Exec' Order to Defund Int'l Planned Parenthood Signed - GOOD

According to Life News, our new president has signed an executive order defunding International Planned Parenthood.

I'm not a fan of our new president. And I'm not too keen on completely defunding Planned Parenthood, as they do provide many important services, as I've already said on another post.

However, as long as they're trying to normalize male genital mutilation, standing in the way of legislation that would defund elective, non-medical infant circumcision (though such defunding would be of zero consequence to them), and promoting male genital mutilation in Africa in the so-called name of "HIV Prevention," I say, GOOD.

Perhaps if they weren't so willing to throw the rights of boys and men under the bus in the so-called name of "women's health," I'd be singing a different tune.

Until I see them publicly change this stance, I'm afraid I can only agree that federal funds should be cut.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying into an organization that tacitly approves of, defends, advocates for, even facilitates male genital cutting, and promotes "women's health" at the expense of men's health and choices.

Not all of us agree; some intactivists have different priorities.

But these are mine; any organization that promotes the forced genital mutilation of any sex needs to be defunded. At the very least, it shouldn't be paid for by the American tax dollar.

Disclaimer:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.
~Joseph4GI

Related Posts:

INTACTIVISTS: Planned Parenthood is Not Our Friend

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to Defund Circumcision Heard - Dissenters Included Planned Parenthood and a Rabbi

RED HERRING: The Abortion Debate

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OTTAWA: Teach Children "Consent" and "Bodily Autonomy"

So I'm scrolling through my Facebook news feed and I run across this poster put out by Planned Parenthood Ottawa, and I thought it was rather cute:

Or rather, I thought it was rather hypocritical considering what other Planned Parenthood chapters have done without contest or mitigation.

It was posted by a Facebook page/group called "Trustable Sluts" (Original post here. Last accessed Thursday, Thanksgiving Day 2015.) with the following caption:

"Children, just like everyone else, have the right to set boundaries about who can touch them and how."

This is so funny.

I mean, this is precisely what we, as intactivists, have been saying all along.

I replied on their post with this:

"Hey Planned Parenthood Ottawa. You know how you can teach parents about respecting a child's consent and bodily autonomy? Tell them to forgo male infant circumcision. Otherwise this graphic is pure lip service. Wait for the "that's different" arguments. You can't teach children "consent and bodily autonomy" when the first thing you do to them once they're born is strap them down and cut off part of their most private, intimate part of their bodies."

Our whole point is that children should be allowed to make decisions about their own bodies, their own boundaries, and that their wishes should be respected.

Tying a child down and forcibly cutting off a normal, healthy part of his body teaches him from day one that his body is not his own, that it is for others to do with as they please, and that they should sacrifice themselves for the need and satisfaction of others.

Let's see how long before this gets deleted, and I'm expecting it.

Lord forbid someone slap people with with their own hypocrisy.

Related Posts:

INTACTIVISTS: Planned Parenthood is Not Our Friend

 PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to Defund Circumcision Heard - Dissenters Included Planned Parenthood and a Rabbi

INTACTIVISTS: Planned Parenthood is Not Our Friend

Some controversial videos have been released, and now Planned Parenthood is in the hot seat. The videos depict Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's medical director, casually discussing the sale of aborted fetal organs to researchers for profit, and how abortion procedures could be performed in a way that the organs remain intact, and now pro-life groups are lobbying to cut their federal funds.

It's hard for me to agree one way or another whether Planned Parenthood should lose federal funding or not. On the one hand, I feel that there are a lot of good health services they provide which benefit both men and women. I don't have a problem with providing couples with contraception and detecting services for life-threatening diseases like breast cancer. On the other, I'm going to declare a conflict of interest right here and say that generally, I am pro-life.

I know that sometimes abortion is inevitable, so I don't think there should be a complete ban on it, but generally, I oppose abortion, as I do view it as taking a life. On the whole, I oppose the killing of a child that may as well survive outside its mother's body, let alone selling its body parts off to research facilities; that just creates demands for more abortions, and creates incentive in organizations like Planned Parenthood to gear parents towards abortion. Instead, I am fully supportive of providing education in sex and contraception.

I wouldn't say that Planned Parenthood should lose federal funding based on my views on abortion and the contents of the released videos alone; as an intactivist, there is another reason why I would agree that Planned Parenthood should be defunded.

Women's Health at the Expense of Boys and Men
My own personal disdain for Planned Parenthood began with the release of a video they made targeting teens, in which they inadvertently, or perhaps quite deliberately, it's hard to tell, try to portray having a circumcised penis as "normal," while portraying having a foreskin as some kind of genetic variation, and as the cause for angst in some teens who might be worried about being viewed "normal," like a big nose or ears that stand out.

The creators of the video take great care to show all the different variations of the female vulva (e.g. large labia, small labia, uneven labia, large clitorises, small clitorises, etc.) and reassure their female viewers that "all are normal." For males, you're either circumcised or not, those are the only two options, and not being circumcised is portrayed as some kind of deformity only some males are born with, when in actuality, a penis with a foreskin is standard equipment when it comes to human male anatomy, and not having one is not even a genetic variation but a deliberately forced phenomenon. Somehow, I don't think Planned Parenthood would ever depict vulvas with missing labia and/or clitorises as "normal variations of female genitals."

Planned Parenthood's tacit advocacy for forced male genital cutting wouldn't end there; in opposition to a proposed bill to defund elective, non-medical infant circumcision in New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood was ready to fire back that "[C]ircumcision carries public health benefits, including lowered risk of urinary tract infections and some sexually transmitted diseases."

Even in their 2012 statement, the AAP stopped short of a recommendation for male infant circumcision because "the benefits are not great enough." Somehow Planned Parenthood is above them?

Of what business is Planned Parenthood's that funding is cut for an elective, non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting minors that they don't even provide?

Their business is with adult men and women. Cutting funding for an elective, non-medical procedure that is forced on healthy, non-consenting minors should be of zero consequence to them.

WHY did they stand in the way of this bill?

What are the implications?

"Having a foreskin is normal, except for having one automatically makes you a promiscuous male likely to have STDs and are prone to UTIs?"

"Having a foreskin in normal, but better cut it off?"

Does Planned Parenthood plan on denying their services to intact males and their partners unless the man opts to get circumcised and any male offspring that are born as a result of their services must be circumcised also?

But it doesn't stop there.

Planned Parenthood can be seen jumping onto the circumcision/HIV bandwagon, as, apparently, they're also in Lesotho, Africa, pushing male circumcision there.

My guess is, it has to do with securing funds from HIV organizations who make pushing male circumcision as prevention one of their conditions.

It seems funding is what it all boils down to.

While in this recent case they are fighting to secure their own funding on the grounds that cutting federal funding is "an assault on women's rights," because they should have this "choice" on what to do their bodies, on the other hand they worked to deny this same "choice" for male children, the same "choice" they claim women are entitled to.

Ultimately, it seems like planned parenthood is willing to throw the rights of boys and men under the bus in the so-called name of "women's health."

Until I see them change this stance, I'm afraid I can only agree that federal funds should be cut.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying into an organization that tacitly approves of, advocates for, even facilitates male genital cutting, and promotes "women's health" at the expense of men's health and choices.

Would Planned Parenthood Ever Promote Female Circumcision?
Some may argue that Planned Parenthood is only going by what "studies say," but is there a number of "studies" that would ever cause Planned Parenthood to push female circumcision in any way, shape or form? Offer it to mothers of daughters? Push it in Africa?

What if it were made "safe?"

What if new gadgets were made that would make it "quick and easy?"

What if doctors were trained to do it with sterile utensils in pristine clinics?

Or is all they care about funding at the expense of males?

What if female genital cutting provided some "benefit" to males?

Would they ever promote female circumcision if it "prevented prostate cancer" in males?

Here's a question about "gender inequality" for you, how come there are millions of dollars going into circumcision "studies" to see what "benefits" it has? Why isn't there the same amount being allocated for female circumcision, if  we're so concerned with "finding benefits?" So much "vigorous research" to see just what diseases male circumcision can prevent. Why is "research" on male circumcision given the go-ahead, while on female circumcision is automatically considered to be "unethical?"

Self-serving sexist double-standards.

Planned Parenthood defends male genital mutilation. Why should I support an organization which opposes the right to autonomy over the bodies of healthy, non-consenting male children?

Defending "women's health" and "women's choices" while defending forced male genital cutting in healthy, non-consenting minors is pure hypocrisy.

As long as Planned Parenthood approves of, defends and facilitates male genital cutting, I can't approve of them getting federal funds.

Related Posts:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to Defund Circumcision Heard - Dissenters Included Planned Parenthood and a Rabbi

RED HERRING: The Abortion Debate

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to Defund Circumcision Heard - Dissenters Included Planned Parenthood and a Rabbi

A bill that would prohibit Medicaid from funding the non-therapeutic circumcision of infants was heard by a house committee in New Hampshire very recently. Predictable dissent ensued.

18 states have cut Medicaid funding for the elective, non-therapeutic procedure, and Republican Keith Murphy sponsored the bill, asserting that New Hampshire should join them.

As with many politicians, Murphy's heart is in the right place, but his stated reasons as to why New Hampshire should cut Medicaid funding, have made the bill easy to shoot down by dissenters.

According to a recent news article, Murphy "firmly believes circumcision is dangerous – potentially, very dangerous."

Distraction from the issue
Murphy is quoted saying "One hundred and seventeen children a year, on average, die from circumcision complications. In fact it’s one of the leading causes of neonatal male deaths."

It must be said that, although intactivists know that circumcision is responsible for infant deaths, we also know that, because hospitals are not required to release information regarding infant deaths related to infant circumcision, and because doctors do their best to hide deaths due to circumcision by deliberately misattributing them to other causes, we can't know for sure, and any figure given is an estimate at best.

It is really sad that Murphy isn't anything in the way of a medical doctor who is well-versed in the risks and complications of circumcision, for someone who is could attest to the fact that the risks of male infant circumcision include infection, hemorrhaging, partial or full ablation, and yes, even death, are very real.

It is a real shame that attention from the fact circumcision is medically unnecessary in healthy, non-consenting newborns, and that Medicaid funds could be put to better use, has to be diverted to disputing the validity of one particular figure which is at best, a modest estimate, given reality.

Same old rationale
In opposition to the proposed bill, Planned Parenthood was ready to fire back that "[C]ircumcision carries public health benefits, including lowered risk of urinary tract infections and some sexually transmitted diseases." (This response isn't too surprising, given that they've already been trying to pass the lack of a foreskin as "normal," and they're busy pushing circumcision on Africans...)


This despite the fact that not a single respected medical organization in the world recommends the circumcision of infants based on the current body of medical literature.


Our very own AAP stated in their latest policy statement in 2012 that the so-called "benefits" of circumcision were "not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns."

Even the CDC shies away from an actual recommendation in their latest release, dumping the onus of responsibility, as the AAP did 2 years prior, on parents.

It  needs to be asked, if the so-called "benefits" of circumcision are "not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns," how is it something that should be funded by Medicaid?

What do respected medical organizations in other industrialized nations have to say?

Circumcision fails to prevent disease transmission. So ineffective is circumcision at preventing sexually transmitted disease, that circumcised men must still be urged to wear condoms. This is a fact that no doctor, or "researcher" can deny.

How is circumcision even a consideration, where urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted disease are better thwarted by antibiotics and condoms respectively?

The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

One Jay Smith, a retired family physician, speaking on behalf of the New Hampshire Public Health Association defended: "Basically, I think we just feel that it’s bad public policy to remove a procedure from Medicaid that is still approved for other insurance," said Smith.

Really doc? You don't think it's bad public policy for public funding to cover non-medical, non-therapeutic elective procedures, especially on healthy, non-consenting minors?

Even a rabbi weighs in, saying that cutting Medicaid funding for male infant circumcision would discriminate against low-income Jews. (Right, because the proposed bill would deny only Jewish parents of male children a Medicaid handout.)

Staying on topic
Murphy brings up a very good reason why circumcising infants should be a concern, but the risk of death and the rate of infant deaths related to circumcision are a distraction from the conversation that should be happening, and a diversion from the questions that need to be asked.

1. What is the purpose of Medicaid?

2. Why should Medicaid give handouts to doctors who perform elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals?

3. Shouldn't public coffers cover only treatment and procedures for which there is clear medical indication?

4. Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals? Let alone be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents? Let alone expect to be reimbursed by public monies?

5. What other elective, non-medical, non-therapeutic procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals, should Medicaid be expected to cover?

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, present in all males at birth; 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 individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents, and much less expect to be reimbursed.

Medicaid money could be better spent on medical treatment that is actually needed, instead of controversial elective surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

New Hampshire, and eventually all 50 states should cut Medicaid funding for elective, non-medical, non-therapeutic circumcision, especially in healthy, non-consenting minors, and put it to better use.

Related Posts:

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

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

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

USA: Centers for Disease Control to Mirror American Academy of Pediatrics

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

Yes! Different is normal!

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

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

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

The video starts out with a good message...

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

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

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

Do you see where this is going?

They start with the penis.

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

Of course.

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


They show a second slide:

Only THEN do they decide to add:

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

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

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

"All are normal."

Well. At least they hope to convince insecure teens.

Let's see how they treat the girls:

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

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

What's wrong with this picture?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"All are normal"

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

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

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

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

But let's not talk about THAT.

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

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

Muslim boy becoming "normal."

This is perfectly "normal" and acceptable.

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

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

Go sit in a corner and feel sorry for yourself.

Thanks, Planned Parenthood, but NO THANKS.

NOT NORMAL
No, the circumcised penis is NOT normal.

It is a forced, contrived, artificial phenomenon.

It is a subversion of the normal, healthy penis.

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

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

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

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

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

SHAME on you, Planned Parenthood, SHAME on you.

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

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

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

Nay, it is a deliberate disfigurement.

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

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

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