Minister of National Healing, told the BBC that some of his cabinet colleagues had described Deputy Prime Minister Khupe's suggestion as "madness" and "bizarre". His colleague Nelson Chamisa said it should be a matter of individual choice. (EXACTLY!)

It's nice to hear smart Africans speaking up, and that not everybody is buying into the whole circumcision/HIV gravy train.

Indeed, even the very World Health Organization, who has all but decreed that all Africans should be circumcised, is careful to say that, even if the latest "studies" were correct, "[m]ale circumcision provides only partial protection," and that it should be part of a "comprehensive HIV prevention package" that includes HIV testing and counseling services, treatment for STD infections, the promotion of safer sex practices and the provision of condoms and the promotion of their correct and consistent use.

Even if the recent trials were accurate (and their credibility is highly questionable), circumcision could only reduce the relative risk of acquiring HIV between circumcised and uncircumcised men by 60% over a period of about one year. Condoms have an absolute reduction risk of acquiring HIV that's over 95% (closer to 100% when used properly), making circumcision a moot point.

Of all the legislators, Edgar Mbwembwe, from Zanu-PF was the only one who said he would go ahead with the procedure. Another, Willias Madzamure, said the call was a good idea and said he was "seriously considering" it but did not firmly commit himself.

Two female MPs backed Ms Khupe. "Politicians, especially elected politicians, have a responsibility beyond the personal - they would set a good example if they did so, " Jessie Majome said.

Yes, it's always very easy to support circumcision when you're not the one who has to undergo it, eh Jessie? There are actually "studies" that show a "lowered risk" in HIV transmission in circumcised women here, here, and here. Maybe she should "lead by example" and go get circumcised herself?

More to the Deputy Prime Minister's Call than Meets the Eye?
Zimbabwe is one of the countries worst hit by AIDS, and the government launched a campaign to circumcise up to 80% of the country's young men (some three million people) last year. Only a few of Zimbabwe's ethnic groups practise circumcision for cultural reasons, and as evidenced by the attitudes of the MPs, there is notable resistance.

Now WHY has the Deputy Prime Minister openly made the call for MPs to "lead by example," get circumcised and announce it to the world? Why is she calling for a public display of endorsement? Could it be that like Swaziland, Botswana and now Kenya, not very many men are jumping to get part of their penises cut off, and "mass circumcision campaign" organizers are failing to meet their quotas in Zimbabwe? It would be interesting to know how far along their 80% quota Zimbabwe circumcision promoters have gotten. It might reveal the real reason for Khupe's call.

So What is Plan B?
I will keep asking; have "mass circumcision campaign" organizers ever considered the possibility that some men may never agree to get circumcised? That some men treasure their bodies and would prefer an alternative? What alternatives do circumcision campaign organizers have ready for such men? Or was preferring to stay intact simply not supposed to be an option?

Much "support" is offered to men who go in for circumcisions. But is that same "support" offered to the men who would rather learn proper hygiene and the proper usage of condoms?

One of the prime ministers has said that he was setting a good example through behavior. Why should men who intend on staying faithful to their partners be pressured to consider an operation that does not benefit them?

Nelson Chamisa said it should be a matter of individual choice, an excellent point. What of the men who don't want circumcision? Shouldn't there be an "education package" for those who opt out of circumcision?

Again, is circumcision supposed to be the only option?

These are questions that these program organizers must answer. What if despite all the efforts, the men would prefer an alternative to circumcision? Do they have that scenario in mind? Have they prepared education packages as part of these "mass circumcision campaigns" for men who do not want to be circumcised? Or are they simply not going to offer these men that option?

AB768 UPDATE: California State Senate Unanimously Approves

2011-08-30T21:29:00.000-07:00

As a reaction to intactivist efforts to limit circumcision to medically necessary procedures in San Francisco, Assemblyman Mike Gatto guts and amends Assembly Bill 768, and instead makes it into a law that decrees circumcision to be "medically beneficial."

Not only did the Senate Judiciary Committee vote unanimously, 5-0, in favor of passing it, the State Senate has actually approved of the bill, again unanimously, 37-0. It now returns to the Assembly for a final vote on Senate amendments.

If this bill goes through, it will codify medical statements that no medical organization in the world, not even in the United States, has ever dared to make.

This, the claim that male infant circumcision is a surgery with health benefits, enough to endorse the practice, is not at all consistent with the view of male circumcision given in the statements of medical authorities in and outside of the United States.

"The British Medical Association has a longstanding recommendation that circumcision should be performed only for medical reasons... Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns".
~AMA Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs

"...benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised."
~American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)

"...the association between having a sexually transmitted disease (STD) - excluding human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and being circumcised are inconclusive... most of the studies [of the effect of circumcision on HIV] ...have been conducted in developing countries, particularly those in Africa. Because of the challenges with maintaining good hygiene and access to condoms, these results are probably not generalizable to the U.S. population".
~AAFP "Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision"

"Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."
~College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia

"[We] do not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."
~The Canadian Paediatric Society

"The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it."
~The British Medical Association

"...the level of protection offered by circumcision and complication rate of circumcision do not warrant a recommendation of universal circumcision for newborn and infant males in an Australian and New Zealand context."
~The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP)

"The official viewpoint of KNMG (The Royal Dutch Medical Association) and other related medical/scientific organizations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."
~The Royal Dutch Medical Association

The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations that it would be quite surprising were male circumcision to be recommended in the United States. No respected U.S. based medical board recommends circumcision for U.S. 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, within and outside of the United States.

And yet, despite this clarity, self-serving politicians like Gatto have managed to get a 5-0 vote from California judges. And now, apparently, the State Senate has unanimously approved the bill 37-0. How is this possible?

California judges and senators are either ignorant of current medicine, or they've been bought out by special interest groups. Either that, or they've been frightened by the unspoken understanding that not signing on is tantamount to implicit antisemitism.

It should be noted that Mike Gatto is a beneficiary of the ADL, a Jewish organization, and one of the most vocal opponents of the San Francisco circumcision ban. (This can be investigated here.) Additionally, Gatto is former employee and understudy to Brad Sherman, a Jewish man who is working on a similar law that would silence the circumcision debate on a federal level. Ironically enough, Gatto is also currently alleging that the current democratic process has been "hijacked by special interests."

Gatto and his ilk may have been successful in ramming this self-serving law past the democratic process in California, but he is gravely mistaken if he thinks this law will stand. It has absolutely no basis in reality, and it is clearly an attempt to protect religious interests in the name of medicine. The truth will eventually be known, and this law which defies all of medicine will be repealed.

"Though a lie be well drest, it is ever overcome."

The Bottom Line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genital 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 normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of 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.

Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less stoking a parent's sense of entitlement.

This law basically places legal protection on charlatanism; it allows doctors to push quackery on naive parents. Placing on parents the responsibility of determining the medical necessity of a surgical procedure is clear professional abuse, and it is this doctor-parent-patient "relationship" that Gatto wishes to preserve.

CALIFORNIA: Democracy "Too Much of a Good Thing"

2011-08-30T18:03:00.000-07:00

Gatto has got some nerve. After he guts and amends Assembly Bill 768 and uses it to pass a law that decrees circumcision to be "medically beneficial" to please the ADL, one of his benefactors, he's got the gall to allege that the current democratic process has been "hijacked by special interests."

Do tell, Mike Gatto, do tell.

Restrictive laws should be written alright; laws that make it hard for bought-and-paid-for lawmakers with special interests and agendas to cut to the front of the line of the democratic process.

So first he guts and amends an assembly bill to please the ADL and self-interested doctors, and now he wants to gut the entire democratic process?

Boy Mike, you sure know how to put the "democracy" in "democrat."

AFRICA: When Propaganda Fails, Try Bribery

2011-08-30T10:07:00.000-07:00

In earlier posts, I point out how "mass circumcision campaign" efforts have been unsuccessful in coercing men into circumcision in some parts of Africa. So desperate are some circumcision promoters in getting their programs off the ground that they've tried turning to various propaganda approaches, without much success.

In Swaziland, for example, the Soka Uncobe ("Circumcise and Conquer" in Swazi) campaign had been so unsuccessful in convincing the men to undergo the knife since its launch*, that they've tried hiring an entire sports team to endorse the project. As if that weren't enough, organizers "re-launched" the program in July, with the endorsement of the Swazi King, which, by the way, keeps many wives and isn't even circumcised himself. To top it off, they've even tried hiring an artist to try and beautify the genital surgery, thinly veiling it in artistic expression. Millions of dollars in trying to convince men to cut off part of their penises, this despite the fact that HIV transmission was found to be more prevalent among the CIRCUMCISED in their own country. I can think of no better expression to describe the situation, than officials pissing in the mouths of Africans and calling it rain.

As Table 14.10 shows, the relationship between HIV prevalence and circumcision status is not in the expected direction. Circumcised men have a slightly higher HIV infection rate than men who are not circumcised (22 percent compared with 20 percent). (p. 256)

*Numbers vary by source: According to the Swazi Observer, Xaba reported that 28,000 out of 152,000 men had been circumcised as a result of the campaign, while Times Live reported only 3,000

In Botswana, only 14,000 of 467,000 targeted men (12%) have stepped forward since the program began last year, according to a Mmegi report in July. In the words of Principal public relations officer at the ministry of health, Temba Sibanda, that a large portion of the targeted group was not coming forth for circumcision is a "mystery." Here too, officials decided to go with the football team approach.

According to The Standard, officials in Turkana County, Kenya, are facing the same challenge in meeting their quota; since their program began in March this year, only 3,000 out of 175,000 men have come forth for the operation. Numbers were high at first, but they've since dwindled. Their approach? Bribe men sh100 ($1.07) to get circumcised. Through their paid referral program, men also get paid for each man they bring in for the operation.

Quoth Program Director Dr. Nicholas Muraguri:

"We really want this programme to succeed. That is why we are giving locals, who visit health facilities for the cut, incentives."

In other words, HIV prevention isn't good enough.

"This approach will help us to achieve our targets. The more you bring clients to the health facility for the cut, the more money you get... We are educating the community the health benefit of male cut in the prevention of HIV to encourage men to get circumcised."

...that is, if by "educating," he means "brainwashing," and by "encourage," he means "bribe."

I've asked before, and I'll ask again; have "mass circumcision campaign" organizers ever considered the possibility that some men may never agree to get circumcised? That some men treasure their bodies and would prefer an alternative? What alternatives do circumcision campaign organizers have ready for such men? Or was preferring to stay intact simply not supposed to be an option?

Much "support" is offered to men who go in for circumcisions. But is that same "support" offered to the men who would rather learn proper hygiene and the proper usage of condoms?

These are questions that these program organizers must answer. What if despite all the efforts, the men would prefer an alternative to circumcision? Do they have that scenario in mind? Do they have education packages as part of these "mass circumcision campaigns" for men who do not want to be circumcised in place? Or are they simply not going to offer these men that option?

So much for education and informed consent...

California AB 768 Bill: Afterthought

2011-08-29T20:54:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I talk about a law that is now at the full state senate, which, if enacted, would declare male infant circumcision to be "medically beneficial", by law.

I just had an afterthought that I felt warranted its own separate post:

I think it's rather unfair that while the rest of us have to work hard to get legislation passed, from gathering signatures, to getting people to vote at the appointed time, self-serving politicians with an agenda are able to cut to the front of the line and get immediate approval for laws they create.

Intactivists had to work hard to gather 12,265 signatures San Francisco's Department of Elections to even have the chance for their measure to be voted on by the people, but Mike Gatto is able to get a law before the full state senate with the approval of just five people?

The San Francisco circumcision ban would have to first make it to the ballot, and the people would have had to vote in favor of it, in order to pass. And even then, there would be time before the law would go into effect. But Gatto's law, if approved, goes into effect immediately?

The San Francisco Ban doesn't even get a chance at the ballot, but Gatto's law is already at the state senate?

Something seems very, very wrong here.

UPDATE: The State Senate has unanimously approved the bill 37-0. I've posted about it here.