AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere

The eminent AAP position statement on circumcision had been much hyped by the media and circumcision enthusiasts. The new statement has been leaked, and I've read it, but it leaves a lot to be desired. More than a clear and direct statement, the statement creates more confusion than clarity.

Actually, there is one thing clear; the new statement was carefully drafted by rabid circumcision advocates wanting to keep waters muddy.

Actually, there have been two PDFs that have are bouncing about on the internet; an abridged summary, and a much longer version which often reads like a broken record, repeating the same thing over and over like a mantra. Additionally, the longer version leaves a few key points out that appear in the summary. They're essentially the same, though, continuing to ignore the crux of the argument, going on and on about questions nobody asked, and appealing to endorsement from non-related medical organizations.

I repeat again; what I criticize here is an abridged summary; this isn't the detailed statement released in its entirety. There is so much bullshit I already tackle on my blog.

From the released summary:

The Abstract
"Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement."

We must know what "recent/current evidence" means. Did they evaluate all of it, or just the evidence that attempts to justify this pathetic update? Notice we hear alleged "benefits," but so far, we don't hear about a single risk. And notice the part in red; this will be important later. (The "benefits," are discussed in the more detailed statement. Readers will be able to see for themselves exactly what data they used; the same old crap.)

It must be asked, what in the world does the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) matter in any of this? The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is concerned, at least ostensibly, with the health and well-being of children. ACOG is concerned with the health and well-being of WOMEN. Why does it matter that ACOG approves of this statement or not, when the circumcision of infant MALES should not even be in their purview?

The answer: It is because the majority of circumcisions in the US are carried by OB/GYNs, and a negative statement by the AAP would affect their business, that's why.

A little hint; ACOG isn't the only organization that has blessed this statement; other organizations are mentioned in the more detailed statement, and understandably so, as there would be physicians in other trade unions who perform circumcisions, but ACOG is key, because OB/GYNs are the ones who have a bigger slice of the pie.

Let's move on.

The Policy Statement
"Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure."

What is the literature that was evaluated? Was it a comprehensive analysis? Or was it cherry-picked data? Was the data obtained from experiments and research conducted in adult males, or children? What is the reason that no other medical organization in the world has come to this conclusion using this same "data?"

Readers will be able to read what "research" was used in the creation of this document once it is released in its entirety.

"Benefits include significant reductions in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life and, subsequently, in the risk of heterosexual acquisition of HIV and the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections."

What data was used to come to this conclusion? Were other methods of prevention considered? And, again, why have other medical organizations in the world come to this conclusion?

I have read the entire thing, and I can already tell readers, it focuses myopically on how to necessitate circumcision. Not a word on alternatives. Worse than that, it fearmongers by insisting over and over again that parents should be encouraged to circumcise in infancy "because it is when they can benefit more from it." (Nevermind countries that do well without it.) They also skim over the fact that older men would be less than likely to buy this crap and refuse to undergo circumcision in adulthood, but instead of respecting older men's decisions, trampling over their basic human rights to choice over their own bodies seems to be a REASON to recommend circumcision in children, and it is ignored as the very crux of the ethical debate. Basically, a blatant endorsement of abuse, where I define it as taking advantage of those smaller, and weaker and unable to fend for themselves.

"The procedure is well tolerated when performed by trained professionals under sterile conditions with appropriate pain management."

This isn't news; most surgery is "well tolerated when performed by trained professionals under sterile conditions with appropriate pain management." The question is, is it necessary in healthy newborns? What are the risks, and it is it conscionable to cause a healthy, non-consenting child to undergo them? Are the "benefits" not obtainable using less invasive modes of prevention? What are they? Or is circumcision supposed to be the only option?

The full article rambles on about "the best way to perform the surgery."  Basically, it hopes readers will look past the important question of medical or clinical need of surgery in a healthy, non-consenting infant, and the validity of the so-called "benefits."

"Complications are infrequent; most are minor, and severe complications are rare. Male circumcision performed during the newborn period has considerably lower complication rates than when performed later in life."

What complications exist, "minor" and "severe?" In children and adult males?

Not mentioned here; MRSA infection, infection with herpes, the development of gangrene, a botched procedure resulting in unpleasant cosmetic results, partial or complete ablation of the glans, hemorrhaging, and even death.

These are actually mentioned in the more detailed article, albeit heavily minimized and not given their deserved attention. They choose only to look at, of course, only the evidence that suits them.

They actually go into other important issues like sensitivity and sexuality, but, again, only quoting the "evidence" they choose, predictably, the so-called "trials" in Africa. They even admit that the data is rather shoddy and poorly obtained but consider this the best they've got. Not included in here was the Sorrells sensitivity study. Nor the Danish study. Nor other studies that show adverse effects. (And they wouldn't because it would jeopardize the position of members who profit from circumcision; who wants to cause adverse effects to their children as grown adults?)

"Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns."

Note here, and this is important, we see nothing more than a repetition of the doublethink in their last position statement, which they were hesitant to update.

Here is where the AAP shirks its professional responsibility, and pawns it off on naive parents, most of whom are not versed in, nor interested in, medical literature. (The red part is what ACOG likes, because it absolves OB/GYNs from profiting from procedures which aren't even in their purview.)

Note here the self-contradiction in this statement. What was said earlier in the abstract? Here it is again:

"...the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks..."

But then, here is:

"... not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns..."

And again:

"...sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it..."

If the so-called "benefits" weren't enough for what has been up until now, a well-respected health organization, to recommend circumcision, why would naive parents be expected to weigh the same exact evidence and reach a favorable conclusion?

 

In short, the weasel words are "yes, no, but maybe."

The statement concludes:
"It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner."

And we can trust a clinician who sees a price tag at the end of every foreskin to do just that, right?

"Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their male child."

Medical necessity and the ethics of cutting off part of the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting child be damned...

"They will need to weigh medical information in the context of their own religious, ethical, and
cultural beliefs and practices." (As opposed to medical need?)

Once again, the self-same "medical information" that this piss-poor excuse for a health organization could not use to clearly come out and endorse this practice. And once again, the onus of responsibility is pawned off on parents and whatever crazy beliefs they might have. This is the one instance in medicine where "religious, cultural beliefs and practices" trump medical or clinical need. I intentionally leave out the word "ethical" from the quotes because the ethics of performing amputative surgery on a healthy, non-consenting child is being completely thrown out the window.

"The medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families."

But they already said they weren't "great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns." Why should should it even be a "consideration" for families in the first place?

Maybe I'm blind?
As Michael Brady was quoted saying, the AAP statement does indeed say  "...the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks." This is actually a key element in this "statement." It is repeated numerous times like the hook in a really crappy pop-song. You know the kind, those silly pop-songs where it's the same song over and over again with only slightly changed lyrics and they expect you to believe it's a new release.


But this part, the important part, is only found in the summary:

"... not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns..."

I couldn't find this anywhere in the large article. Did they forget to put it in? Maybe they hoped no one noticed?

I guess "...the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks..." and "...sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it..." were the more important take-home messages for charlatans who profit from this procedure, and the naive parents they give themselves permission to take advantage of.

But again, perhaps maybe I read this new piece of fiction in a hurry and I may have missed it.

I want to pray that this isn't so, and that sometime in the near future someone will correct me on it.

Medicaid, PAY for it...

Another key point in this new statement, which is only very lightly touched upon in this summary, but well expanded in the full version, is the encouragement of public funding for the procedure. Spoken like the money-driven charlatans they are. In the summary, it is found in the clause that reads "[T]he benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns."

Translated, this statement reads that (again, keeping in mind they said earlier that  the "benefits" were "not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns...") that, while they can't come out and endorse the practice (which actually, this is what they are trying to get away with doing), funding should still be provided for it. (Because otherwise families couldn't pay for them, and the charlatans lose out.) It's what this "access" is referring to, and the detailed article goes into much further detail than it does here.

There is now no doubt in my mind the release of this statement was carefully orchestrated with the circumcision liberation brigade at Johns Hopkins and others who have been raving at state medicaid programs that have dropped coverage. The AAP has been hijacked by the likes of Tobian, Leibowitz, Gray and Wawer who, if they don't have cultural or religious convictions to defend circumcision, at the very least are trying to make themselves necessary by insisting medical organizations use the data and only their data to shape public health policy. Remember; if their work is worthless, then so are the millions in grants and funding they receive.

What is it about these "researchers" and their obsession with male genital mutilation? What drives their knives?

Is it cognitive dissonance? Sour grapes? Is it a hidden agenda to preserve what is a cherished and heavily defended religious blood ritual? (No conflicts of interest are declared, but look to their religious affiliations. Keep in mind the recent ruling in Cologne, Germany.) Is it the drive to keep their meal ticket from grants and the prestige of Johns Hopkins? Or is it all of the above?

To close:
I'm not sure what would be worse; if the AAP actually came straight out and said all US males should be forcibly circumcised, or wishy-washy weasel words like these aimed to preserve confusion and continue to allow charlatans taking advantage of parental naivete off the hook.

In short, the statement is just what I predicted it would be, parading around all the "benefits," minimizing or ignoring the risks, and again (at least in their summarized version of the statement), never coming to a direct conclusion. Regardless of the conclusion they fail to arrive, it is more important that circumcision is publicly funded, and the medical value judgement be made by naive parents, not doctors who supposedly went to school for 10 years.

All I can say is, this is nothing but a one-sided statement carefully concocted by people who couldn't be  less interested in the health and well-being of children. This is a piece of work that has had 6 years in the making, beginning with the so-called "trials" in Africa. This was the goal of those who wrote the work. This is the culmination. The ultimate goal was to vindicate what has been a historically problematic religious procedure for Jews and Muslims. The ultimate goal was to emancipate the countless mutilators who hide behind the title of "physician" to profit from infant genital mutilation. The ultimate goal was to clothe a cherished belief, money-maker and violation of basic human rights in science.

But calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it one:
It is mistaken, idea that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

There would never be enough "research" or "benefits," no matter how "compelling," that would ever convince us to endorse female genital cutting of any kind. Not even a "ritual nick." Not even if it were performed "the right way."

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It will be interesting how all of this is going to play out.

How will other health organizations across the globe who have not reached the same conclusion as the AAP react? How is the AAP going to be viewed after basically going against the overwhelmingly negative trend of opinion on routine male circumcision in industrialized nations? Will it be business as usual, or will there be statements from other medical organizations calling the AAP and its accomplices on their bullshit?

You can read my last post on the upcoming AAP policy statement here.

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.

AAP: New Statement Over-Hyped by US Media?

We've all seen it all before. Media outlets wave about the so-called "latest research" from Africa, and they keep insinuating that the AAP is "about to recommend" circumcision. The hype would actually not be based in fiction, as leaders from the AAP and CDC have been saying they're working on new position statements on circumcision.

Well, according to the Washington Post, it looks like the AAP is finally getting ready to release a new policy statement sometime by the end of this month, and some commentary by one Michael Brady has intactivists worried. According to Brady:

"While details are not yet available, the new position concludes that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, said Michael Brady, a pediatric expert at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and a member of the AAP’s task force on circumcision." 

If Brady is right, the AAP will be the first medical organization in the world to actually make the claim that the "health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks."

There is already a letter-writing campaign and a petition. (If you're on Facebook, you can see a page devoted to writing to the AAP here.) But before they jump to conclusions, intactivists need to remember that the AAP and CDC have been leading on that they're "about to release new position statements on circumcision" for a few years now. They keep saying their statements are about to come out "this spring," or "by the end of the year," or "at the beginning of next year," and yet their "new statements" don't seem forthcoming. That is, until now...

The number of times the eminent AAP position statement has been postponed raises the question; what's been taking them so long?

In this post, I will explain why intactivists need not get too worried.

Media Hype: The "Great Circumcision Controversy" Trope
Could it be that there are unseen figures spurring media outlets on to release pro-circumcision articles and reports? (What with the Cologne ruling and all?) Or is it that media outlets are suffering slumps in their ratings, and they periodically release hyped up stories on "the benefits of circumcision" because they know it generates controversy? Or is it a combination of the two?

American audiences may not be aware at first glance, but media outlets are perpetrators of what I call the "Great Circumcision Controversy" trope. That is to say, that they are taking advantage of viewer gullibility, not to mention the fact that circumcision, particularly the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants, is a custom that is already deeply entrenched in American culture, to create "controversy" where there is actually none.

How it works; in order to encourage the belief that male circumcision is a surgery that is carried out for medical reasons, media outlets present male circumcision as a controversial and ongoing debate between altruistic "expert" medical authorities, who are attempting to vouch for male infant circumcision as "disease prevention," and the resistance of extremist "special interest" groups. However, this portrayal of reality is not at all consistent with the view of male infant circumcision given in the position statements of world medical authorities.

While the media presents male circumcision as an "ongoing debate" going on between medical "experts" and angry activists, 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.

How Do Medical Boards In and Outside the US View Infant Circumcision?
According to the American Medical Association (AMA) Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs:

"The British Medical Association has a longstanding recommendation that circumcision should be performed only for medical reasons... Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns".

In their last position statement on infant circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated that:

"...benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised."

In their "Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision, the American Association of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated:

"...the association between having a sexually transmitted disease (STD) - excluding human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and being circumcised are inconclusive... most of the studies [of the effect of circumcision on HIV] ...have been conducted in developing countries, particularly those in Africa. Because of the challenges with maintaining good hygiene and access to condoms, these results are probably not generalizable to the U.S. population".

According to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia:

"Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."

The Canadian Paediatric Society says:

"[We] do not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."

The British Medical Association says:

"The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it."

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians stated in 2010 that:

 "[The foreskin] exists to protect the glans [and that it is a] primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis."

In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) issued a statement in 2010 stating that "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organizations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity." Circumcision can cause complications, including infection and bleeding, and are asking doctors to insistently inform parents that the procedure lacks medical benefits and has a danger of complications. In addition to there not being any convincing evidence that circumcision is necessary or useful for hygiene or prevention, circumcision is not justifiable and is reasonable to put off until an age where any risk is relevant, and the boy can decide himself about possible intervention, or opt for available alternatives. They went on to say "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation."

The WHO and CDC
There are some circumcision advocates who boast that the WHO and CDC have endorsed circumcision to prevent HIV, however they will not mention the fact that these organizations have been careful to specify that they endorse adult circumcision as a way to prevent HIV in high risk locations in AFRICA. The WHO has NOT endorsed infant circumcision to prevent HIV anywhere else, and the CDC, like the rest of its counterparts in the rest of the world, says that there is insufficient evidence to endorse infant circumcision, and refrains from "recommending" it in the United States of America, "leaving it up to parents."

6 Years, and Still No Change
It has been 6 years since the WHO used some very dubious "research" to endorse male circumcision to prevent sexually transmitted HIV in Africa, and yet, with the exception of the CDC who has endorsed it on adult males in Africa, no other medical organization in the world has followed suit. Even the CDC falls short of endorsing infant circumcision in the name of HIV transmission. If the best medical authorities in the West have not endorsed infant circumcision, it is because they have reviewed all of the evidence and have found it to be insufficient.

So Why Doesn't the AAP Simply Just Come Out Against Infant Circumcision?
People have a misconception of what the AAP actually is. Most think it is this altruistic organization whose prime interest is the health and wellbeing of children. The fact of the matter is that they are nothing more than a trade union whose prime purpose is the protection of the interest of its members.

Therefore, the AAP has a delicate balancing act to preform. On the one hand, they cannot put members who profit from the procedure in a tight spot. On the other, they cannot actually jeopardize their credibility by releasing a statement that will defy the whole of modern medicine. And, as a professional medical organization that is, at least ostensibly, concerned with the well-being of children, they're expected to take a position, keeping it up to date.

The true purpose of the so-called "circumcision taskforce" is therefore not to actually "weigh the evidence," but to appear to mull the so-called "evidence" and figure out how they can keep the AAP from ever coming out against circumcision, weaseling out of addressing the ethical concerns of cutting off normal, healthy tissue from healthy, non-consenting infants, while still appearing to be professionally, ethically responsible. Basically keep their circumcising members blameless and in business, while feigning an interest in the well-being of children.

The AAP endorses FGM, backpedals shortly afterward...
This is not the first time the AAP is under fire for a questionable position statement on genital cutting; in 2010, the AAP advocated for allowing female genital mutilation in the form of a “ritual nick”, under the pretext that endorsing said "ritual nick" might dissuade parents of immigrant daughters from taking them abroad to undergo a more severe form of genital mutilation. The AAP admitted that the so-called "ritual nick" would dwarve in comparison to male infant circumcision. Not surprisingly, this position was met with a world outcry, and the AAP had to promptly withdraw their statement.

In the end...
Oh there's no doubt about it. The new AAP position statement is going to milk every so-called "benefit" for what it's worth. It's going to dance around the HIV "research" in Africa numerous times. They're going to huff and puff and blow as hard as they can. In the end, however, like pretty much the rest of the medical authorities in the West, they're going to have to conclude that there still isn't enough evidence to endorse the circumcision of healthy minors, and fall short of the much hoped-for "recommendation"circumcision advocates keep pining for, and still insist "parents must weigh the pros and cons," continuing to rid themselves of any professional responsibility. After much ado, their stance will remain comfortably "neutral," never actually having "recommended it."

I say again; unless the AAP seriously plans to jeopardize their credibility by defying the whole of modern medicine, they're going to continue sitting on the fence, as Hugh Young put it, shifting their bottoms on it every once in a while.

A passage in the Washington Post article already reads:

"The AAP’s new position falls short of a routine recommendation, Brady said, adding that parents should continue to take into account their own cultural, religious or social views."

In other words, the new statement will be nothing but more of the same.

But this little detail, as usual, will be unimportant for circumcision advocates and American media to report...

Intactivists should learn not to panic every time some news outlet releases some new blurb some pro-circ quack manages to publish. This is nothing more than a saber-rattling tactic, and seeing intactivists panic is precisely what the pro-circs want; it gives credibility to their accusations that we're just a bunch of loons.

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

Hogwash from Johns Hopkins

It's been a while, and I apologize for not being as frequent with my posts. My life has just gotten busier, and I no longer have the time I wish I had to devote to this. I ask for your understanding, as I will only be able to publish every so often. On with my rant!!!

When a pro-circumcision "researcher" publishes yet another "study" that "proves" circumcision is not child abuse, news outlets repeat it, each headline more emphatic than the last. When real-world data which damages the credibility of these so-called "studies" is published, all they get is a whopping "meh," if that. Why is it only pro-circumcision rubbish gets all the attention? What about this analysis? Or this one? Or this one? Is it that the media prefers to publish comforting lies than inconvenient truths?

Perhaps kicked off by the ruling in Cologne, or the AAP saber rattling that has been going on recently (or perhaps both), this Monday, the circumcision preservation brigade at Johns Hopkins published a "study" that claims, according to the Baltimore Sun, that "a 20-year decline in male circumcision has cost the country $2 billion in medical costs that could have been prevented." This story also appeared in BloombergBusinessweek, ABC and the Huffington Post. Only the Baltimore Sun seemed to give a more balanced view, giving voice to the opposition; the others simply give a one-sided approach.

I'm going to take apart the dubious premises on which this "study," and the claims made by their authors, are based.

First, let's begin with who the authors and proponents are; it's nothing but the same usual suspects who can't seem to cook enough numbers to convince the world that all males need to be circumcised immediately. Who else but Aaron Tobian, who happens to be Jewish and circumcised his own son out of religious conviction. Who else but Arleen Leibowitz, who published her own "study" earlier, crying a river over state healthcare plans that have dropped infant circumcision?

Is this about preventing disease, or preserving the practice of infant circumcision which also happens to be highly-defended religious custom, not to mention a money-maker for American doctors? WHY are these "researchers" concerned about circumcision, and not other modes of disease prevention that does NOT involve penis cutting?

Let's get down to business and see what the hullabaloo is all about:

"It's never happened before... honest..."
From the Baltimore Sun:
In what is believed to be the first look at the economic impact of male circumcision on the health care system, the Hopkins scientists say that boys who are not circumcised are more prone to sexually transmitted diseases and other health problems over a lifetime that are costly to treat.

No, circumcision advocates have been trying to clothe male genital mutilation with "science" and "research" for at least a century; there are numerous analyses of "the impact of male circumcision on the healthcare system," all performed by the same people, and all reaching the same conclusion; every male that walks this earth needs to be circumcised immediately.

"Intact boys more prone to STDs?" Not in the US...
If "boys who are not circumcised are more prone to STDs," why is this not reflected in real-world data?

Circumcision hasn't stopped HIV in our own country. And, it hasn't stopped other STDs either. In America, the majority of the male population is circumcised, approximately 80%, while in most countries in Europe, circumcision is uncommon. Despite these facts, our country does poorly.

In fact, AIDS rates in some US Cities rival hotspots in Africa. In some parts of the U.S., they're actually higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. According to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda.

The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C., March 15, 2009, "[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." Hader once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe.

One would expect for there to be a lower transmission rates in the United States, and for HIV to be rampant in Europe; HIV transmission rates are in fact higher in the United States, where most men are circumcised, than in various countries in Europe, where most men are intact. It is telling that the HIV epidemic struck in our country in the 1980s, 90% of the male population was already circumcised. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that what never worked in our own country, or anywhere else, is going to start working miracles in Africa.

And somehow, if state health care programs started covering circumcision again, this would somehow change.

"Studies show..."
From the Baltimore Sun: "Studies have long shown that when babies are not circumcised, where the foreskin on the tip of the penis is removed, they are at risk for health problems in the long run. Bacteria and viruses can get trapped in the extra layers of skin left on the penis."

No, studies have long shown cooked, esoteric "data" that fails to correlate with reality. There is not demonstrable scientific proof that viruses are transmitted to men by "getting trapped in the extra layers of the skin left of the penis." Actually, langerhans cells can be visualized effectively fighting off HIV. The "researchers" and authors of the recent HIV crock are hard-pressed to produce visualizations of the facilitation of HIV transmission via the foreskin; what they keep coming up with is visualizations that show NO DIFFERENCE. The bulk of the "research" is merely heavily cooked numbers embellished with correlation hypothesis.

For more data on other places in the world where circumcision has failed to prevent HIV, see a previous post of mine.

More from the Baltimore Sun:
"Research has found that circumcision reduces the number of infant urinary tract infections."

Most of which was dismissed as being horrendously flawed... Some research actually shows UTIs maybe more abundant in CIRCUMCISED boys.

Men who are uncircumcised are more at-risk for cancer-causing HPV, HIV, herpes, bacterial vaginitis and other sexually transmitted diseases, studies have found.

Again, only if you look at cherry-picked data (Precisely WHAT is this "analysis" based on? Where are these people getting their numbers?); other studies show a prevalence of these diseases in CIRCUMCISED men.

"An international platform..."
More from the Baltimore Sun: "The push for circumcision has gained an international platform as a way to prevent the spread of HIV in Africa after several studies showed infection rates decreased rapidly."

This statement is misleading; the reader would think that there is a global endorsement of circumcision as a way to prevent HIV; there are only efforts to circumcise MEN, voluntarily (at least on paper), in high risk areas in AFRICA. There is no world "push" in nations to have their men and children circumcised.

"The area beneath the foreskin of the penis is believed to have a higher density of target cells for HIV."

Notice the word "believed" in this sentence. So much for "evidence-based medicine."


"Oh the future costs! The costs!"
Baltimore Sun: "The Hopkins analysis found that when a male is not circumcised it costs $313 more in medical expenses to treat conditions he would not otherwise have suffered."

IF he suffers them. The dubious premise here is that all men who are not circumcised grow up to develop conditions that accrue medical expenses. If we are to believe Tobian and his buddies, the men in the UK, Japan, Australia, Denmark and other countries where circumcision is rare, are all clogging up urologists offices because of problems their foreskins are causing them.

The fact of the matter is, 80% of the world's male population is intact, and the vast majority of the 20% who happen to be circumcised were all circumcised as a matter of religious conviction or cultural tradition; very few men ever have penile conditions for which circumcision is indicated.

And now for the clincher:
"The researchers said that if male circumcision rates dropped to those in Europe, where 10 percent of male babies get the procedure, there would be a 12 percent increase in men infected with HIV and 29 percent in those who contract HPV."

(See links above.)

"The parents must decide..."
Quotes Richard Colgan from the University of Maryland School of Medicine:

"It is one of several pieces of information that can be used by families to make the decision that is right for them."

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.

It's been 6 years. 6 years since the so-called HIV mumbo-jumbo came out, and there hasn't been a single medical organization in the world who has thought it compelling enough to endorse the circumcision of children. The AAP keeps hinting that it -MIGHT-, but already, we know that they stop short; AGAIN, "leaving it up to parents."

But here's the million dollar question; there is not a single medical organization in the world that has found the evidence "compelling" enough to recommend infant circumcision. They all say that there are risks, and that the benefits do not outweigh them. Families, most of who are not medically literate, are supposed to use "pieces of information" that respected health boards across the globe have not found compelling enough to endorse the practice? And somehow come up with a better conclusion?

Think about it; naive parents are being asked to make a medical judgement on an elective procedure, based on data that respected health organizations in the world could not use to endorse it.

What other procedures are parents to come up with their own diagnosis on and doctors are obliged to act based on that?

Without medical or clinical indication, how is it that doctors are performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less giving parents any kind of a "choice?"

Talk about shirking professional responsibilities...

"By the numbers..."
Again, from the "Baltimore Sun."
"$2 billion is how much uncircumcised males have cost American medical system"

Again, assuming intact males all had the problems Tobian etc. all say they do.
 
So let's tally up how much money circumcised men cost the American medical system. Let's see how the numbers line up with Europe, where circumcision, along with STDs, are rarer.

Tobian pulled this number out of his ass.

And finally...
There is one more dubious premise: The idea that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

Let's just be honest with ourselves here; there would never be enough "research" or "benefits," no matter how "compelling," that would ever convince us to endorse female genital cutting of any kind.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

The decline in circumcision is costing the health care system billions alright; with parents waking up to the quackery that is circumcision, doctors can't cash in on this freebie at the expense of children's basic human rights anymore.

UPDATE: International AIDS Trade Show 2012

 
Whoa!

What a rush!

So many things going on at once, so much I want to say, so much I want to comment on... I still need to give my final thoughts on this year's Colorado saga, not to mention the recent ruling in Cologne. Who knows if I'll find the time to comment on it all...

For the time being, I'd like to comment on the recent International Circumcision Expo. Uh, no wait, I meant to say International AIDS Trade Show. Oops, did I say that? I meant to say the International AIDS Conference happening in Washington DC this year.

The PEPFAR misinformation saturation drive finally arrived in DC, and Hillary Clinton didn't waste the opportunity to plug circumcision as HIV prevention. According to her speech, the U.S. is fronting $40 million tax dollars "to help South Africa reach its goal of providing voluntary circumcision to half a million boys and men this year." (Interesting how she managed to mash "voluntary" and "boys" in the same sentence... Let's not talk about the Soka Uncobe fiasco.)

Intactivists on the ground are bringing back images of the propaganda being used in DC to promote genital mutilation in the name of HIV transmission.

Some of the pro-cutting literature being given out in washington.

In a brazen act, posters being used in Africa are being passed out. Do you remember this from a blog post earlier?

There are lots of "debates" and "discussions" seem to be going on at the conference, but it seems what's mostly important is plugging circumcision and other pharmaceutical products, and getting people to practice safer sex, and the fact that after 22 years or so, there still isn't a cure or actual vaccine, is pure lip service.

Guess who is in DC plugging their wares?

"Yeah, we haven't actually FOUND anything new, but look at how much money we're spending on products and 'services' that we believe *might* help..."

The "questions" and "debates" are all rigged and geared toward selling something. All of the "evidence" supports what PEPFAR and other big ticket funders are doing and spending on. You will not hear evidence to the contrary; heaven forbid the science actually be discussed. (Because it's just so past "reasonable doubt" that it shouldn't even be discussed, you see?)

There are actually intactivist demonstrators at the conference, and it looks like they are helping get the word out. But what they have to say is strangely absent from the "debate."

Nobody is talking about how "voluntary" it is to circumcise children. Nobody is talking about tribes in Africa using the WHO endorsement to legitimize violence against non-circumcising tribes. Nobody is talking about the deaths and other complications. Nobody is talking about alternatives to circumcision. Are African men being informed? Just how "voluntary" is it if you're making African men afraid to say no? If you are stigmatizing them by attacking their masculinity?

What information do they have for men who have decided circumcision is not for them?

Or is this not an option?

Intactivist David Wilson at the Washington DC AIDS Conference

No doubt that getting people to question "the facts" is an inconvenience for those at the DC conference wanting for it to be "business as usual."

One-sided Arguments

Perhaps the attitude of pro-circumcision bigwigs at the conference can be summarized by the reaction of one young man with UN Dispatch; rather than take the time to discuss the "research" being used to plug male genital mutilation in Africa, Mark Leon Goldberg decided to snap a photo and write about how "wrong" intactivist demonstrators are.

Many have tried to respond to his rant piece with commentary, but it's been a day, and so far all people have been met with is the message that their commentary is "awaiting moderation." It seems this is a one-way conversation, and the other side is not going to be given a chance to defend their position.

But it's not just Mark Leon Goldberg at the UN Dispatch; this mud-slinging attitude can be sensed throughout the entire conference. Intactivists are not even being allowed to engage in the "debates" happening in the conference. While pro-circumcision advocates are being allowed time and space to discuss their "evidence," it seems they they will not engage with others who are able to dismantle it, and provide evidence to the contrary.

It's all one big commercial trade-show where no real debate is allowed; only staff-approved sales pitches.

We will be heard.

Mark Leon Goldberg is mistaken if he thinks he can just deliver cheap shots at intactivists uncontested.

I have collected some of the responses that people have tried to post on his article that are not being allowed and am taking the liberty to post them here.

The man in the picture responds...

I am that guy in the photo. Let me just state this fact. When the first case of HIV/AIDS was diagnosed here in America, Approximately 90+ % of our sexually active males were circumcised. And it, circumcision, didn't prevent, nor slow the spread of HIV in America. Safe sex, condoms, and leaving the prostitutes alone is what slowed the spread of HIV. Matter of fact, the circumcision rate in America has dropped dramatically in the last twenty years. As for your "studies" they are flawed, and I have the proof. There are numerous studies that flat out contradict your claims that circumcision "prevents" HIV. Explain to me why non circumcising countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and basically all your European countries, where circumcision is almost nonexistent, have a much lower HIV rate? Perhaps the single most important fact that you fail to consider or are willing to accept. Is that even though you make the claim that circumcision will provide a 60% less chance of contracting HIV, you continue to tell these victims that in order to fully protected from HIV they should still wear a condom. WTH? So why promote circumcision when a condom is still necessary to be fully protected? The answer is simple. Circumcision is a billion dollar industry, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. I invite you to come spend the day with me and listen to what people have to say about your claims. They laugh and reply just how insane your statements are. Just like how circumcision got started in America back in the 1860's as a way to stop boys from masturbating. Then circumcision became a cure all for club feet, curvature of the spine, tuberculosis, alcoholism, lunacy, hip troubles, diarrhea, bed wetting, to even cure the rapist. The list goes on and on. Only in America have such claims been made. The truth of the matter is simple. Circumcision destroys natural sexual intercourse. The U.S is the largest user of sexual lubricants. Why? It's pretty simple. Come outside and talk to me and let me educate you. Or better yet. I'll come inside your conference and give you an education that you have failed to fully understand nor grasp.

David Wilson
Cocoa Beach, Fl

www.StopInfantCircumcision.org

www.2headedVWbus.com

Another response...

This article is extremely offensive and one sided. You did not attempt to even speak with the group promoting the message that circumcision is not the answer! You don't cite medical fact but instead use mathematics to support your claims. Here's a medical fact for you: 70% of American men are circumcised and yet, America has the highest HIV rates among young men out of any country, both civilized and uncivilized! Citing that information: does circumcision truly prevent HIV and AIDS? Or does it just make the naive nations of the world more susceptible to this deadly disease, because they don't use protection? Does promoting a message in Africa that says circumcision is the cure to AIDS really help anyone or are you promoting a deadly disease by saying "oh you don't need a condom, just mutilate your penis and that will cure you!"? Think before you promote lies!

Rebeca Claar

Response by Intactivist Hugh Young:

Tell that to the 14% of circumcised Zimbabwean men who have HIV, compared to the 12% of non-circumcised. (And don't tell them it's because of what they did after they were circumcised - whether having sex too soon or too carelessly - because the same ratio applied before the circumcision campaign began.)

Similar differences apply in 10 out of 18 countries for which USAID has figures. A study in Uganda started to find that circumcising men INcreases the risk to women - who are already at greater risk - but that was called off for no good reason before that could be confirmed.

The three studies on which you rely (not quite independent, when their authors have all collaborated on papers together) boil down to this:
They circumcised a total of 5,400 paid adult volunteers, including in the consent forms an instruction to refrain from sex for six weeks after the operation or use condoms if they couldn't. (They didn't, of course, tell them they could stop using condoms at the end of six weeks.) The control group had no such instructions.

The studies were neither double blinded nor placebo-controlled, and everyone involved very much wanted circumcision to be efficatious, laying the field wide open to experimenter and experimentee effects.

Less than two years later (the studies were curtailed, which is known to increase false positive results.) 64 of of the circumcised men had HIV, 73 fewer than the non-circumcised control group. Contacts were not traced, so it can't be sure if the men contracted HIV (hetero)sexually, when nosocomial and iatrogenic (hospital and doctor-caused) infections are a large but unmeasured risk in Africa.

327 of the circumcised men dropped out, their HIV status unknown. Finding you had HIV after a painful and marking operation to prevent it would be one good reason for experimental men to drop out. Changing your mind about getting circumcised would be a significant reason available only to the control group.

Those 73 circumcised men are the whole basis of the "60% reduction" claim. (Subsequent studies were not randomised and prove little.)

Your modelling and your projections are all based (wishfully) on that outcome. While no-one advocates replacing condoms with circumcision, many men are doing just that. You don't compare the cost of circumcision with the cost of condoms. It favours condoms.
 

Hugh Young

Shout out to all in DC

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all the intactivist organizations who are on the ground at Washington DC countering this misinformation saturation drive, this insult to American intelligence.

Thanks to Intact America, Saving Our Sons, and countless others for being present on the ground at the DC conference countering all of the propaganda and misinformation. Sooner later the circumcision/HIV hoax is going to come crashing down, and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Interesting little fact:

AIDS rates in some US Cities rival hotspots in Africa. In some parts of the U.S., they're actually higher than those in sub-Saharan Africa. It's ironic the conference is taking place in Washington DC; according to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Ethiopia, Nigeria or Rwanda. 

The Washington D.C. district report on HIV and AIDS reported an increase of 22% from 2006 in 2009. According to Shannon L. Hader, HIV/AIDS Administration, Washington D.C. in 2009, "[Washington D.C.'s] rates are higher than West Africa... they're on par with Uganda and some parts of Kenya." Hader  once led the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's work in Zimbabwe.

TEXAS: UTMB Debates the "Pros, Cons and Contexts of Male Circumcision"

It's been a while since I've been able to sit down and blog. I plan to sit down at some point and tackle some very important subjects. I've been holding off on the Colorado saga because I think it merits time and consideration. But for now, I wanted to comment on a so-called "symposium" that's happening at the Univeristy of Texas.

So according to the Daily News, the University of Texas Medical Branch is hosting a symposium titled "Cutting Edge Debate: Pros, Cons and Contexts of Male Circumcision."

It's always a good thing for conversation regarding circumcision to be happening, as, up until recently, it was a very taboo subject. But I wonder whether this will actually be a worthy symposium, or merely a meditation session for those who chant the "infant circumcision has medical benefits, and therefore a religious freedom and a parental right" mantra.

"Is male circumcision a medical procedure or a ritual? Why is it important religiously and historically? Should it be performed, and if so, how should it be performed?", begins the Daily News article. What about the ethics of performing amputative surgery on the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting child? Will those be addressed?

Given who is on the "panel of experts," I can only hope so. It includes a Jewish mohel "who is also a pediatrician." No direct conflicts of interest there. Then we have "two physicians with differing views on the ethical questions surrounding the performing of routine infant circumcision," one who happens to oversee the UTMB Pediatric Residency Training program in circumcision, the other who has actually stopped performing circumcisions because of the ethical concerns. So, in actuality, we have two physicians who are pro-circumcision (if you include the mohel) against the one with a differing view. I can already guess what the outcome of this "debate" will be.

Or what kind of a debate is it where a bunch of "experts," most of whom share the same beliefs, figuratively look under a rock and say "Hrm... No violation of medical ethics or basic human rights here..."?

The mohel/pediatrician will talk about "the place of circumcision in the Jewish tradition, the unique features of religious circumcision and his many years of experience performing the brit milah ritual with families throughout in the southwest region." And, as if this were of any importance, the Daily News article mentions "...he often is contacted by non-Jewish parents actively seeking out a mohel to perform circumcision on their sons. His discussion will include reasons some of these parents have shared with him for seeking a ritual circumcision instead of a purely clinical one."

Yes, because the context in which adults abuse a child makes all the difference...

Another panelist will talk about "a social and historical framework for thinking about the ritual of circumcision" as well as "larger contexts within which circumcision is performed and debated."

All in all, it sounds like the University of Texas Medical Branch wants to engage in what appears to be an "academic debate" regarding the forced circumcision of male infants.

But would there ever be an "academic debate" on the "Pros, Cons and Contexts of Female Circumcision?" Would Dr. Hatem Elhagaly, who happens to be an advocate for female genital cutting be allowed to be one of the panelists? Would we allow a pediatrician to proudly boast how many sunat procedures he's performed on baby girls? Could we have an "academic debate" and discuss the questions"Is [fe]male circumcision a medical procedure or a ritual? Why is it important religiously and historically? Should it be performed, and if so, how should it be performed?" Could we discuss "a social and historical framework for thinking about the ritual of circumcision" as well as "larger contexts within which circumcision is performed and debated?"

The answer is no, we would not.

The answer is, the forced genital cutting of female minors is seen as a violation of basic human rights, and we do not beat around the bush with "academic debate" and the "pros and cons" of female circumcision.

There would never be enough "research" or enough "medical benefits" to justify forced genital cutting in female minors, in any context, "medical" or "religious."

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

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

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

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

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

When male infant genital mutilation is seen for the gross human rights violation that it is, the University of Texas will be among the guilty for perpetuating it in this country.

UGANDA: Circumcision Promoters Turn to Stigma and Misandry

It's something you would only expect to see on circumfetish websites like CircList.

But here it is in living color.

The level of sexism and ridicule that circumcision advocates are employing to get men in Africa to circumcise themselves is reaching new levels of absurdity.

The mixed messages and misinformation in this soundbite are horrendous.

First the sexism.

"A woman is entitled to cut penises; just the way she likes them," this poster seems to say.

An African woman has the power to refuse sex with a man unless he is circumcised; that is unless she is getting raped in Africa.

If she had a chance at getting her rapist to wear a condom, now she doesn't. Which means she's screwed in more ways than one.

What would be the world outcry if the poster was one of a man complaining of the circumcision status in a woman?

 This screen shot is from an actual video, visible here.

The creator of the next poster must seriously believe Ugandans are complete idiots:

Is Annette planning on having her husband cheat on her?

With an HIV+ partner?

Without a condom?

Is that what she's so "proud" of?

What chances of getting HIV do you have if you're faithful and use condoms?


"Stand proud," but get circumcised to please a woman that balks at your penis?

Because she can't trust you to keep your penis in your pants, let alone use a condom?

Really?

Way to tell a man to be proud of the man he is.

Way to tell him how much you trust him.

Should a woman sleep with a circumcised man regardless of his HIV status?

What if the man is intact, but knows he is HIV negative?

Should the woman still negate sex with him and demand he be circumcised?

Every day, we are told that women's bodies should be respected.

We hear that violence against women in Africa is a big problem.

So the solution is to encourage the disrespect, ridicule and genital mutilation of men?

In very tiny letters, one can barely read the disclaimer of this poster which reads:

"Even with circumcision, having sex without a condom puts you at great risk for contracting HIV/AIDS."

Even if you're married and faithful, apparently...

Which leaves one wondering, if you still have to wear a condom either way, then what's the fucking point?

What IS the point of these campaigns if not the disrespect, ridicule and abject humiliation of men with anatomically correct genitalia using a pseudo-medical front?

Would that "researchers" could produce "studies" that showed the "60% reduction of HIV transmission" in women who had their labia removed, would the WHO approve campaigns in Africa to encourage women to get labiaplasties?

Would you then see posters of men balking at anatomically correct female genitalia?

Because there are actually "studies" that show a "lowered risk," here, here, and here.

Somehow I doubt that even the most "convincing" of "studies" would ever be used to endorse posters like these stigmatizing women.

The circumcision/HIV charade is getting to be absurd.

Sooner or later the WHO is going to have to be held responsible for the endorsing genital mutilation and the disrespect and ridicule of males in Africa.

Never.

There would never be enough "research" or "studies" that could be used to justify the same poster with the sexual roles reversed.

African organizations ought to be ashamed for promoting misandry in the name of public health.

 Addition (5/19/2012):

A poster outside a clinic offering free government-funded circumcision.

You may as well forget about the rest of him; a dildo might do the job better.

Depicting African women as superficial idiotic airheads who have a fixation with genital cutting does not do African women any favors either.

Coming Soon:
The conclusion in Colorado.

COLORADO: Jewish Circumcision Protection Bill Moves Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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

In reality, the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations that it would be quite surprising were male circumcision to be recommended in the United States. No respected medical organization in or outside the United States recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

Medical bodies that agree that there is not enough evidence to recommend infant circumcision include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the British Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Surgeons, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association.

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

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

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


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

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

In a recent article, she says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

COLORADO: Senator Aguilar Circumvents Circumcision Debate