Monday, February 18, 2013

ILLINOIS: Law Against "Ritualized Child Abuse" Proposed - Circumcision Exempted

Legislation outlawing the ritualized abuse of a child has been introduced in Illinois by one Senator Don Harmon.
The catch?
It makes a specific exemption for infant genital mutilation:
    Sec. 12-33. Ritualized abuse of a child.
    (a) A person commits ritualized abuse of a child when he or
she knowingly commits any of the following acts with, upon, or
in the presence of a child as part of a ceremony, rite or any
similar observance:
        (1) actually or in simulation, tortures, mutilates, or
    sacrifices any warm-blooded animal or human being;
        (2) forces ingestion, injection or other application
    of any narcotic, drug, hallucinogen or anaesthetic for the
    purpose of dulling sensitivity, cognition, recollection
    of, or resistance to any criminal activity;


    (b) The provisions of this Section shall not be construed
to apply to:

        (2) the lawful medical practice of male circumcision or
    any ceremony related to male circumcision;
If he has to write an exception to protect circumcision, what does it say about the practice?
It sounds like Senator Don Harmon is aware of the fact that this law would clearly be applicable to male infant circumcision. 
In other words, not even Keemonta Peterson would be prosecutable under the law, because it was a "ceremony."
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."

During hospital circumcisions, babies may or may not be given anesthetic to dull their sensitivity and lessen their pain. (Most are not.) Babies are normally given a little of wine during Jewish circumcisions. Furthermore, all babies, Jewish or not, are circumcised at a time when they will be too young to remember, and cannot fight back.
Circumcision creates a wound on the penis and removes a high concentration of nerve endings that do not exist on the rest of the penis - thus causing sensory and mechanical damage to the genitals. As recently reported by Reuters and many mainstream news media, a recent study shows that circumcision reduces sexual sensitivity. And there have been other reports (see Frisch and Sorrells.)

Can someone still argue that circumcision does not mutilate a human being, a minor, a baby?

More info on Don Harmon:

Thanks to dreamer for bringing attention to this on his blog.


  1. I hope this passes; it will be a major boon to have male circumcision so explicitly linked with illegal genital mutilation.

  2. Making it a taboo to compare male with female sexual mutilation is the biggest scandal of the controversy. In both instances the most sensitive and most erogenous zone of the human body is amputated and severely damaged. In both instances, what counts primarily is the cutting of human sexuality. The imposition of control by the patriarchy.

    What is lacking in all the talk about circumcision is discussion of its
    archeological dimension - that it is the left over of human sacrifice.

    Also, unfortunately it is / has been circumcision that has MADE for no end of anti-semitic sentiments. Freud found that it was the chief reason for unconscious anti-Semitism. And the myths surrounding it are at the core of the “blood libel.” Thus, it's time to eliminate the Brit Milah because if that is the chief reason for being anti-Semitic or anti-Abrahamic [Islam too practices the rite] then why hang on to this left-over of human sacrifice? that traumatizesthe child, cutting off 5,000 nerves, that is the equivalent of female circumcision in the sense that it eliminates everything but the clitoris,and only serves the UltraOrthodox to maintain their power? After all, reform Judaism sought to eliminate the rite in the 19th century, and Jewish identity depends on being born by a Jewish mother, or converting. Here a link to an archive of the entire German and then some debate, note especially Michael Wolffsohn's two pieces . Circumcision has been controversial also within Jewry forever.


  3. Apparently, Illinois is not alone with this oddity. There are similar laws in Idaho and California that specifically exempt medical/religious circumcision from the definition of ritual sexual abuse. See: