Politics

June 14, 2011

Rep. Brad Sherman will introduce bill outlawing city circumcision bans

By Jonah Lowenfeld

Tweet

Share

Reacting to recent efforts to advance ballot measures banning circumcision of underage males in California cities, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) is set to introduce a bill that would prevent municipalities nationwide from prohibiting the procedure.

“Religious freedom is a federal issue, and medical practice is a state issue, maybe a federal issue as well,” Sherman said today. “Neither of them is in the proper realm of cities.”

The exact language of Sherman’s bill, the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011, hadn’t been released as of press time, but Sherman said the bill would be presented to the House Judiciary Committee today or tomorrow. Sherman also said that he was gathering co-sponsors. “One of note is Keith Ellison,” Sherman said, referring to the Minnesota Democrat, the first Muslim American to be elected to Congress.

A proposition banning circumcision in San Francisco will appear on that city’s ballot in November. An effort to put an identical proposition before voters in Santa Monica was abandoned by its proponent on June 6.

Sherman did not coordinate his legislative efforts with the local organizing effort to defeat the San Francisco ballot proposition, which is being led by the Jewish Community Relations Council. He said he does not expect the measure to pass in San Francisco, nor does he expect any state to enact such legislation. Nevertheless, he was moved to act by the anti-Semitic comic book “Foreskin Man,” penned by Matthew Hess, an anti-circumcision movement leader.

Asked about the precedent for using federal legislation to restrict the types of laws that may be enacted by cities, Sherman cited a 2000 law that prevented cities from enacting zoning laws that would inhibit the construction of houses of worship. “Even when it is a city issue, such as zoning, the federal government steps in when we think cities are unduly burdening First Amendment rights,” Sherman said.

Ultimately, Sherman said, the decision over whether to circumcise “should be left up to the parents. I’m not going to propose a mandatory circumcision bill.”

A version of this article appeared in print.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Infant Circumcision is a direct violation of an individual’s Constitutional right to choose their own religion. When you cut the genitals of a baby for religious reasons, you are forcing a religious practice upon them that permanently alters and damages their body and “marks” them as a certain religious faith. I was circumcised at birth under my Jewish parents approval and now regret it being done to me very much. As an adult I now choose not to follow Judaism, but I am left with a scar and the permanent damage from my circumcision that was forced upon me. Let every human being choose the fate of their own body and religious affiliation.

Comment by Mike Anderson on 6/14/11 at 5:05 pm

All genital cutting, male or female, operates under the premise that the Natural Genitals are inherently ugly, unclean, diseased or evil. Clearly this is a religiously motivated viewpoint, as religion/religious officials have a history of demonizing the genitalia, masturbation, sex, sexual pleasure, temptation, etc. Any one who questions this motivation is labeled anti-Semitic, blasphemous, prejudiced, etc. Fortunately, in the present you cannot be executed for blasphemy (at least within the USA). This has long been the means through which religion and its practices have escaped the scrutiny of critical thinking.

Comment by Bob Loblaw on 6/14/11 at 5:40 pm

If Rep. Sherman gets this passed, then the law against genital cutting of females will have to be revoked and declared unconstitutional, since Muslim immigrants who come to the United States will be able to claim that they have religious and parental rights to genitally cut their female offspring. 

This is an ignorant and ill-advised proposal by Rep. Sherman, and hopefully the rest of the House and the Senate will see it for what it is.  The 1st Amendment does not negate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  Children of both genders deserve protection from genital cutting.  Circumcision is the same injury to the baby, no matter what his parents’ religion is.

Comment by Petrina on 6/14/11 at 5:47 pm

This is madness. Sherman’s proposed bill will create a constitutional storm. In the end, you’re going to have a Supreme Court decision on the current FGM bill, equal protection on the Federal Level, the First Amendment with freedom of religion and the power of states and municipalities to create the criminal code. This could get very ugly. To think that “Foreskin Man” could launch a constitutional crisis. It boggles the mind.

Comment by Perplexed on 6/14/11 at 5:54 pm

So you want to protect the rights of parents to impose their religion on another human being permanently. You can’t tatoo crosses on children to mark them as christians-you shouldn’t be able to cut off part of their sexual organs to mark them as jews or muslims. I was raised catholic , circumcised as an infant by an jewish OB with a mogen clamp. I see the scars everyday. I had my rights violated and will work to ensure that all children are protected. As a physician I have seen the damage that circumcision does-so many of my patients with terrible scars- and how other physicians ignore it. The time has come to expose this horrendous practice. NO excuse for cutting a child.

Comment by Brian on 6/14/11 at 6:11 pm

Even the CDC site on male circumcision states that some decrease in sensitivity of the glans to fine touch can occur following circumcision.  Only the guy who is getting his foreskin amputated should decide just how much sexual pleasure he wants removed.  Circumcision should NOT be forced upon a child by adults.  Where is the baby boy’s rights in all of this?

Comment by Jarek Krukowski on 6/14/11 at 6:41 pm

Recently a law was passed in Oregon saying that religious groups can no longer deny a child needed medical care. The “Followers of Christ” church is infamous for letting children die and letting them develop grotesque deformities as a result of 50 long years of ignoring the problem. So does this mean this law gets revoked? After all, it does violate parental choice, but most of all, religious freedom.

Comment by Couscous4EVR on 6/14/11 at 6:44 pm

Unless there’s an immediate medical need, parents don’t have the ‘right’ to mutilate the genitals of their children. Not even in the name of religion. America, a country that is supposed to be concerned about human rights and protecting the innocent, should have the sense enough to know this. Shame on us for allowing this human rights violation to continue. Girls are protected from genital cutting, but boys are not. This is unconstitutional, for it denies men equal protection under the law.

Comment by Cyn on 6/14/11 at 6:45 pm

Rep. Sherman’s initiative could possibly be helpful if testimony concerning the extreme damage inflicted by circumcision is presented, heard, and taken to heart on state or national forums. All religious and medical arguments for infant circumcision overlook or dismiss as irrelevant that the foreskin plays many important roles in sex, that the surgery to remove it is traumatic, and that amputating healthy genitalia of unconsenting minors constitutes an outrageous violation of human rights.

Comment by Robert Clover Johnson on 6/14/11 at 6:45 pm

He’s right, this IS a federal issue, as in, the GENITAL MUTILATION of children should be BANNED at a federal level. As it currently stands, only FEMALE genital mutilation in children is banned in the U.S., and only since 1997. This is a clear violation of the 14th amendment which provides EQUAL protection for all. Moreover, mutilating the genitals of a minor based on the adult’s religious beliefs is a violation of the CHILD’s 1st amendment rights—WHOSE BODY? WHOSE RIGHTS?

Comment by Barefoot Intactivist on 6/14/11 at 6:53 pm

A ritual/religious pin-prick on a baby girl’s genitals, to draw one drop of blood, is called Type 4 female genital mutilation (FGM) and has been illegal since March 1997. However, a parent can remove a baby boy’s foreskin for ANY reason. These include, “just because” and “I think it looks better”. How is this equal rights? It’s a clear violation of the, “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment.

Comment by Dave S on 6/14/11 at 7:10 pm

I’m a Republican Jewish woman and I’m against circumcision of anyone.  It’s a barbaric practice.

Comment by Missy on 6/14/11 at 7:11 pm

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_zaemvhCyKZA/S8g-3Ir5haI/AAAAAAAAAAM/pntZWGRg1mE/s1600/summer09+1066.jpg

When I think of male circumcision, I always think of this….

If it is illegal to surgically remove the most sexually sensitive parts of little girls, it should be just as illegal to do the same to little boys. We cannot allow religious belief to justify crimes against children, male as well as female, here or anywhere else.

Comment by NovusPreseley on 6/14/11 at 7:30 pm

There is no comparison of circumcision to the operation that is performed on girls in Africa. An equivalent would be what used to be done to boy sopranos, to extend their musical careers.

Comment by Kyle on 6/14/11 at 7:41 pm

“yah… i also dont know how to explain how its done although i witnessed both my gals’ procedures myself
both done at different clinics by female Muslim doctors…

dont think it’s like the cutting for boys…. it’s more minimal…. baby can recover by the next day?”

Comment by Joanna on 6/14/11 at 7:45 pm

@Kyle, which of many operation are you talking about? I’m afraid that not even the worst kind of FGM, which is infibulation, is equivalent to castration. Castration involves the removal of the testes, and an infibulated woman still gets to keep her ovaries and is able to orgasm and reproduce. Do you know about “sunat?” Because “sunat” dwarves in comparison to male infant circumcision. Sunat is performed on the majority of girls in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. But immigrant parents of daughters from these countries do not enjoy the same “religious freedom” and “parental rights” as Jews and Muslims parents of boys at home.

Comment by Couscous4EVR on 6/14/11 at 7:46 pm

Let me get this straight,  this guy is going to make a law outlawing a law?! These people need to climb out of the stone ages. It’s really disturbing what they do to their infant sons.

Comment by AMB on 6/14/11 at 7:52 pm

No baby ever deserves any genital cutting of any kind.

Comment by Sentience on 6/14/11 at 7:53 pm

It always gets on my nerves when circumcision advocates say “female circumcision is worse.” Am I supposed to just take their word for it? SOME female circumcision is pretty bad, involving sowing up a woman’s area leaving a small hole for menstruation, but not all FGM is the same. So what about the kind that is equivalent to, or less severe than male infant circumcision? I’m afraid that the “female circumcision is worse” argument is a smokescreen that is beginning to fail. So does “freedom of religion” and “parental choice” apply only when we don’t think a practice is “as bad” as another? Because I think male and female circumcision are equivalent.

Comment by Joe_in_CA on 6/14/11 at 7:55 pm

The real question is why anyone would be a circumcision advocate in the first place. These people need studying. Something tragically pathological is at play.

Comment by Dwayne on 6/14/11 at 8:00 pm

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…is from the Constitution of the United States. Any attempt to stop circumcision of Jewish or Muslim children is a DIRECT violation of the phrase “...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Now please STOP this ridiculous attempt to stop circumcision. G-d (Allah) commanded it and no human being can tell Him that we know better than him.

Comment by bkurtin on 6/14/11 at 8:08 pm

THIS IS SKY DADDY TALKING: I NO LONGER COMMAND YOU TO HATE ON YOUR SON’S PENISES.  YOU MAY OFFICIALLY STOP CARVING THEM UP AT PARTIES. I HAVE DECIDED THAT A DIMINISHED SEXUAL EXPERIENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR PERSONAL BOND. I AM NOW REQUIRING, THAT YOU SEVERE ALL OF YOUR EARLOBES, WHEN YOU TURN 18. THIS APPLIES TO WOMEN TOO! THIS IS SO THAT I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ALL HEARD ME!

Comment by GOD on 6/14/11 at 8:16 pm

Yes, ban all forced genital cutting of children, no exceptions.

Comment by James Loewen on 6/14/11 at 8:17 pm

@Dwayne- circumcision, first of the symbolic variety of ancient times and now of the so-called radical variety more recently and presently, is designed simply to make imperfect the physical body at its heart of being so as to motivate a compensatory spiritual process.

As Jews, we think it important and of value in rearing the best males we can.

Comment by Dovid F on 6/14/11 at 8:22 pm

Okay, both “sky daddy” and James Loewen are intellectually challenged, thus no further responses will be made to either.  If you cannot understand that attempting to interfere with the free exercise of religion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  You both lose; your comments are invalid.  Good bye.

Comment by bkurtin on 6/14/11 at 8:28 pm

I just want to add that I have observed hospital circumcisions that are no doubt alarming acts of human cruelty. However, if you are ever given the good fortune to partake in a Jewish bris I sincerely hope you glean from it the divine love and care embodying every aspect of this truly beautiful and spiritual ritual.

Comment by DovidF on 6/14/11 at 8:35 pm

Finally! Dov, I could not agree more with you. In some cases, the penis has been amputated because the hospitals use electric devices. Also, a child should be eight days old. There is a reason for that. A bris is both beautiful and moving. The child is given a tiny bit of wine prior to the procedure. Bracha bat Etta Golda.

Comment by bkurtin on 6/14/11 at 8:42 pm

Forcibly cutting off body parts from a child’s sex organ is always alarming and cruel. To fool oneself that it is “good fortune” to be involved in a bris is superstition overriding reason and rational thinking.

Jewish American scholar, Leonard Glick’s comment, “I am totally convinced that cutting the genitals of children, infants or children, girls or boys is fundamentally evil.”

Comment by James Loewen on 6/14/11 at 8:45 pm

Freedom of religion ends where another human being’s body begins. We have precedent, such as from Murray v. Curlett, that the First Amendment covers not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion. An eight-day-old infant is not even emotionally aware; there’s no way he can enter into a covenant with God. The ritual of circumcision would be more meaningful if it were only done on individuals who can give informed consent and understand the physical gravity and spiritual significance behind what they are undergoing.

Comment by Ken on 6/14/11 at 8:45 pm

@bkurtin Plenty of boys have died & lost their entire penises during botched bris ceremonies as well. See:

“Atlanta Lawyer Takes On Botched Circumcision Claims Nationwide” http://bit.ly/lPvAms (Mogen Corporation was bankrupted from lawsuits after multiple boys lost their penises at Bris ceremonies)

“Baby Boy Dies After Circumcision At London Synagogue” http://www.ejpress.org/article/14206

Comment by Barefoot Intactivist on 6/14/11 at 8:49 pm

As a reform Jew, if it’s okay for me to eat lobsters and pork ribs, why do I have to mutilate my children? My connection to God does not require me to follow a set of scrolls with questionable provenance. Logic and religion needs to be reconciled. I will let my child decide what his spiritual path will be. Torah is an imperfect record of ancient opinions, not the work of a perfect being. My time at temple reflects upon human dignity, not some set of tribal rules.

Comment by Moving Forward on 6/14/11 at 8:55 pm

“... if you are ever given the good fortune to partake in a Jewish bris I sincerely hope you glean from it the divine love and care embodying every aspect of this truly beautiful and spiritual ritual.” Except when the mohel gives the baby herpes by sucking on his mutilated penis, right? “If you cannot understand that attempting to interfere with the free exercise of religion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.” So then, you will agree that the ban on female circumcision is also, “unconstitutional.” Right? Or only when it applies to you and YOUR “religion?”

Comment by Couscous4EVR on 6/14/11 at 9:08 pm

I’d like to see the exact wording of this bill. How would it be possible to prevent the criminalization of an act that fits the definition of assault and battery of a minor, which are already crimes?

Comment by Pat on 6/14/11 at 9:14 pm

HERE IS THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM CIRCUMCISION WILL ONLY BE LEGAL WHEN THE PERSON WITH THE FORESKIN IS 18 AND IS WELL INFORMED TO MAKE THAT DECISION HIMSELF OR HERSELF…  Jews can get circumcised when they are adults and not when they are babies.  Infant circumcision is cruel a violation of his or hers rights and there is absoloutely No medical reason to do it..  Infact there a medical reasons not to do it… 

So if a religion starts up and the cut off the ears of all their baby they should have the religious right to do this????  NO!  Infant circumcision should be illegal….  its cruel discusting mutilationg… 

BY THE WAY I WAS CIRCUMCISED AS AN INFANT AND I AM NOT FINE!

Comment by glen on 6/14/11 at 9:15 pm

How sad that a representative would use one victim’s artistic expression to try to ensure that other human rights workers such as myself aren’t able to try to further the right to bodily integrity to all children in our nation.  America is the only developed nation that is clinging tooth and nail to an outdated, unnecessary and harmful surgery on non-consenting minor boys.  Your religious freedoms entitle you to do what you want with your body, but not the body of another individual!

Comment by Jennifer C. on 6/14/11 at 9:19 pm

The first part of the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That means no law can show a preference for or favor a particular religion. If a law were to be enacted that allows a religious practice to continue in spite of efforts for a general law prohibiting such conduct, the law would then favor that religion. Such a law would be unconstitutional.

Comment by Tally on 6/14/11 at 9:27 pm

Yes, Kyle, when it was common, they claimed health benefits for castration, too. (Castrati live longer, being almost immune to prostate cancer.) They were the rock stars of their day. Composers we think of as civilized, like Mozart and Handel, wrote for them. When families were large and patriarchal, to make a younger son childless was no tragedy or crime. Times change and, we hope, the world grows more civilized - but castration was also done as a religious ritual, so will Sherman’s law cover it too?

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/15/11 at 1:35 am

Brad Sherman’s lame efforts to introduce an unconstitutional bill to protect genital mutilation of boys born into Jewish families makes one believe that there is nothing more to Judaism than a worship of circumcision. Circumcision, unfortunately, has become a graven image, which is worshiped in place of G-d. Worship of circumcision is a clear violation of the Second Commandment.

One might think it is time for Judaism to clean up its act and to commence protection of the human rights of its sons. Theodore Hertzl and Sigmund Freud both opposed Jewish circumcision. What is wrong with Brad Sherman?

Comment by Roland on 6/15/11 at 4:28 am

Publicized Ritual Circumcision Deaths

Ritual circumcisions deaths/ botched ritual circumcisions.
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

Julius Katzenstein bled to death after circumcision, December 14, 1856, NY.

Myer Jacob Levy bled to death after circumcision,  April 18, 1858, NY.

Infant twin (circumcised by Rabbi Yitzhok Fischer who had herpes and performed metziza by mouth [sucking the blood] on baby’s penis) NY, October, 2004.

Amitai Moshe died after ritual circumcision at Golders Green Synagogue, London. February 9, 2007.

Comment by Petrina on 6/15/11 at 5:18 am

Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing? Visit this URL:
http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html
The foreskin makes a great incubator for bacterial infections. If the Creator of all ordered it, who can dispute his wisdom?

Comment by Beverly Kurtin, Ph.D. on 6/15/11 at 5:37 am

Botched Ritual Circumcisions:

1990- A 3 year old Russian immigrant boy lost part of his penis during a ritual circumcision at Brook Plaza Surgical Ambulatory Center in Brooklyn, NY.  He was awarded $1.2 million.
http://www.cirp.org/news/1995.11.30_NYC_lawsuit/?C=S;O=A

An Indian River County, FL couple sued Rabbi Abraham Cohen for a botched circumcision performed on their son, Noah Benjamin Lapeyre, in June of 1996.
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/sues.htm

Comment by Petrina on 6/15/11 at 5:38 am

Botched Ritual Circumcisions (cont.)

A New York mohel, using the Mogen clamp during a ritual circumcision in 2007 upon an infant, removed the entire glans of L.G.‘s penis.  Mogen Circumcision Instruments of New York was ordered to pay $10.8 million, but went out of business.  This clamp is still in use, with the potential for more botched circumcisions. UPI

Comment by Petrina on 6/15/11 at 5:48 am

Can’t you get it through your skulls? You can talk about the 0.00002% of the times when a circumcision goes wrong, big fat hairy deal. READ my replies above.  I had a surgeon make a HUGE error in diagnosing double vision following a carotid endarterectomy. Result? I had a MASSIVE HEMORRHAGIC STROKE! (No, I didn’t sue, I realize that doctors cannot see into the future.)  So should ALL such surgeries be prohibited? Doo-doo occurs. People have died from having their tonsils removed; should a law be passed to prohibit tonsillectomies? Women die in child birth; let’s pass a law against giving birth!

Comment by Beverly Kurtin, Ph.D. on 6/15/11 at 5:49 am

“big fat hairy deal”- words coming from someone with apparently little or no compassion!

For the child who loses his life or is severely damaged by circumcision, and for those families who have this happen to them, this is a “big fat hairy deal.” These are people, not statistics!

I guess if you were a boy or girl in Africa who was circumcised and suffered from serious complications, that too would not be a “big fat hairy deal.”  It’s sad that some people can think this way, no matter what initials appear after their name!

Comment by Petrina on 6/15/11 at 6:00 am

Brad Sherman would deny the protection of international human rights law to Jewish children and classes Jewish children as “Untermenschen”, which is a Nazi word meaning sub-human. This in itself is monstrous and places Brad Sherman in league with the Nazis, whose actions the whole world decries.

Children born into Jewish homes have the same human rights as other children.

Comment by Roland on 6/15/11 at 7:17 am

In Leonard Glick’s book, “Marked in Your Flesh,” he describes rabbinical debates from early centuries CE concerning how many baby boys born to a Jewish woman who die from their circumcision would be enough to make it permissable for the next baby boy to be spared from circumcision if the woman pleads for this. Some rabbis said one dead boy was enough. Others said two were enough. Others said three were enough. Yet others said no number of dead baby boys was enough.

Comment by Robert Clover Johnson on 6/15/11 at 9:04 am

Beverly Kurtin- scare mongering doesn’t work anymore. Women are ordered 2 get pap smears every 6 months to screen for HPV. Only 33% of the country still cuts their baby boys (per CDC 2009). R you comfortable w/ telling all women with cut partners to skip theire semi annual pap smears? i doubt that you would be.  Mutilated or not, women are STILL susceptible to HPV. Your logic doesn’t add up. And do U REALLY believe, in you rational mind, that GOD requires foreskin donations? Wouldn’t he mind if the donation came when the boy was 18? If the 18 year old didn’t want to have it done, you could hold him down and do it anyway…. or would would be considered sexual assault with a weapon?

Comment by AMB on 6/15/11 at 9:09 am

All of you that are against circumcision, mind your own business and go get a life. It’s in the Torah that Jewish males should be circumcised on their 8th day.  Also, there are NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS of the circumcision.  So go back to your own lives and stop trying to tell other people how to live theirs.

Comment by David on 6/15/11 at 10:19 am

All these folks must be disillusioned to believe they can ban Jews from practicing their religion. The story of Hanukkah begins with the invasion of Judea in 175 BCE by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, ostensibly at the request of the Tobias clan, who led the Hellenizing Jewish faction in Jerusalem. What began as a civil war, escalated when the Hellenistic kingdom of Syria sided with the Hellenizing Jews in their conflict with the traditionalists. Antiochus prohibited religious practices, most notably circumcision, and this is how the Jewish uprising began. Please don’t give us Jews a reason for another holiday. We have enough as it is.

Comment by Mini on 6/15/11 at 10:20 am

David and Mini do you follow the Torah word for word? i highly doubt it.
You pick and choose. Hypocrites.

Comment by AMB on 6/15/11 at 10:43 am

You have every right to practice your own religion until it violates the right of self-determination of another being. The earliest draft of the Pentateuch stated that a woman cannot refuse a man for sex, that a father could sell his daughter into slavery, and mandated that homosexuals be killed by stoning. Not even the most Orthodox of Jews adhere to those provisions, nor would they be allowed to do so if they tried. There is a limit to the freedom of religion. Respect your son’s freedom of religion and allow him to choose whether or not to accept the covenant of circumcision when he is an adult.

Comment by Ken on 6/15/11 at 11:18 am

@Ken thanks for approving Jews to practice our religion.

@AMB: The way I practice the Torah is non of your business. I do not care how you practice your relgious, nor about your sexual practices, or your eating habits. As far as I am concerned they may all be quite disgusting, but I simply don’t give a damn. Kapish?

Comment by Mini on 6/15/11 at 11:36 am

David, you say there are “NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS” of the circumcision performed in a bris. How do you know? Most of a man’s erogenous nerves are in the foreskin that is removed, so a great amount of sexual sensation is lost. The gliding motion intended by nature is lost and the resulting friction in sex is often unpleasant or painful for women. Many Jewish philosophers have justified circumcision for its elimination of lust. Is that the positive effect you think we should be striving to guarantee our children?

Comment by Robert Clover Johnson on 6/15/11 at 2:27 pm

The foreskin makes a great incubator for bacterial infections. If the Creator of all ordered it, who can dispute his wisdom?
Comment by Beverly Kurtin, Ph.D.    on 6/15/11 at 5:37 am

Dr. Kurtin, your comments amaze me.  You attempt to use science as a basis for your argument yet neglect to mention that the clitoral hood is a great incubator for bacterial infections, too.  Prepuce on a female is just as much fair game as the prepuce on a male.

Comment by Michael Morin on 6/15/11 at 3:56 pm

A pinprick on a baby boy is perfectly legal; however, a pinprick on a baby girl is illegal?  This is sexist and dehumanizing.

Comment by Michael Morin on 6/15/11 at 3:58 pm

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion; it does not, however, guarantee a parent’s supposed right to remove healthy, functioning tissue from a minor child w/out medical necessity. The 1996 federal ban on FGM—the primary motivation for which is religion—makes this point. ~2% of the US is Jewish & ~2% is Muslim—>70% of US adult males aRE circumcised, so, the VAST majority of male circumcisions performed in US have nothing to do with religion.

Then there’s the Equal Protection Clause. As it’s name suggests, it guarantees equal protection under the law—i.e., you can’t have a law that protects only one gender from a procedure that is also performed on the other gender.

Comment by Poster on 6/15/11 at 4:52 pm

The number one reason provided by circumcising parents for doing so is ‘so he will look like his father’. I see. So, most boys who inherited someone else’s hair and eye color are given colored contacts and hair dye so he’ll look just like daddy? His skin is bleached or spray-tanned to have the same tone as daddy? And for those unfortunate men who have had limbs amputated for any reason—they amputate their son(s)‘s corresponding limb as well?

Comment by Poster on 6/15/11 at 4:53 pm

I hope this bill brings the needed attention to the discrepancy between the federal ban of FGM and the lack of a corresponding ban of male circumcision on minors—and its subsequent violation of the 14th Amendment.

Comment by Poster on 6/15/11 at 4:58 pm

@Beverly Kurtin, Ph.D. “The foreskin makes a great incubator for bacterial infections. If the Creator of all ordered it, who can dispute his wisdom?”

If the “Creator” were so wise, why would he have created and placed on a man a “great incubator for bacterial infections” in the first place? Does it not matter that the vulva of women is an even greater incubator for bacterial infections? Why don’t you cut those off, too?

Circumcision doesn’t prevent HPV—just try saying it does to all those American women who contracted it from their circumcised American lovers.

Comment by Poster on 6/15/11 at 5:06 pm

“If you cannot understand that attempting to interfere with the free exercise of religion is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  You both lose; your comments are invalid.  Good bye.”

Many (but not all - www.jewishcircumcision.org , www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org ) Jewish people are upset; they think it’s a threat to their freedom of religion. To which we counter: Muslims are legally prohibited from having the genitalia of their baby girls cut for cultural/religious reasons. Males are being denied equal protection under the law, and THIS is unconstitutional.

Comment by Cyn on 6/15/11 at 7:10 pm

And anyway - religion really shouldn’t be allowed any more as an excuse for inflicting physical alterations on the body of a non-consenting human being. Besides, babies don’t HAVE a religion. They don’t even understand the concept! And circumcising a child in the name of religion actually infringes upon the child’s individual freedom of religion.

Therefore, a ban on infant cutting would actually preserve our inherent rights acknowledged by the Constitution. It’s just that many people are unwilling to look at it that way ... that’s how strong of a grip this culture of cutting has on the mindset of many Americans.

Comment by Cyn on 6/15/11 at 7:11 pm

With their calculated, deceptive rhetoric, the perpetrators of this atrocity attempt to draw links between an obvious horror and positive abstractions such as “tradition,” “religion,” “science,” “medicine,” and “hygiene.” The documents and essays on sexuallymutilatedchild.org, however, expose this charade and show what the sexual mutilation of children is really about: envy, lust, hatred, male sexual rivalry, sadism, criminal psychopathology, desperation, ruthlessness, power, control, oppression, violence, contempt for humanity, and greed.

Comment by Anni on 6/15/11 at 7:38 pm

Mini- “but I simply don’t give a damn. Kapish?”

That’s quite evident. Only someone with that kind of mentality could order the amputation & subsequent sexual diminishment, on part of their child’s sex organs. Disgusting indeed.

Comment by AMB on 6/15/11 at 8:18 pm

Can you imagine paying to have someone surgically reduce your newborn son’s penis? No wonder so many of us have penis complexes. Sheesh.

Comment by Doug on 6/15/11 at 8:37 pm

Doug, it pains me to no end thinking of my parents paying a Mohel to amputate parts of my penis. I get depressed every time I look at what remains. Yeah, I am still a man, still have a penis that works, but I did not and do not deserve what was done to me and I believe it’s salt to the wound knowing someone benefitted financially.

Comment by someamerican on 6/15/11 at 8:52 pm

Bunch of sissies. Parents make all kinds of decisions for their kids. If they circumcised you, deal with it. Let it make you stronger. Life goes on.

Comment by Louise on 6/15/11 at 9:01 pm

The health and medical benefits of infant male circumcision now exceed the (very minor) risks by over 100 to 1. Over their lifetime 1 in 3 uncircumcised will suffer a medical condition caused by their foreskin. Kidney damage in infancy, physical problems, bad hygiene, thrush, STIs, penile cancer (1 in 600 uncircumcised men), and in female partners, cervical cancer, herpes, chlamydia, bacterial vaginosis,can all be vastly reduced by male circumcision. All with no adverse effect on sexual function and with better sexual experience. For more see: www.circinfo.net

Comment by Prof Brian Morris on 6/16/11 at 1:02 am

@Prof Brian Morris:

There are no health benefits to circumcision. ~80% of the WORLD’S male population in NOT circumcised. Are you suggesting that 1/3 of these men have problems with their penis? Where are the reports of these abundant, ubiquitous complications to having a foreskin?

Condoms are the only thing that prevent STIs—100% effective when used correctly!!. Penile cancer is rarer than male breast cancer. The intact penis is self-cleansing. Try having a little chat with all the women who contracted STIs from their CIRCUMCISED lovers (>70% of US adult male population is circ’d). Circumcision diminishes sexual pleasure for both cut males and their partners.

Comment by Poster on 6/16/11 at 2:48 am

“All with no adverse effect on sexual function and with better sexual experience.” Excuse me, I was circumcised at birth and know FIRST HAND that circumcision has made my penis LESS SENSITIVE. This has negatively effected my sex life without a doubt, and I the mucosa membrane on my penis that is supposed to be an internal oregon is now dry and damaged. How can you write this post when above you are countless men reporting their first hand experience of damage caused by genital cutting? Do you think we are making this up or something? Do some research!

Comment by Mike Anderson on 6/16/11 at 2:54 am

Professor Brian Morris of the University of Sydney was born in South Australia in 1950. At the time of his birth, it was customary in South Australia to circumcise boys for putative medical reasons that have long since been disproved.

Nevertheless, Professor Morris has devoted his life to setting back Australian medical practice to that which prevailed in South Australia at the time of his birth more than 60 years ago.

His medical claims cannot be proved and have been rejected by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

Comment by Roland on 6/16/11 at 5:14 am

Beverly Kurtin, Ph.D apparently has not investigated the immunologic properties of the human foreskin.

One of many functions of the foreskin is to protect the body against infection. This has been researched and full information is available at:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3/

For this reason, using circumcision to prevent HIV transmission is a failure. Many African nations report higher incidence of HIV in circumcised men.

This is part of the reason that intact males enjoy better health and wellbeing.

Comment by Roland on 6/16/11 at 5:37 am

It is long & well established here that one’s Free Exercise Rights do NOT extend over the Rights of other Persons’.  Our sons deserve the same Liberty we afford our daughters.  I love & respect both of my children, & so left the permanent alteration of form & function of their bodies, especially sexual organs, decisions up to them to make for themselves.

Comment by Jay Sears on 6/16/11 at 5:59 am

It does my heart good to see the number of people who are standing up against this bill and advocating an infant’s right to choose (when he grows up) and to remain intact!  I feel that we can finally begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel when routine genital mutilation of baby boys comes to an end!  Thank God and thank you to the people who are using the brains and voices the Good Lord gave us to say NO MORE CIRCUMCISION!

Comment by Lydia Cypher on 6/16/11 at 7:09 am

My circumcision removed so much skin from my penis that I experinced sharp pain upon erection throuhgout my childhood and into my early teens. I have never had an orgasm, and cannot climaz with a partner. My lack of sensitivity has diminished my intimate and spiritual connection with my partner and our relationship is failing as a result. Circumcision has ruined my life in many ways.

Comment by Todd Villanova on 6/16/11 at 3:25 pm

Louise: “Bunch of sissies. Parents make all kinds of decisions for their kids. If they circumcised you, deal with it. Let it make you stronger. Life goes on.”

Your as cold as an ice cube!  But then you’d have to be to order the mutilation of your baby’s sex organs. I feel quite sorry for your kids.  Thank you lucky stars for giving me such compassionate parents.

Comment by AMB on 6/16/11 at 8:23 pm

@Beverli Kurtin, You do not care to halt the transmission of HPV. Nobody does. Studies show that HPV is as easily transmissible by circumcised men as it is in intact men. Actually, there are studies that say intact men fare better; the foreskin, with its immune cells, does its job. I need to ask if the creator is so “wise,” then why did he give man a foreskin to begin with? Do you mean to tell me that all the men before Abraham were giving their wives HPV? Why is it you even bother to mention HPV? Is in because you know that “religious freedom” doesn’t really work anymore?

Comment by Couscous4EVR on 6/16/11 at 9:49 pm

@David, Mini and Louise
There ARE negative effects to circumcision. Not that I’m expecting any of you to admit them. Both of you seem to say “mind your own business” and “get a life.” Are we in agreement, then, that the federal ban on female genital cutting infringes on the “religious freedoms” and “parental rights” of Muslim parents from Egypt, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc.? Louise, maybe women from these countries shouldn’t whine then? After all, “sunat” has made them stronger, they’re still alive and they can bare children.

Comment by Couscous4EVR on 6/16/11 at 9:56 pm

Brian Morris? Is this the self-same Brian Morris who links to 8 different circumcision-based porn sites on his circ(mis)info website? And yet accuses those of us who oppose the forced circumcision of healthy infants of “foreskin fetishism?” Who is not even a urologist or pediatrician, yet publishes an extensive library of misinformation for expectant parents? Who travels to Africa just to observe African boys undergo their circumcisions? Who demonstrates a particularly special interest in the forced circumcision of minors, yet tries to pass himself off as “objective and impartial?” Really, is this you?

Comment by Joseph4GI on 6/16/11 at 10:10 pm

So this young Jewish girl named Mary, living in San Francisco gives birth to a beautiful baby boy. On the the eighth day of his young life she takes her Son to be ceremonialy circumcised according to the commandment of hers and His God. She is at once threatened with arrest for atttempting to sexually mutilate a minor. Can anyone in San Francisco tell this poor girl what to do? She is just following a simple order from His Father. Does anyone in that beautiful city by the bay really want to deny anyone his or her first ammendment constitutional rights? Try to elect polititians who have better thing to do.

Comment by albalairv on 6/17/11 at 5:44 am

If albalairv is suggesting that Jesus’ circumcision was the same as circumcisions today, he is mistaken.

Circumcision until 140 A.D. consisted of removing only the tip of the foreskin that extended beyond the glans.  Most of the foreskin was preserved, and the harm done to the child minimized.

The Pharisees changed circumcision to removal of the entire foreskin. These circumcisions are not what Abraham, at age 99, thought God told him to do.  (Abraham later tried to kill his son Isaac, but that’s another story.)  Imagine a man of 99 today saying that God told him to amputate body parts from himself and others (and to kill his son), and how mental health professionals might intervene!

Comment by Petrina on 6/17/11 at 6:30 am

@albalairv: funny you mention Jesus (“her Son”), when for nearly two thousand years Christians have believed that Jesus’ circumcision was a wound that forshadowed his crucifixion, and which he bore so that nobody else ever need to again.

This bill would restore HIS first amendment right to practise the religion of his choice as an adult (presumably Christianity).

I don’t think he could be crucified in San Francisco either.

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/17/11 at 3:28 pm

Todd Villanova describes above his sexual problems which he has as the result of circumcision. He is not alone. A new study from Denmark reports significant sexual problems in both men and their female partners.

One may view the abstract of the new study on PubMed here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947

This is a good reason to protect boys from circumcision.

Comment by Roland on 6/17/11 at 3:39 pm

Bunch of sissies. Parents make all kinds of decisions for their kids. If they circumcised you, deal with it. Let it make you stronger. Life goes on.
Comment by Louise   on 6/15/11 at 9:01 pm

Louise…  You are effectively saying that I shouldn’t care about my own body.  Let me ask you, where’s your prepuce?  Why isn’t yours missing?

Just because something is status quo does NOT make it right and legal.

Comment by Michael Morin on 6/18/11 at 10:54 am

Prof Brian Morris,  you’ve said “Over their lifetime 1 in 3 uncircumcised will suffer a medical condition caused by their foreskin.”  What about intact females?  The prepuce of a female is the same structure and function as a male prepuce.  Surely it would benefit a girl to have it removed at birth as well!  Why are you so hung up about removing it from boys?  Isn’t that a bit sexist?

Comment by Michael Morin on 6/18/11 at 11:11 am

“David, ... “NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS” ...How do you know? Most of a man’s erogenous nerves are in the foreskin ... sex is often unpleasant or painful for women.”

He has probably looked at the research which clearly shows that to be bunk. The study sponsored by an anti-circ group that found reduced sensitivity even had raw data that didn’t support the conclusion when subjected to peer review. It is clear that no sexual sensation is lost unless the procedure was negligently performed and women who experience before and after sexually prefer the after in spite of what men on the anti-circ sites claim. Anti-circs may swarm on places like this but are full of falsehoods.

Comment by Michael on 6/19/11 at 11:29 pm

Another example:

“Brian Morris? Is this the self-same Brian Morris who links to 8 different circumcision-based porn sites on his circ(mis)info website? And yet accuses those of us who oppose the forced circumcision of healthy infants of “foreskin fetishism?” Who is not even a urologist or pediatrician, yet publishes an extensive library of misinformation for expectant parents? Who travels to Africa just to observe African boys undergo their circumcisions? Who demonstrates a particularly special interest in the forced circumcision of minors, yet tries to pass himself off as “objective and impartial?” Really, is this you?”

Comment by Michael on 6/19/11 at 11:30 pm

Don’t believe anything you read on anti-circ sites. He is Medical Science Professor Morris the molecular biologist and well-known public health advocate winner of a number of science prizes and currently with over 280 publications including refereed and peer reviewed articles in medical science and medical journals relating to circumcision. There would be few pediatricians or urologists who had anything close to a grasp on the relevant science that he does.

Comment by Michael on 6/19/11 at 11:31 pm

Professor Morris was the first to patent a PCR based test for human papillomavirus (the cause of cervical cancer and half of penile cancers) and has provided assistance to Australian industry to develop HPV testing for cervical cancer screening. Research on cervical cancer prevention resulted in researching other medical benefits of male circumcision.

You asked the ‘one question too many”. If you want facts go to Professor Morris’ website don’t get unsubstantiated information from an anti-circ group.

Comment by Michael on 6/19/11 at 11:32 pm

I also note that the rhetorical skills of anti-circs are a strong point even if the effectual rhetoric doesn’t lead to conclusions based on fact or logic.

““big fat hairy deal”- words coming from someone with apparently little or no compassion!

For the child who loses his life or is severely damaged by circumcision…These are people, not statistics!”

Great rhetoric but the reality is that good medical decisions for safe procedures shouldn’t put most patients at risk just because of extremely rare complications. Vaccination is also extremely safe and a good idea but it is more dangerous than circumcision.

Comment by Michael on 6/19/11 at 11:36 pm

Victims of the complications are people not statistics but so are all the others like the males (and their partners) who are protected because they got circumcised. The vast bulk of people who will benefit are people too and when the procedure is safe and protects kids the rare exceptions should not dictate the rule.

“Big fat hairy deal” is obviously an expression of frustration directed at those who ignore science and won’t listen to reason and promulgate lies about circumcision rather than a lack of compassion. Dealing with realities and protecting children’s health is genuinely compassionate.

Comment by Michael on 6/19/11 at 11:40 pm

This procedure does not “protect kids” The UTI statictics were based on studies that were done on premies and infants who’s parents were instructed to push back their foreskin and clean which actually introduces bacteria, If the studies were done today the results would be much different-And antibiotics are successful in treating UTI’s. Any concerns about STD’s can be adresses by the person when he becomes an adult and if he feels he is putting himself at risk, not using condoms, and understands the consequences of foreskin removal-he can chose to have it done. he will be fully developed and know how much skin can be removed and still allow for comfortable sexual encounters.

Comment by Brian on 6/20/11 at 11:25 am

There is NO reason to do this to children. We have decided to make it illegal for girls and I am sure if studies were done to prove the heaLTH BENEFITS OF removing parts of girls sexual organs by people who were motivated to prove benefits, they would be found. Time to make cutting of childrens sexual organs illegal, you know it’s wrong, pass the ban, move on.

Comment by Brian on 6/20/11 at 11:26 am

By “the studies”do you mean the 1989 paper involving 219,755 boys that did the comparison? Or the 1993 study of 209,399? Or the 1996 study of 14,893 male infants? Or one of the other studies? Or some combination. Or all? Could you please clarify? I find it hard to believe that in all the relevant major studies that was the case but if you clarify I’m happy to revisit them to look for any indication of that.

Comment by Michael on 6/20/11 at 10:19 pm

“And antibiotics are successful in treating UTI’s.”

So you are happy to risk the kids getting a painful UTI and then treating them when the simple procedure of removing a useless flap of skin can do the trick and also provide protection against a number of problems? That is once it is ascertained that the child has the infection. A young baby is hardly going to be able to describe their symptoms at an early age so it might not be obvious to parents. Bearing in mind of course the consequences can be quite serious if left untreated. Should we do the same for things that kids get vaccinated against? Of course that isn’t even considering freedom of religion. That doesn’t bother you?

Comment by Michael on 6/20/11 at 10:24 pm

Michael, I am surprised that you would resort to using the tired canard of describing the male prepuce as “a useless flap of skin.” Do you really think that this feature of all male genitalia evolved over millenia for no good reason? One of the things that bothers intactivists is the arrogance of their assumption that they are wiser than nature at designing the human body.

Comment by Robert Clover Johnson on 6/21/11 at 7:45 am

Michael, My last sentence should have read “One of the things that bothers intactivists is the arrogance of so many doctors in assuming that they are wiser than nature at designing the human body.”

Comment by Robert Clover Johnson on 6/21/11 at 7:48 am

It is not a canard. Whether it serves a wonderful embryonic function or protected the penis prior to the invention of clothes it is obviously just a liability for males after birth at this time in history. That is no indictment of nature.

Comment by Michael on 6/22/11 at 5:39 pm

Circumcision is one way but creation itself IS the other!  Why is it that these religious nuts think that they can just alter creation & still be following the creator?

Comment by Alioop on 6/25/11 at 5:37 pm

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?