COLORADO: Jewish Circumcision Protection Bill Moves Forward

It sounds very noble to proclaim that you are acting in the interests of "equality" and "public health." As a politician seeking to secure support, you can't go wrong with rambling on and on about "helping the poor."

It's dishonest and self-serving, however, to be claiming to be "helping the poor," when, in fact, you are actually only helping yourself.

Last year, Colorado became the 18th state to drop Medicaid coverage for routine infant circumcision. In response to this, Senator Joyce Foster introduced a bill to reinstate Medicaid coverage on the platforms of "disease prevention," "fairness," "social justice" and "parental choice."

These sound like noble causes, however they fall apart upon closer inspection. 

An Unfounded Position Against the Best Medical Authorities in the West
It certainly makes you appear to have a moral high ground to claim to want to provide society with something as basic as medicine and public health. Contrary-wise, it makes you a villain to want to deny the public, especially the poor, such a basic need. The dubious premise that sneaks past observers unnoticed is the assumption that having a foreskin is some sort of disease, circumcision is the one and only "cure," and cutting funding for it is a public disservice.

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

In reality, 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 medical organization in or outside the United States 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.

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, the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Surgeons, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association.

Senator Foster's platform appears to defy the whole of Western medicine.

The arguments of "fairness," "social justice" and "parental choice" collapse upon making this realization.

The purpose of Medicaid is to help pay for medically necessary procedures, not helping families that want non-medical procedures for their children keep up with the Joneses.


Joyce Foster's Arguments Fail to Mask her True Intentions
Despite trying to argue from a "social justice" platform, Foster can't seem to be able to keep her ulterior motives from spilling out. In the preliminary hearing for the bill, after getting served by her opposition, Foster feels the need to explain her conflict of interests:

"Let me clarify... I had my sons circumcised because it was a health issue and a religious issue."

In a recent article, she says:

"This bill will have absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish community of Colorado... [I am] most persuaded by the medical evidence." ("Evidence" that couldn't persuade respected medical organizations in and outside the US to endorse the practice?)

 The Jewish Daily Forward betrays her true motives for the Colorado bill, however:

Foster, the main backer of the Colorado bill, said she believes that cutting Medicaid coverage for circumcision sent a message of support to anti-circumcision activists who want see the procedure outlawed nationwide. She is determined to push back against that effort. 

"Ultimately, I think when the anti-circumcision people begin to see so many states denying benefits... it will be easier for them now to make their case that circumcision should be banned altogether."

Conclusion
So there you have it. This measure has nothing to do with "public health," nor a genuine interest in "helping the poor." This is nothing more than a self-serving bill aimed at safeguarding a historically controversial religious ritual that has come ever under scrutiny. It is a law aimed to cater to a particular religious establishment, and Joyce Foster a self-serving politician with a religious agenda.

All things considered, the bill ought not to pass. If it does, it will be a waste of taxpayer dollars with no actual basis in medicine.

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

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

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

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, let alone be giving parents any kind of a "choice," let alone be expected to be reimbursed by the public's coffers.

Genital mutilation, whether 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.

Where the bill stands now
The Colorado Senate Health and Human Services Committee held a hearing for Senate Bill 90 (AKA SB 12-090), where the bill passed 6-3. Senate Appropriations Committee voted to move the bill forward onto the full Colorado Senate, where it was approved by a vote of 21 to 14 without debate.

The House Health and Environment Committee holds a hearing on the bill today (May 3) at 1:30pm.

UPDATE:
The bill passed at the House Health and Environment Committee hearing 7 to 6. It's unfortunate that Coloradans dare defy Western medicine, but at the very least the margin was slimmer than before; the bill can still be defeated at the house.

Intactivists need to remember that laws are nothing, and they change with time. Remember that up until 1996, female circumcision was perfectly legal in this country, and insurance companies like Blue Shield paid for it. A human rights violation is a human rights violation, whether or not it is recognized by law. The day will come when the forced circumcision of minors will be seen for the human rights violation that it is, and those who advocated it will be too embarrassed to ever admit it.

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

Earlier posts:
COLORADO: Conflicts of Interest Plague Medicaid Circumcision Coverage Bill 

COLORADO: Senator Aguilar Circumvents Circumcision Debate

COLORADO: Senator Aguilar Circumvents Circumcision Debate

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.