Sunday, July 31, 2016

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

I've said it many times. Circumcision has risks.

This just came up on my Facebook news feed. It apparently happened on July 19 in Georgia.

Circumcision has risks.

The risks include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Tales on Facebook abound, but the great majority will never make it to news outlets.

American medical associations have reputations, financial interests and members to protect, so they have plenty of incentive to minimize the risks of circumcision.

Hospitals have no obligation to release information regarding adverse outcomes

These are circumcision cases that parents have decided to post on Facebook; some are asked by doctors or hospitals to keep their cases secret.

Because circumcision is an elective, non-medical procedure, it is unconscionable to be putting healthy, non-consenting minors at these risks to begin with.

The cases presented here and otherwise were perfectly preventable.

Beyond this, I don't know what else to say.

I've said it all before and I don't know what I've already said and/or what I'm leaving out.

When are people going to wake up to this?

Are doctors really actually properly informing parents of the risks of circumcision?

Is the AAP keeping count? Because we sure are.

Related Posts:

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves
CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

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

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light
 CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel
 FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise


Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

Friday, July 22, 2016

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

Saw this browsing through my Facebook news feed.
Baby dies after circumcision surgery

Health authorities probe case at Khorfakkan hospital
A one-month-old Emirati boy died just after undergoing a circumcision operation at a government hospital in Khorfakkan, prompting the Ministry of Health to open an investigation into the case, a newspaper reported on Thursday.

Hamad Saeed, 23, said he took his son to the hospital for the surgery and waited for nearly two hours before the operation finished.

He told Emarat Al Youm daily that he saw his son carried out of the operation room covered with blood and that he was admitted to the intensive care unit.

“He was pale and my wife and I were much worried…I then heard the pediatrician arguing with the doctor who performed the surgery and realized that there is something wrong…10 minutes later, I was told my son is dead,” he said.

The paper said the Ministry of Health formed a committee to investigate the case and determine the cause of the baby’s death.

It quoted Saeed as saying he had reported the case to the prosecutor, who said that he would open a criminal case after receiving a coroner report.
 Original news article here. (Last accessed 7/23/2016)

Some may try to brush this child's death aside by blaming it on the physician; he should have done a better job. The circumcision didn't kill the child as much as the physician messed up. But here's an important question; was the surgery medically indicated? If there was no medical necessity, is it conscionable that the child was put at risk for death? When it comes to female circumcision, is it a matter of "physicians knowing how to perform the procedure well?" Were this any other surgery, the matter of medical indication would be immediately relevant.

Unless there is medical or clinical indication, circumcision is an elective, non-medical cosmetic procedure. The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death. These risks, however minimal they may be, are very real, and are exemplified by stories like these.

It is difficult to calculate the risks for complications because doctors who perform circumcisions and hospitals where circumcisions are performed have financial incentive to minimize the risks, if they are to report them at all. Hospitals and doctors are not required to release information on the adverse effects of male infant circumcision.

Whatever the risks may be, given that male infant circumcision is elective procedure, any deaths or complications above zero is unconscionable.

Related Posts:
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit


DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

Search Joseph4GI: Death-related posts

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

There is a blackout in America concerning the human male reproductive system; Americans aren't getting the whole picture when it comes to the human penis. Much of what Americans do know about the human penis is either incomplete, half-correct, if not factually incorrect. This is because most textbooks, sex guides, books on pregnancy, medical websites etc., are all geared towards normalizing the circumcised penis.

In American medical schools, doctors don't learn about the development of males with anatomically correct genitals. Most doctors are taught that all males are circumcised as a matter of course. They are taught to treat, diagnose and care only for circumcised males. The only thing they ever learn about the foreskin is that it must be cut off as soon as possible, because it does nothing but cause problems and disease.

American doctors are taught to treat males with anatomically correct genitals as patients suffering a medical condition, for which the only cure can be circumcision. Before diagnosing or treating any other problem with the human penis, it must, first of all, be circumcised above all else. Only then can a male patient be diagnosed and treated for other problems, nevermind the problems that circumcisions could itself cause.

Actually, American doctors are taught that having a foreskin causes problems, and that circumcision can do nothing else but cure or prevent them. If a male is suffering any sort of ailment, he must be checked to make sure he is circumcised first. It's almost as if American doctors' brains were circumcised along with their penises, for they seem to lack the part of the brain holding information about how the human penis in its natural, intact state, works.

These doctors, in turn, go on to teach the same lack of information, if not misinformation considering the male reproductive organ to other doctors in training, nurses, male patients, parents etc.

This ignorance of anatomically correct human anatomy is reflected in American literature concerning the subject.

The anatomically correct male organ is often, if not always, depicted as circumcised. The foreskin is often, if not always, missing from diagrams depicting male anatomy. It is often described as "that piece of skin that is removed from the penis during circumcision," if it's even mentioned at all.

Pregnancy books talk about having male children circumcised as a given, and parents are "warned" about the risks, perils and hazards of letting male children keep their foreskins. There is no question about "if" a child will be circumcised, but "when." Not having children circumcised is treated as tantamount to not having them vaccinated.

Doctors, nurses, books, etc., rarely, if ever, mention the fact that 70% of the world's men aren't circumcised, that in pretty much of the rest of the industrialized world, the majority of men have anatomically correct genitals, and that they rarely, if ever, suffer the problems that circumcision was supposed to prevent. They rarely mention the fact that despite 80% of the male population being circumcised from birth, we have higher STD prevalent rates than numerous countries in the world where circumcision is rare if not practiced.

Circumcision is supposed to magically reduce the rates of HIV transmission, but somehow the US manages to have a higher HIV prevalence rate than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced, according to the CIA World Factbook. We have more HIV than Mexico.

When American textbooks begin to talk about anatomically correct male anatomy, they treat it as a medical liability. The most typical description of the male foreskin in American literature goes like this:

"The foreskin is a loose flap the skin covering the head of the penis, which is removed during circumcision at birth. Not removing the foreskin increases a male's chances of contracting STDs and developing penile cancer. To prevent these problems, it is better to circumcise a child from birth, as adult male circumcision is traumatic and painful."

(Note: All surgery is traumatic and painful; it is not, however, always medically necessary. In addition, touched off by the race to circumcise the entire African continent, companies vying for a a piece of the HIV/WHO pie are coming up with innovative devices that are making adult circumcision simpler, easier, less painful and/or less traumatic. As a result, the claim that "adult circumcision is much more painful and traumatic" is increasingly becoming outdated.)

Imagine, if you will, if I described female breasts as "those mounds of flesh that are removed from a woman's chest during a mastectomy."

"But that's not a fair comparison," I can already hear some readers muttering to themselves. "Female breasts have function. The foreskin is an appendage and it may even be the cause of diseases such as penile cancer." To which I would reply by saying that, actually, the foreskin also has function, and breasts can also be the cause of breast cancer.

When we describe any other part of the body, we begin by describing its appearance, shape and function. When we begin talking about female mammary glands, we begin by talking about their development, the fact that they produce milk to feed young, that they me be sexually arousing for men. We do not begin by talking about the fact that they can develop breast cancer, and that they may have to be removed

Why then, do we begin talking about the male foreskin by describing its removal? All the potential problems and diseases it could be a part of? Why don't we begin by describing it as an intrinsic part of the penis? Its mechanics? Its function? The role it plays in sex? Masturbation?

The peculiar thing about this phenomenon is that it seems to be unique to America. People in the rest of the industrialized English-speaking world get a different story.

In contrast, doctors in other parts of the world learn about male human anatomy in its entirety. They learn about penises with foreskins by default. And why not? This is what all human males have from birth.

Doctors in the UK, Denmark, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. all learn to treat the foreskin as an intrinsic part of male anatomy, like the labia in female anatomy.

They learn to treat the penis with its foreskin as an entire organ, and to turn to surgery only as a very last resort.

Doctors who learn this way learn to treat penile problems differently; they treat the foreskin as an important part of the penis that must be saved if at all possible.

They teach other doctors, nurses, parents, etc. how to care for children with intact organs.

What Americans learn about male human anatomy is starkly different than what their counterparts in other parts of the world learns.

This is a problem.

Browsing my Facebook news feed, I came across a very clear example of this difference in information dissemination.

Below is a side-by-side comparison of what the same website, BabyCenter (BabyCentre in the UK last accessed 7/12/2016) tells parents concerning circumcision and male human anatomy in newborns.

I want to let readers check and see for themselves.

Why this stark difference in information?

Human anatomy is the same wherever you go.

So why is different information being dispensed for the same body part?

Why this chasm of difference in information?

Isn't denying information to parents actually a disservice?

Is the goal BabyCenter/BabyCentre to disseminate factual information to parents to be?

Or to offer corroboration, comfort and validation?

The fact is no respected medical organization in the world recommends the routine circumcision of infants. The AAP tried very hard to do so in their last policy statement on circumcision in 2012, but couldn't commit to a recommendation in the end, because, in their own words on the policy statement, "the health benefits aren't great enough." This statement got rejected by pretty much the rest of the world, because it takes an unfounded position against the best medical authorities in the West.

Pediatric medical associations in every other developed country take clear stances against amputating functional, healthy body parts from non-consenting minors.

These are just a few:

It is my opinion that one of the reasons that forced male circumcision continues in this country is the information blackout that exists concerning basic human anatomy. It is my belief that if doctors taught factually correct information, information recognized by medical organizations in the rest of the world, concerning anatomically correct male anatomy, to other doctors, nurses, parents etc., the forced male circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors would decrease dramatically.

As it stands, doctors teach little to no information, if not misinformation concerning male anatomy. When it comes to intact male genitals, America is living in the dark ages, myths, lies and half-truths abound, and websites like BabyCenter/BabyCentre help perpetuate them.

It is my opinion that part of our work as intactivists is to close this gap concerning information. We need to work raise awareness of this issue, help bring down the firewall that exists between the United States and the rest of the world, and bring American medical literature and academia up to date. The deliberate keeping of Americans in the dark must be exposed and dealt with directly.

Related Links:
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

"I Did My Research" - The Quest for Scientific Vindication

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

NYTimes Plugs PrePex, Consorts With Known Circumfetish Organization

Sunday, July 10, 2016

Facebook Chronicles: Mothers Struggle With Circumcision Problems - Another Child Dies

One of the most common excuses for male infant circumcision is that it's supposed to "prevent problems."

Well, recently, on my Facebook news feed I read about a mother who was struggling with problems that circumcision is supposed to prevent.

The irony is that circumcision is supposed to make a child's penis "easier to clean," and here we observe a situation where it's actually making it difficult.

Woah. It's "normal for it to hurt?"

Is crusty, smelly stuff supposed to cake around the child's penis too?


A child with normal, inviolate organs is easy to care for and needs no more care than cleaning the genital organs externally.

Are parents being made aware of this?

How come this mother is barely reading about this online?

Aren't the people who are supposed to be giving her "clear answers?"

Isn't this complication something she should have been made aware of BEFORE she decided to go through with the surgery?

A blue and purple penis is "normal?"

Um, this doesn't happen with normal, intact children.

These mothers want "no judgement" and "no bashing," but how exactly do you explain to them that these problems are caused by circumcision, and that they would have been avoided if they simply left their child alone, without hurting their feelings?

"No one wants advice - only corroboration."
~John Steinbeck

Many parenting groups on Facebook and elsewhere warn that people who "bash" and "harass" are automatically banned.  But sadly, dispensing factual, verifiable information constitutes "bashing" and "harassment," because it makes parents feel terrible for having made an irrevocable decision.

Yes, I'm sure other parents could give possible solutions to the problems presented here, but shouldn't other parents hear possible ways to avoid these problems?

So sad.

To prevent some parents from feeling guilty and "judged," factual and pertinent information parents need to hear is prohibited.

What a disservice.

These problems and more can be prevented if only parents knew of these risks, and that not circumcising is also an option.

And finally, yes, another death.

I'm not going to comment further on the last post.

I've already written a number of posts of deaths I read about on my Facebook news feed, so readers can search "death" up in the search bar, or click here if they want to read other posts I've written on the subject.

Circumcision is an elective, non-medical procedure.

The risks of circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Currently, American medical organizations minimize the risks, but a) hospitals aren't required to release this information, and b) there is financial incentive on the part of doctors, hospitals and the medical organizations to which they belong to minimize these risks.

You will only read about these on Facebook, because they rarely, if ever, make the news.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Circumcision does not guarantee a problem-free penis.

As highlighted in these and other cases, circumcision may even cause the very problems it's meant to prevent.

Not circumcising is also an option; children with anatomically correct genitals require no special care.

70% of the world's men are not circumcised. Of the 30% that are, only about 1% were circumcised out of medical necessity. The great majority of circumcised males were circumcised out of religious or cultural custom.

Even in countries where circumcision is a norm, male infant circumcision, as it is performed in the US, is rare. The great majority of circumcised males in the world were circumcised at later ages. This means that these males make it past their early years of life without any "problems" the foreskin is said to cause.

Respected medical organizations around the globe do not recommend male infant circumcision based on the current body of medical literature.

The AAP inched very close to a recommendation, but couldn't commit to one in the end. Their 2012 statement was rejected by respected medical organizations in the rest of the world.

For American parents wishing to educate themselves on circumcision and not circumcising, it is advisable to look for resources outside of the United States, as those written by American doctors and medical organizations may be biased in favor of circumcision, and may be skewing, if not omitting information regarding care for circumcised and intact infants.

As can be observed, one of the mothers in a case above is searching for answers she should have had before making a decision.

Related Posts:

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

"I Did My Research" - The Quest for Scientific Vindication

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

Mogen Circumcision Clamp Manufacturers Face Civil Lawsuit

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

Sunday, July 3, 2016

INDIANA UPDATE: Father Fears Worst - Won't Know Until August

In my last post, I reported the case of a mother attempting to use the circumcision of a child to spite that child's father.

It looked as if, for the time being, intactivists were able to stop the hospital from performing circumcision on the child, whose fragile condition had to be monitored at the NICU.

Today, however, I saw this in my news feed:

I wrote to him privately, asking him how he found out that this was the case, and he said that a mole in the pro-circ group the child's grandmother had been turning to for advice (see the last post on this matter) sent him a screenshot of the grandmother commenting that the circumcision had finally been done.

Earlier, the father had mentioned that the mother's family was trying to make it look as if the child were already circumcised in order to make intactivists back off from trying to contact the hospital and other doctors in the area, so it may be the case that the child is still intact, doctors haven't operated on him yet, and what the father is seeing may be an attempt at a staged act, knowing that moles in the group are watching and communicating with the father.

The problem is that the mother has successfully been able to block off the father from seeing the child. Since she did not write him in as the father in the child's birth certificate, he is not allowed access to his son. The hospital isn't even required to inform him of the child's whereabouts unless he is able to produce a positive paternity test; the father can't know for sure whether or not his child has undergone surgery until August.

I can only imagine how helpless this man must feel as a father, hearing something terrible was allowed to happen to your son, doctors and the state were complicit and you couldn't do anything to stop it. I can only imagine the anxiety of knowing you can't know for certain until a month later, because you have essentially been locked out of your own child's life. Making this father feel helpless is probably what the child's mother was hoping for.

Questions Arise
This father's predicament raises many questions.

When talking about male infant circumcision, "parental choice" is often brought up.

There is legal precedent that show that parental choice is not absolute, and in recent posts, I've already shown that being a parent doesn't justify everything you do with your child, but let's accept for the sake of argument that elective, non-medical genital surgery for male children is an acceptable "parental choice."

We know the mother wants to have the male child circumcised, but what about what the father wants?

Is the child not as much his as it is hers?

Why is preference always given to the parent who wants to circumcise the child?

Why are doctors and nurses at hospitals complicit? (I think I know why; they can't charge for leaving a child intact.)

Shouldn't BOTH parents agree to the operation before the doctor can proceed.

Especially when it comes to elective, non-medical cosmetic surgery?

Shouldn't doctors wait until paternity could be established first, and that the father's consent is obtained before going through with an operation?

The laws need to change.

If we can't ban male infant circumcision outright just yet, at the very least legislation should make it so that both parents consent before doctors can move, and doctors who don't honor both parents' wishes can be held liable.

This father is sure that he is the child's biological father.

This hasn't legally been established, something a simple DNA test can prove.

People keep talking about "parental choice" in the matter.

If this man is in fact the child's father, and the child has indeed been circumcised, then his rights as a father have been permanently violated.

But the biggest question in all of this is, what about the child?

What about his basic human rights?

When do the parent's rights end, and where does the child's rights begin?

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors?

Even minors in critical conditions at NICUs?

Let alone be offering parents any kind of "choice?"

Related Post:
INDIANA: Mother Spites Father - Seeks to Circumcise Newborn ASAP

LAS VEGAS: Parents in Hot Water After Giving Baby Zelda Ear Mod

ALABAMA: Mother Busted for Tattooing Son

Friday, July 1, 2016

INDIANA: Mother Spites Father - Seeks to Circumcise Newborn ASAP

It is a very sad reality that in the United States of America, if two parents disagree on the circumcision of a child, the law, and often public opinion, sides with the parent who wants to have the child circumcised. The last example of this was the Florida circumcision saga that ended with a child being forcibly taken from his mother, the mother being forced to sign his circumcision consent forms under duress, and the child being forcibly circumcised by a physician at the behest of the father.

The Florida case is only one case that happened to make headlines, but the fact is that cases like these happen all the time that don't make the news.

The story usually goes like this; parents who have either been divorced or never married have a male child, one takes custody and wants to cut the other parent out of the child's life, the child is circumcised against the other parent's wishes out of spite, and there's nothing the other parent can do about it.

Cases like these happen so often that there is a group of lawyers dedicated to taking on cases like these and more.

Only very rarely is there a favorable outcome for the parent wishing to protect the child from needless surgery, such as in the case of Boldt vs. Boldt, but on the whole, it's parents who want to have their child circumcised who have the upper hand.

There is a case that has been garnering attention recently; in Indiana, another child is caught in a nasty dispute between a two parents. The mother has sought to cut the child's father out of her life, as well as the child's, and is seeking to have the child circumcised against the father's wishes.

According to the father J Carl Ramos, the mother, Emily Lazoff, recognized he was the father throughout the pregnancy, and he was there for the child's birth. Ramos was listed at the hospital as the father and given a wristband indicating him as the father. According to Ramos, Lazoff didn't say anything about him not being the father until he expressed objection to having the child circumcised.

Lazoff intentionally left Ramos off the child's birth certificate while he was away at work because of his objections to circumcision, which has prevented the Ramos from having any say in the matter; the mother is currently set on having the child circumcised.

The child had been in the NICU since shortly after birth due to low blood sugar. He had not been circumcised because of weight loss, but the mother has remained adamant that the child be circumcised.

The father tried to deliver this letter to the NICU, but apparently they refused to receive it.

The child's name has been blanked out to protect his privacy, at least for now.

According to Ramos, the nurse in the NICU refused to open the door to take the letter, so it was left under the door to the NICU at Parkview Regional Hospital in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

He has informed several nurses and doctors that he plans to seek legal action if they go ahead with the circumcision but has received no assurances that it won't happen.

Left with no other recourse, Ramos has turned to an intactivist group online called Intactivists International.

The group has helped him raise awareness of the situation, and they have encouraged other activists to contact the hospital by making phone calls and writing e-mails, and at least for now, it appears as though this effort may have worked.

The grandmother of the child has been spotted posting the following in a pro-circumcision support group, confirming that the pressure put on the hospital has spared the child for the time being.

As expected, the group has responded with support for the mother's family, expressing disgust for the father for intervening. Apparently there is something wrong with a father who cares about his son enough to want to do something about it. Shame on him.

The father has spoken on his behalf on Facebook, saying that he was not removed from the hospital, but from the birthing center. He alleges that he was escorted from the birthing center to the NICU where he hugged and kissed his son goodbye. He was escorted by security to the NICU here he had a long talk with the NICU doctor about his concerns.

J Carl Ramos asks that activists try and contact the doctors in Fort Wayne, Indiana, who might possibly perform the circumcision, and remind them of how unethical it would be to circumcise the child without the father's consent.

Ramos has filed paperwork to establish paternity, but court hearings may not even happen until August. Until then, short of getting on his knees and begging the child's mother and/or doctors in Indiana to not do this, there is nothing he can do.

A mole in the above group has informed the father that the mother is colluding with family and friends to try and make it seem as if the circumcision were already performed in order to get activists to back off. Apparently the father thought the circumcision had already been done until he saw this screen shot in his inbox. Apparently the people in the pro-circumcision group are advising the mother to go somewhere and find a doctor who will agree to circumcise the child secretly. Some are even suggesting that she find a mohel who doesn't have issues with circumcising children for gentiles.

So it's a race against time; this father has to establish paternity, while the mother and her friends and family try and find someone who will circumcise the child quick. Even if the father does establish paternity, he has to get doctors, lawyers, courts etc. to listen to him, and unfortunately, history shows this does not bode well for him.

I'd like to tackle the accusation that intactivists are "sexist" early on.

Already, there are people trying to twist the story by saying we just want to help the father get one over on the mother; he wants to "control her life."

First off, who wants to control who here?

Who has the upper hand?

Who is on the outside looking in?

Who has the advantage?

We're not siding with the father by mere virtue that he is male; intactivists always side with the person whose genitals are in question.

Intactivists always side with the child, and we want to help parents who want to protect their children from needless surgery, and in this case the parent happens to be male.

In the recent Florida case, we stood with the mother for the same reason.

It has nothing to do with "control," it has to do with protecting the most basic of human rights of healthy, non-consenting individuals.

This mother is not a victim; she has her family, willing doctors, willing lawyers and an entire court system rigged in favor of male infant genital mutilation on her side.

The accusation of "control" is pure projection.

It's the father who has been locked out of his own child's life who fights the uphill, losing battle.

See what nerve with which others are advising this mother to go around the father.
This is what people who want to keep their children intact are up against.

In the US, the whole world is ready to mutilate a (male) child at the request of a parent.

Parents who want to keep their children intact can't count on doctors, on others to do what's right and abstain.

Some have already said "What this mother wants to do with her son is nobody else's business."

What about that father?

If the mother genuinely thinks he is not the father then she should have no problem delaying the circumcision until the matter is clarified. What is the big rush? Why is it so important to her that the child be circumcised immediately?

The answer is clearly spite.

And what about that child?

Who's body? Who's rights?

Basic human rights are everybody's business.

Given what happened in Florida, I will not be surprised to read in my news feed that the mother finally found someone who she could count on to have the child circumcised.

I will not be surprised to read that the child developed "problems" and that he "had" to be circumcised. There is always a helpful "doctor" willing to make up some excuse as to why a child "has" to be circumcised.

Related Posts:
LAS VEGAS: Parents in Hot Water After Giving Baby Zelda Ear Mod

ALABAMA: Mother Busted for Tattooing Son

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Pageant Mom Loses 8yo Daughter Over Botox

OREGON: Couple Face Prison for Denying Their Child Medical Care

Circumcision Just After a NICU

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

Related Link:
LONDON: Secular Doctors hail Exeter ruling