In my last post, I talk about a law that is now at the full state senate, which, if enacted, would declare male infant circumcision to be "medically beneficial", by law.
I just had an afterthought that I felt warranted its own separate post:
I think it's rather unfair that while the rest of us have to work hard to get legislation passed, from gathering signatures, to getting people to vote at the appointed time, self-serving politicians with an agenda are able to cut to the front of the line and get immediate approval for laws they create.
Intactivists had to work hard to gather 12,265 signatures San Francisco's Department of Elections to even have the chance for their measure to be voted on by the people, but Mike Gatto is able to get a law before the full state senate with the approval of just five people?
The San Francisco circumcision ban would have to first make it to the ballot, and the people would have had to vote in favor of it, in order to pass. And even then, there would be time before the law would go into effect. But Gatto's law, if approved, goes into effect immediately?
The San Francisco Ban doesn't even get a chance at the ballot, but Gatto's law is already at the state senate?
Something seems very, very wrong here.
UPDATE: The State Senate has unanimously approved the bill 37-0. I've posted about it here.
There are plenty of pro-circumcision "information resources." In this blog, I present what they leave out.
Showing posts with label San Francisco circumcision ban. Show all posts
Showing posts with label San Francisco circumcision ban. Show all posts
Monday, August 29, 2011
Sunday, August 28, 2011
CALIFORNIA: Circumcision Medically Beneficial - BY LAW
"A law was made a distant moon ago here,
July and August cannot be too hot;
And there's a legal limit to the snow here,
in Camelot"
In the 1960's musical "Camelot," King Arthur professes by royal decree that Camelot has a perfect climate all the year long. Can you imagine such a place where claims are facts by law? Well, California has just come one step closer to become something like the imagined Camelot.
At the beginning of this year, a measure to ban non-medical circumcision in healthy, non-consenting minors was successfully put on the November San Francisco ballot. This agitated advocates of circumcision, particularly religious interest groups and physicians who are ostensibly looking out for "public health" and "parental rights," prompting them to launch campaigns of their own to strike the ban off the ballot before it was voted on in November.
Not missing the opportunity, Assemblyman Mike Gatto gutted and amended Assembly Bill 768, which was supposed to be a carbon emissions regulation law, and re-wrote it into one that says "[m]ale circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits," and that "[n]o local statute, ordinance, or regulation, or administrative action implementing a local statute, ordinance, or regulation shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of parental authority with respect to the same."
This measure went before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Tuesday, which voted unanimously (5-0) in favor of passing it. The measure is now at the full state senate, where it will be considered in the following week. It is being presented as an "urgency bill necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety," where, if signed into law, would take effect immediately.
Legalism, Sophistry, and the Derailment of the Democratic Process
There are some major problems that have happened recently in the democratic process in California, beginning with the fact that the San Francisco ballot initiative was stricken off the November ballot using a dubious statute in California that was created to prohibit local governments from regulating the "medical arts profession." The statute was established namely to allow veterinarians to declaw cats, but the wording of "medical arts profession" allows circumcision advocates to apply the statute to the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting human children.
The measure in and of itself is dubious, because it allows "healing arts professionals" to profit from a procedure that is considered to be "professionally recognized," namely that "everybody's doing it." Enough veterinarians are reaping profit from declawing cats, therefore it is "professionally recognized medical practice," therefore it cannot be regulated, and this goes for any other "professionally recognized medical practice" that many vets perform on animals, such as the debarking of dogs (some owners want their dogs to be quiet because they live in apartment buildings), possibly ear cropping and tail docking.
Now, I'm an animal lover, and I think it's bad enough that there is a law that allows vets basically to profit from doing whatever they want to animals unmitigated, requested by or solicited to pet owners, as long as it's "acceptable practice." That this statute can be directly translated to the practice of human medicine is simply horrifying. Just imagine if this statute was in place before 1996, before the ban of all female genital cutting was instituted. Yes, female genital cutting was "professionally recognized medical practice" before this ban, and it was performed on American girls, and paid for by American insurance companies in the past. If enough doctors got together they could have said that female circumcision was "professionally recognized medical practice."
It seems this law basically allows doctors to get away with quackery, if they can get enough people to call it "professionally recognized medical practice." It's bad enough for cats and dogs; I feel sorry for human children.
Let's just say for the sake of argument that the definition of "professionally recognized medical practice" was more concrete. Usually, as far as I was aware, "medical practice" refers the performance of procedures or the administration of drugs that are essential for curing or preventing disease. Medically, surgery should only be performed when it is necessary for the physical health of the person on whom it is performed because of a clear, compelling, and immediate medical need where other, less-destructive alternative treatment has failed.
The first part of the statute used to block the San Francisco circumcision measure actually sounds rather reasonable:
No city or county shall prohibit a person or group ofWho wants to keep a doctor from doing his job, right? I fully agree! If a doctor has a disease to cure, a life to save, then why should any city or county prohibit him/her from practicing medicine?
persons, authorized by one of the agencies in the Department of
Consumer Affairs by a license, certificate, or other such means to
engage in a particular business, from engaging in that business,
occupation, or profession or any portion thereof.
The problem is the foregone assumption that the circumcision of healthy infants (or the declawing of cats for that matter) is indeed essential to practice medicine. The danger is in having self-interested quacks and charlatans labeling a procedure "professionally recognized medical practice."
Another major problem with how this measure was handled was how opponents of the San Francisco measure consistently misrepresented it as a complete ban on all circumcision. Were this the case, then the ban would have actually been a hindrance to medical professionals. The wording of the circumcision bill was perfectly clear; it would not be a complete ban, but a restriction of non-therapeutic circumcision to adults 18 and above, with exception to those cases where a circumcision procedure is actually medically necessary. The ban would have been consistent with the statute raised against it, which states:
This subdivision shall not be construed to prevent a city,The ban, had it passed, would have been akin to safety requirement. It would have not limited professionals from doing their jobs, rather, it would have held doctors to their own standards, and ensured that they were performing medically legit operations.
county, or city and county from adopting or enforcing any local
ordinance governing zoning, business licensing, or reasonable health
and safety requirements for establishments or businesses of a healing
arts professional licensed under Division 2
How this ban was struck off the ballot, and the statute used against it are rather dubious. The ban seeks to ensure that human rights are respected, and that doctors act legitimately. The wording in the statute seems to allow greedy, self-interested tradesmen to reap profit from quackery and charlatanism at the expense of animal and human rights. It is a dubious statute that ought to be challenged.
The Problem with AB 768
The problem with the legislation Gatto has proposed begins with its opening declaration:
125850. (a) The Legislature finds and declares as follows:The Legislature, if approved by the senate, etches into law claims that no medical organization in the world has dared to make. This, the claim that male infant circumcision is a surgery with health benefits, enough to endorse the practice, is not at all consistent with the view of male circumcision given in the statements of medical authorities in and outside of the United States.
(1) Male circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits.
The AMA, AAP, AAFP, and even the CDC all reject the idea of routine circumcision for medical reasons. The American Medical Association's most recent major document on medical circumcision, the "Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs" was created by their "Council on Science and Public Health" in 1999. It states that "The British Medical Association has a longstanding recommendation that circumcision should be performed only for medical reasons", by which they mean only rare cases that require drastic treatment. Furthermore, it states that "Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns".
Regarding STDs in general, the AAFP's "Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision" states that "the association between having a sexually transmitted disease (STD) - excluding human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and being circumcised are inconclusive", and regarding HIV, "most of the studies...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".
"The official viewpoint of KNMG (The Royal Dutch Medical Association) 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. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.""...benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised."The Canadian Paediatric Society "does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."
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 U.S. based medical board recommends circumcision for U.S. 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, within and outside of the United States. And yet, despite this clarity, self-serving politicians like Gatto have managed to get a 5-0 vote from California judges. How is this possible?
"...the level of protection offered by circumcision and complication rate of circumcision do not warrant a recommendation of universal circumcision for newborn and infant males in an Australian and New Zealand context."
~The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP)
Other Forces at Work
Politicians like Gatto might have you believe they're acting purely out of interest of public health, but deeper investigation into the matter reveals it's a bit more complicated than that. Among the loudest voices of opposition were Jewish and Muslim religious groups, backed by the Jewish interest group, the Anti-Defamation League. It is rather peculiar that while these groups allege that circumcision is their "religious freedom" and their "parental right," they saw it necessary to turn to arguments of "medical benefit" and a dubious legal loophole, namely the aforementioned measure that allows vets to declaw cats. Even curiouser is the fact that nobody seems to care that some of the loudest purporters of the so-called "medical benefits," also happen to be Jewish mohels.
Methinks that even religious groups are realizing that arguments of "religious freedom" and "parental right" have lost their validity, as these are the same arguments that would vindicate female genital cutting, and so they saw it necessary to get behind the "medical benefits" argument. Last year, the AAP tried endorsing a "ritual nick," but it didn't take long for human rights groups to muster a world outcry that forced the AAP to retract their endorsement. The message was clear; under no circumstance could a medical professional come near a girl's genitals with a knife, not even for a "ritual nick."
The claim that government should not meddle in religion sounds like an honest and true proclamation of freedom, solidarity and independence, however in reality, government already steps in to regulate what one can do in the so-called name of religious freedom, for adults as well as children. Polygamy is illegal, for example. Adult men cannot marry underage girls, much less engage in sexual relationships with them. According to Oregon law, and to the laws of other states, parents cannot deny their children needed medical treatment, not even in the name of "religion." Parents cannot force their children to hold snakes or drink poison. They cannot also slash their children's heads on the holy day of Ashura. And, parents cannot have genital cutting of any kind performed on their daughters, not even a "ritual nick."
Advocates of male infant circumcision encourage the belief that circumcision is a public health issue, often presenting male circumcision as a controversial and ongoing debate, with health benefits and cultural justifications posed against minor risks and the possibility of trauma to the infant. Gatto, in particular, is creating this controversy, one can only assume, fueled in great part by the need to look busy, establish political brownie points and gain votes.
Gatto’s former employer, Representative Brad Sherman, who has also introduced a similar bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, may be the real person pulling the strings; initial statewide redistricting plans show Sherman’s district being consolidated with Representative Howard Berman’s district, which means an impending fight over one congressional seat. Both Sherman and Berman are Jewish, as is an important chunk of the proposed constituency. Sherman might have taken the same action regardless of the circumstances, but saving traditional circumcision certainly can’t hurt his popularity at this critical time.
The generation of this controversy is supported by the fact that, despite the infant circumcision rate being low, particularly in California, infant circumcision is still as of yet, a social norm; it's not very hard to gain favor from those who feel entitled to having their children circumcised. And it's not very hard to gain favor from medical professionals who profit from performing said circumcisions.
Despite the clarity in the statements of the aforementioned medical organizations, some physicians defend circumcision as a "medically beneficial procedure" that "the government shouldn't be interfering with" yet.
Quoth Charles Wibbelsman, MD, president of Chapter 1 for Northern California District 9 of the American Academy of Pediatrics: "You cannot have a referendum on the practice of medicine... We all have been taught to practice medicine in the most ethical and forthright way, and so much of what we do comes from experience. [The ban] would be taking the practice of medicine out of the profession and into the hands of a layperson." He seems to be forgetting that "putting the practice in the hands of a layperson" is precisely what happens when parents are asked whether or not they want their children circumcised. "Circumcision has proven health benefits," he added, "including a decrease in urinary tract infections among infants and a lowered risk for HIV later in life," briefly forgetting the AAP's stance that: "...[the] benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised."
Even physicians whose profession should have absolutely nothing to do with pediatrics, much less the circumcision of male children, seem to have something to say.
Quoth obstetrician-gynecologist Ruth Haskins, MD, chair of the California Medical Association Council on Legislation: "It's very clear a ban would disrupt the doctor-patient relationship," seemingly forgetting who the "patient" is. One must seriously ask, what are ob/gyns doing reaping profit from the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting MALE children?
And then, just to be funny, Wibblesman of the AAP chapter says "[the r]egulation of circumcision also could lead to more ballot initiatives or proposed rules on other procedures, such as abortion and tubal ligation." Nevermind the fact that abortion and tubal ligation is out of this man's professional jurisdiction, the age of the subjects always seems to be lost in the "controversy." I'd like to know when was the last time abortion or tubal ligation was performed on newborns.
The CMA, which supports Assembly Bill 768, suffers from amnesia, or they really have turned to outright lying. In a letter they wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee requesting its approval they said:
"From political to religious, there are many differing views on the practice of male circumcision. However, in the medical world, the CMA has long endorsed the concept of newborn circumcision as an effective public health measure."
Not only would they be going against positions from respected American medical boards, this claim is simply not true; there was a resolution to endorse circumcision back in 1989, but this lapsed years ago.
"American Medical Association policy strongly opposes interference by the government or other third parties that "causes a physician to compromise his or her medical judgment as to what information or treatment is in the best interest of the patient."
Again, provided there is actually a patient with a legitimate medical problem to treat. Nobody is trying to interfere with physicians' ability to treat others, just ensure the rights of others, particularly healthy, non-consenting minors, are respected.
"The AMA also advocates that the decision for neonatal circumcision be determined by parents in circumstances in which the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being. "To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision," AMA policy states."
Although the AMA is perfectly clear in their "Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs" that "[r]ecent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns". According to the AAP "...benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised." One should wonder, if there isn't enough evidence of "medical benefit" to recommend infant circumcision, how is it enough to be giving parents the "opportunity" to discuss it?
It is fascinating to see American medical authorities trying to give parents authority that generally would be in doctors hands - to assess whether surgery is indicated is surely a medical matter, not one for laypeople to decide; that's the doctor's job!
It is interesting AAP Chapter President Wibblesman expresses concern that a measure to limit circumcision to adults 18 and over, and/or actual underage patients with a genuine medical necessity for surgery would be "taking the practice of medicine out of the profession and into the hands of a layperson." Quite the contrary; it would ensure the practice of medicine is limited to professionals, and prevent said professionals from pawning off their responsibilities on naive parents.
Not only does the impending California law assert claims about the health benefits of circumcision that the AAP and AMA, not to mention medical associations in the rest of the world, have consistently refused to make; the law basically protects the act of pawing professional responsibilities on lay parents. Medical professionals, with their years of medical training and "experience" (not to mention their knowledge of positions of medical associations within their country and around the world), are suddenly too stupid to know whether or not a surgical procedure is medically necessary, and must seek the counsel of parents who have never even picked up a textbook on human anatomy. Doctors are pushing their responsibilities on parents, and this new law basically protects this professional abuse; the law would allow doctors to legally get away with charlatanism. Presumably, this is the "doctor-patient relationship" the AMA seeks to "protect?"
The Bottom Line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genital 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.
Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less giving their parents any kind of "choice."
State of Affairs
Clearly, it was not enough for circumcision advocates that the San Francisco circumcision ban was struck off the ballot using a preexisting statute. Perhaps acknowledging that the statute is too dubious, as is the claim that the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is a valid "medical procedure", circumcision advocates have decided to take it a step further. Perhaps acknowledging that "religious freedom" and "parental choice" are weak arguments that have lost their validity, religious interest groups have taken it upon themselves to legally buttress the argument of "medical benefits," in hopes of salvaging an important religious ritual that has come ever under scrutiny.
A measure that essentially asserts claims that medical organizations around the world have consistently refused to make, and which briefly grants parents the title of MD is on its way to becoming law. The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 5-0 in favor of the bill, and it is currently going to the full state Senate where it will be considered as early as this week.
If the full state Senate approves the bill, then circumcision will be "medically beneficial" in healthy, non-consenting infants, BY LAW, medical organizations around the world be damned, and parents of male children will continue being bestowed the privilege of being a medical professional for a few brief moments. After years of training and experience, doctors are still confused, you see, and they need to ask the help of naive parents to guide them.
"The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot
By order summer lingers through September
In Camelot"
The winter is forbidden till December And exits March the second on the dot By order summer lingers through September In Camelot Camelot, Camelot I know it sounds a bit bizarre But in Camelot, Camelot That's how conditions are
Source: http://lyrics-a-plenty.com/c/camelot.lyrics.php
Source: http://lyrics-a-plenty.com/c/camelot.lyrics.php
The winter is forbidden till December And exits March the second on the dot By order summer lingers through September In Camelot Camelot, Camelot I know it sounds a bit bizarre But in Camelot, Camelot That's how conditions are
Source: http://lyrics-a-plenty.com/c/camelot.lyrics.php
Source: http://lyrics-a-plenty.com/c/camelot.lyrics.php
The winter is forbidden till December And exits March the second on the dot By order summer lingers through September In Camelot Camelot, Camelot I know it sounds a bit bizarre But in Camelot, Camelot That's how conditions are
Source: http://lyrics-a-plenty.com/c/camelot.lyrics.php
I know it sounds a bit bizarre.Source: http://lyrics-a-plenty.com/c/camelot.lyrics.php
But in California, that's how conditions are.
EDIT: One of my readers felt it was important that people knew that Gatto has taken money from the ADL, which could help explain why he helped author this law; the ADL wishes to help protect the Jewish custom of infant circumcision, and they expect Gatto etc. to deliver. One can only wonder how many law makers endorsing this are on the ADL payroll... The ADL's contribution to Gatto can be investigated here.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Cutters Trying to Silence Debate
So a ban on circumcision is set to appear on the ballot in San Francisco this November, but religious interest groups are trying to silence the debate before it even happens.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/adl-joins-in-san-francisco-lawsuit-challenging-anti-circumcision-ballot-initiative-124371623.html
According to PR Newswire, The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is teaming up with doctors (presumably circumcisers of children) and Jewish and Muslim families in a lawsuit against the circumcision ban, which call upon the state Department of Elections to remove it from the ballot on the grounds that "the City of San Francisco would have no power to enact the ordinance if approved by voters."
They cite Calfiornia Business and Professions Code, saying that municipalities cannot "prohibit a healing arts professional licensed within the state... from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that license."
That circumcision is indeed an act that falls within "professionally recognized scope of practice," however, is at the crux of the argument. Female genital cutting was conducted by professionals in this country, and was perfectly legal until it was banned by federal law in 1996.
Says ADL Associate Director in San Francisco Nancy Appel: "Existing California law is clear... only the state can make rules about medical procedures and this initiative violates that law."
That is, of course, assuming that the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is legit medical procedure. The ban on circumcision challenges this assumption.
The ADL and other religious interest groups want a judge to intervene before the November election to "spare the city and its residents from wasting resources debating and voting on an ordinance that cannot become law."
As if circumcising healthy, non-consenting children weren't a "waste of resources," not to mention medical fraud, professional abuse, and the violation of basic human rights...
Even if the ban fails to pass, this is a debate that needs to take place. The fact that these groups are working hard to stop the debate before it even happens demonstrates how important the debate actually is.
It's high time the taboo behind this subject was dropped in this country, and that a procedure that affects more than 1.3 million male children a year were discussed openly.
Shame on the ADL and their affiliates for wanting to silence debate.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
~Voltaire.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/adl-joins-in-san-francisco-lawsuit-challenging-anti-circumcision-ballot-initiative-124371623.html
According to PR Newswire, The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is teaming up with doctors (presumably circumcisers of children) and Jewish and Muslim families in a lawsuit against the circumcision ban, which call upon the state Department of Elections to remove it from the ballot on the grounds that "the City of San Francisco would have no power to enact the ordinance if approved by voters."
They cite Calfiornia Business and Professions Code, saying that municipalities cannot "prohibit a healing arts professional licensed within the state... from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that license."
That circumcision is indeed an act that falls within "professionally recognized scope of practice," however, is at the crux of the argument. Female genital cutting was conducted by professionals in this country, and was perfectly legal until it was banned by federal law in 1996.
Says ADL Associate Director in San Francisco Nancy Appel: "Existing California law is clear... only the state can make rules about medical procedures and this initiative violates that law."
That is, of course, assuming that the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is legit medical procedure. The ban on circumcision challenges this assumption.
The ADL and other religious interest groups want a judge to intervene before the November election to "spare the city and its residents from wasting resources debating and voting on an ordinance that cannot become law."
As if circumcising healthy, non-consenting children weren't a "waste of resources," not to mention medical fraud, professional abuse, and the violation of basic human rights...
Even if the ban fails to pass, this is a debate that needs to take place. The fact that these groups are working hard to stop the debate before it even happens demonstrates how important the debate actually is.
It's high time the taboo behind this subject was dropped in this country, and that a procedure that affects more than 1.3 million male children a year were discussed openly.
Shame on the ADL and their affiliates for wanting to silence debate.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
~Voltaire.
Friday, June 10, 2011
The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes
As predicted, the current bid to ban circumcision in San Francisco is causing commotion. And, as predicted, religious groups, particularly Jewish organizations, are working hard to condemn the measure as anti-Semitic. It seems circumcision advocates have found the perfect scapegoat, however, and they're milking it for everything it's worth.
The scapegoat in question is the latest issue of "Foreskin Man," a comic book that portrays a hero who saves defenseless babies from crazed maniacs intent on circumcising them. The villain in the latest issue happens to be a mohel, and the author's portrayal of him isn't exactly kosher. The imagery of the villain, or "Monster Mohel" as he is called, are very disturbing, because to some, it recalls Nazi German anti-Semitist propaganda.
Perhaps the creation of this comic wouldn't have garnered so much attention, if it weren't for the fact that the creator, Matthew Hess, also happens to be the president of MGM Bill, which is an organization working to enact legislation that would ban the circumcision of minors unless it is medically necessary. The comic book has become a lightning rod for criticism of not only the proposed ballot measure in San Francisco, but also for the entire intactivist movement as a whole. Opponents to the measure are waving it around as "proof" that intactivists are all anti-Semites, and now, instead of the issues, intactivists are fending off accusations of anti-Semitism.
Is "Monster Mohel" Really the Problem?
It's easy to see why the comic book is causing outrage. In the past, grotesque imagery was used to mischaracterize Jews, and to justify the horrific actions inflicted upon them during the Holocaust. It's easy to see why the imagery used in the latest edition of "Foreskin Man" can be insulting and offensive. I wonder, however, if "Monster Mohel" is really the problem?
The fact of the matter is that circumcision is a very important part of Jewish culture, one that is controversial, ethically problematic, and that they've historically fought to preserve. The San Francisco circumcision ban proposal is a direct challenge to this old and heavily defended tradition. Would there have been a better way to portray a villain mohel in a way that was not going to piss Jewish groups off?
It is inescapeable; "Monster Mohel" is most definitely depicted as evil and sinister. However, the same is also true of "Dr. Mutilator," the gentile, non-Jewish doctor in the issue before. But arent' all villains in comic books portrayed this way?
Is it really the portrayal of "Monster Mohel" that's the problem? Or is it the fact that a very old, historically contentious tradition is being challenged, and Jewish groups were going to find some other way to paint backers of the bill as Nazis anyway?
A Red Herring
I'm not going to lie; Hess' decision to publish his latest edition of the "Foreskin Man" comic book was a dumb move. It's distracting from the main issues. Instead of talking about the reasons why intactivists believe circumcision should be banned, we're busy trying to divorce ourselves from "Foreskin Man" and fending off accusations of anti-Semitism. "Foreskin Man" shoots our movement in the foot and it is gumming up our efforts to educate the public; Hess should have NEVER published that comic book.
Here's the fact of the matter though; comic or no comic, Jewish groups will call anybody "anti-Semite" for challenging circumcision. Even without the comic book, advocates of circumcision would have tried to find other ways to distract from the issues that we as intactivists are trying to bring attention to. The comic has provided the perfect scapegoat to distract from the issues, but the accusations of "anti-Semitism" would have been made, even without it, directing attention away from the crux of the argument.
Which brings us to the namesake of this blog post. Does pulling out the "anti-Semite" card even work anymore? The depiction of "Monster Mohel" certainly smacks of older anti-Semite propaganda, and Hess' motives for publishing the latest edition of his comic book are certainly questionable. But can "anti-Semite" apply to the intactivist movement as a whole?
The "Anti-Semite" Trump Card in the Past
In the past, one of the greatest obstacles in questioning circumcision was the fact that it also happens to be a religious ritual practiced by a very vocal minority. When circumcision was openly challenged, one mention of the word "anti-Semite," and all of a sudden, people challenging circumcision were worse than Hitler. Nothing was more effective at silencing any discourse on a cosmetic, non-medical surgery that is mostly practiced on gentile, non-Jewish children in hospitals in our country, than by insinuating that people against circumcision were equivalent to, or worse than Nazi Germans. But can circumcision advocates still expect their opponents to feel guilty because they're challenging a tradition practiced by survivors of the Holocaust?
The answer is, not anymore.
Of course, being compared to Hitler wasn't the only reason people feared the "anti-Semite" card. America has Judeo-Christian roots, and we grow up learning about how the Jews are "god's chosen people." We're also told "Don't challenge what's in the Bible." So being called "anti-Semite" also carried that extra weight. Additionally, we were led to believe that circumcision was exclusive to Jews, and that it was universally practiced among them. To date, some people are oblivious to the fact that Muslims also circumcise their children. If I recall correctly, didn't Ann Coulter believe Muslim terrorists could hide bombs in their foreskins?
Enlightened Times
At any rate, thanks to the internet, we've been able to educate ourselves. We now know that not only are there Jews questioning circumcision, there are many Jews viewing it for the barbaric custom that it is. This day and age, many Jews are opting for a bloodless naming ceremony called "Bris Shalom." There are Jews in Europe who have been leaving their children intact for years. There are groups of Jews in ISRAEL of all places, who are challenging tradition and leaving their children intact. Some of the most outspoken voices in our movement happen to be Jewish; Leonard Glick, Ron Goldman, Dr. Dean Edell, Howard Stern and Elijah Ungar-Sargon, just to name a few. Some of the most prominent supporters of a ban on circumcision happen to be Jewish, and there are Jewish men who actually LIKE the recent issue of "Foreskin Man," because this is how they view the mohels who circumcised them. In light of these facts, dismissing the intactivist movement as "anti-Semite" is a gross blanket statement.
Here is at least one young man who has written an open letter to the mohel who circumcised him. Shea Levy is to be commended for the courage to challenge tradition, and to challenge the very man who cut off part of his penis.
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/06/to-mohel-who-cut-me.html
The following are links to Jewish groups against circumcision:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
These link to websites in Hebrew, run by intactivist groups in Israel:
http://www.gonnen.org/
http://www.britmila.org.il/
http://www.kahal.org/
The following are resources on "Brit Shalom":
http://www.officiant.org/brit-shalom
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html
The following are links to books challenging circumcision from a Jewish perspective:
http://lisabravermoss.com/The_Measure_of_His_Grief.html
http://www.amazon.com/Children-Future-Prevention-Sexual-Pathology/dp/0374518467
http://www.amazon.com/Circumcision-Hidden-Trauma-American-Ultimately/dp/0964489538/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292127243&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Marked-Your-Flesh-Circumcision-Ancient/dp/0195315944/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292126901&sr=1-3
http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Circumcision-Perspective-Ronald-Goldman/dp/0964489562/ref=sr_1_cc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292126068&sr=1-1-catcorr
And finally, an excellent blog, and perhaps the most ultimate resource for Jews against circumcision:
http://www.beyondthebris.com/
"Monster Mohel" May Not Be So Farfetched
Another myth that we are lead to believe is that, since mohels are the "jacks of their trade," they can do no wrong. People say over and over that there are never any complications when a mohel performs circumcision, as opposed to a doctor at a hospital. Here too, the internet has proved informative.
A boy in New York lost his glans during a bris to a Mohel who tried to circumcise him using a Mogen clamp.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/atlanta-lawyer-wins-11-573890.html
In the UK, Amitai Moshe, goes into cardiac arrest immediately after his bris. The verdict of his inquest a few years later? Amitai Moshe died of "natural causes," and the fact that he started having breathing problems and started bleeding through his nose and mouth had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was ritually circumcised just minutes before. Read the shameless story here:
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/4588885.Baby_died_of__natural_causes__after_circumcision/
NY Mohel Infects 3 Babies With Herpes via Metzitzah B'peh (sucking of blood from wounded penis with one's mouth): One of Them Dies, Nothing Happens
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=2
"Rabbi ordered to pay NIS 1.18 million for botched circumcision"
http://www.cirp.org/news/haaretz12-14-04/
"Unlicensed mohel suspected of injuring infants"
(What licensed mohel or Dr, ISN'T injuring an infant???)
http://www.cirp.org/news/jerusalempost11-09-2000/
Baby recovers from 'brit mila' amputation
http://www.cirp.org/news/jpost1/
Perhaps Hess' depiction of "Monster Mohel" may not be so outlandish after all?
Conclusion
The "anti-Semite" label may have held water, IF the intactivist movement targeted only Jewish circumcision. Let's not forget that in this country, of all circumcision, only 3% comprises of Jewish brisim. The rest of the 97% are secular circumcisions that happen at hospitals. And, as I have shown, circumcision is not universal among Jews. Some of the most outspoken members of the intactivist movement also happen to be Jewish. Intactivists believe that circumcision, when practiced on healhty, non-consenting minors, is a violation of basic human rights, regardless of religion, race, age, or sex.
Is Foreskin Man "anti-Semitic?" That's debatable. The comic, is not focusing on hating Jews, it focuses on the disdain the creator has for the circumcision of infants. In context, "Monster Mohel" is just another villain in a comic book. Was Hess' idea to publish the comic book ill-conceived? Yes. He should have thought twice about publishing something that could potentially be hurtful to his own cause. Will efforts to pass the ban in San Francisco fail? Yes. The ban is going to be labeled "anti-Semitic" and an infringement on "religious freedoms" and "parental rights." To be sure, it is going to crash and burn.
But intactivists were going to be labeled "anti-Semitic," and the ban was going to crash and burn anyway, in spite of the comic book. Intactivists were fooling themselves if they thought this ban even had a ghost of a chance. The whole point of proposing the ban was to bring attention to an issue that is usually extremely taboo and off-limits. It's real easy to call circumcision a "non-issue" until somebody proposes a ban on it. Now, people can no longer ignore this "non-issue," and have no choice but to openly talk about it. Circumcision advocates are horribly mistaken if they think it's the last they'll hear of intactivists once this ban gets voted down. Whether they like it or not, the intactivist movement is here to stay.
Intactivists have solid challenges that accusations of "anti-Semitism" can no longer silence. Once the political theatre is over, the questions of legality, ethics and human rights remain, and circumcision advocates, religious and/or secular, must address them.
The Issues
To what extent are "parental rights" and even "religious freedoms" protected? How far are parents allowed do what they want with their children before we call Child Protective Services?
As an example of the law stepping in between parents and children, very recently, a mother lost custody of her daughter for injecting Botox into her.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/pageant-mom-loses-8yo-daughter-over.html
As if that weren't enough, the state of New Jersey has just passed a law prohibiting the use of Botox on children 18 and below, unless it is medically necessary. (Surprise, surprise! This is just what people who are against circumcision want!)
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/botox-bill-yes-circumcision-bill-no.html
In Fresno, a man is jailed for tattooing his son.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/20/97834/fresno-father-who-tattooed-son.html
In Oregon, a law was just passed that prohibits parents from denying their children medical care, much to the chagrin of the "Followers of Christ" church, who believes that god alone should cure disease.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/religious-freedom-parental-choice-or.html
In 1996, a federal ban on female circumcision was passed. There are actually many kinds of female genital cutting, some of which dwarf in comparison to male infant circumcision. But in America, parents cannot even draw a few drops of blood for "symbolic" purposes.
In May, last year, the AAP tried to approve a "ritual nick" for girls. The procedure wouldn't remove anything, and the AAP admitted that it was much less severe than male circumcision. The logic behind this was that if they offered a "ritual nick" here in the States, then parents wouldn't take their daughters abroad to have more drastic procedures done. There was a world outcry, and the month of May did not end before the AAP was forced to retract their endorsement. The message was clear; under no circumstances were medical professionals to come near a girl's vulva with a knife, not even for a "ritual nick."
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html
In America, one parent's "freedom" is another parent's crime. While parents who have their boy circumcised "celebrate," parents who have their girl circumcised go to jail.
http://www.cirp.org/news/ajc2006-11-01/
A girl loses her clitoris, heads roll. A boy loses his life, it's "Oops, it won't happen again."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=2
So why this double-standard?
Why this two-track system that treats boys and girls differently?
These are serious questions that simply can no longer be dismissed by pointing at a comic book and screaming "anti-Semite" all day long.
DISCLAIMER:
What I've expressed in this blog does not necessarily reflect the view of all intactivists. At this very moment, the Foreskin Man comic is causing great debate and consternation, even among the intactivist movement. While some of us see the depiction of "Monster Mohel" as just another comic book villain, and simply the depiction of another child circumciser, others are deeply disturbed by it and see it as hurtful to the intactivist movement. I think we all agree, however, that Hess' move was ill-conceived and that he should have never published this comic.
The scapegoat in question is the latest issue of "Foreskin Man," a comic book that portrays a hero who saves defenseless babies from crazed maniacs intent on circumcising them. The villain in the latest issue happens to be a mohel, and the author's portrayal of him isn't exactly kosher. The imagery of the villain, or "Monster Mohel" as he is called, are very disturbing, because to some, it recalls Nazi German anti-Semitist propaganda.
Perhaps the creation of this comic wouldn't have garnered so much attention, if it weren't for the fact that the creator, Matthew Hess, also happens to be the president of MGM Bill, which is an organization working to enact legislation that would ban the circumcision of minors unless it is medically necessary. The comic book has become a lightning rod for criticism of not only the proposed ballot measure in San Francisco, but also for the entire intactivist movement as a whole. Opponents to the measure are waving it around as "proof" that intactivists are all anti-Semites, and now, instead of the issues, intactivists are fending off accusations of anti-Semitism.
Is "Monster Mohel" Really the Problem?
It's easy to see why the comic book is causing outrage. In the past, grotesque imagery was used to mischaracterize Jews, and to justify the horrific actions inflicted upon them during the Holocaust. It's easy to see why the imagery used in the latest edition of "Foreskin Man" can be insulting and offensive. I wonder, however, if "Monster Mohel" is really the problem?
The fact of the matter is that circumcision is a very important part of Jewish culture, one that is controversial, ethically problematic, and that they've historically fought to preserve. The San Francisco circumcision ban proposal is a direct challenge to this old and heavily defended tradition. Would there have been a better way to portray a villain mohel in a way that was not going to piss Jewish groups off?
It is inescapeable; "Monster Mohel" is most definitely depicted as evil and sinister. However, the same is also true of "Dr. Mutilator," the gentile, non-Jewish doctor in the issue before. But arent' all villains in comic books portrayed this way?
To the left is "Monster Mohel." To the right is "Dr. Mutilator," who wasn't drawn any less grotesque.
These characters are from the "Batman" universe.
On the left is "The Scarecrow," on the right is "Clayface."
Is it really the portrayal of "Monster Mohel" that's the problem? Or is it the fact that a very old, historically contentious tradition is being challenged, and Jewish groups were going to find some other way to paint backers of the bill as Nazis anyway?
A Red Herring
I'm not going to lie; Hess' decision to publish his latest edition of the "Foreskin Man" comic book was a dumb move. It's distracting from the main issues. Instead of talking about the reasons why intactivists believe circumcision should be banned, we're busy trying to divorce ourselves from "Foreskin Man" and fending off accusations of anti-Semitism. "Foreskin Man" shoots our movement in the foot and it is gumming up our efforts to educate the public; Hess should have NEVER published that comic book.
Here's the fact of the matter though; comic or no comic, Jewish groups will call anybody "anti-Semite" for challenging circumcision. Even without the comic book, advocates of circumcision would have tried to find other ways to distract from the issues that we as intactivists are trying to bring attention to. The comic has provided the perfect scapegoat to distract from the issues, but the accusations of "anti-Semitism" would have been made, even without it, directing attention away from the crux of the argument.
Which brings us to the namesake of this blog post. Does pulling out the "anti-Semite" card even work anymore? The depiction of "Monster Mohel" certainly smacks of older anti-Semite propaganda, and Hess' motives for publishing the latest edition of his comic book are certainly questionable. But can "anti-Semite" apply to the intactivist movement as a whole?
The "Anti-Semite" Trump Card in the Past
In the past, one of the greatest obstacles in questioning circumcision was the fact that it also happens to be a religious ritual practiced by a very vocal minority. When circumcision was openly challenged, one mention of the word "anti-Semite," and all of a sudden, people challenging circumcision were worse than Hitler. Nothing was more effective at silencing any discourse on a cosmetic, non-medical surgery that is mostly practiced on gentile, non-Jewish children in hospitals in our country, than by insinuating that people against circumcision were equivalent to, or worse than Nazi Germans. But can circumcision advocates still expect their opponents to feel guilty because they're challenging a tradition practiced by survivors of the Holocaust?
The answer is, not anymore.
Of course, being compared to Hitler wasn't the only reason people feared the "anti-Semite" card. America has Judeo-Christian roots, and we grow up learning about how the Jews are "god's chosen people." We're also told "Don't challenge what's in the Bible." So being called "anti-Semite" also carried that extra weight. Additionally, we were led to believe that circumcision was exclusive to Jews, and that it was universally practiced among them. To date, some people are oblivious to the fact that Muslims also circumcise their children. If I recall correctly, didn't Ann Coulter believe Muslim terrorists could hide bombs in their foreskins?
Enlightened Times
At any rate, thanks to the internet, we've been able to educate ourselves. We now know that not only are there Jews questioning circumcision, there are many Jews viewing it for the barbaric custom that it is. This day and age, many Jews are opting for a bloodless naming ceremony called "Bris Shalom." There are Jews in Europe who have been leaving their children intact for years. There are groups of Jews in ISRAEL of all places, who are challenging tradition and leaving their children intact. Some of the most outspoken voices in our movement happen to be Jewish; Leonard Glick, Ron Goldman, Dr. Dean Edell, Howard Stern and Elijah Ungar-Sargon, just to name a few. Some of the most prominent supporters of a ban on circumcision happen to be Jewish, and there are Jewish men who actually LIKE the recent issue of "Foreskin Man," because this is how they view the mohels who circumcised them. In light of these facts, dismissing the intactivist movement as "anti-Semite" is a gross blanket statement.
Here is at least one young man who has written an open letter to the mohel who circumcised him. Shea Levy is to be commended for the courage to challenge tradition, and to challenge the very man who cut off part of his penis.
http://www.beyondthebris.com/2011/06/to-mohel-who-cut-me.html
The following are links to Jewish groups against circumcision:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
These link to websites in Hebrew, run by intactivist groups in Israel:
http://www.gonnen.org/
http://www.britmila.org.il/
http://www.kahal.org/
The following are resources on "Brit Shalom":
http://www.officiant.org/brit-shalom
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish-shalom.html
The following are links to books challenging circumcision from a Jewish perspective:
http://lisabravermoss.com/The_Measure_of_His_Grief.html
http://www.amazon.com/Children-Future-Prevention-Sexual-Pathology/dp/0374518467
http://www.amazon.com/Circumcision-Hidden-Trauma-American-Ultimately/dp/0964489538/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1292127243&sr=1-2
http://www.amazon.com/Marked-Your-Flesh-Circumcision-Ancient/dp/0195315944/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292126901&sr=1-3
http://www.amazon.com/Questioning-Circumcision-Perspective-Ronald-Goldman/dp/0964489562/ref=sr_1_cc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1292126068&sr=1-1-catcorr
And finally, an excellent blog, and perhaps the most ultimate resource for Jews against circumcision:
http://www.beyondthebris.com/
"Monster Mohel" May Not Be So Farfetched
Another myth that we are lead to believe is that, since mohels are the "jacks of their trade," they can do no wrong. People say over and over that there are never any complications when a mohel performs circumcision, as opposed to a doctor at a hospital. Here too, the internet has proved informative.
A boy in New York lost his glans during a bris to a Mohel who tried to circumcise him using a Mogen clamp.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/atlanta-lawyer-wins-11-573890.html
In the UK, Amitai Moshe, goes into cardiac arrest immediately after his bris. The verdict of his inquest a few years later? Amitai Moshe died of "natural causes," and the fact that he started having breathing problems and started bleeding through his nose and mouth had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was ritually circumcised just minutes before. Read the shameless story here:
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/4588885.Baby_died_of__natural_causes__after_circumcision/
NY Mohel Infects 3 Babies With Herpes via Metzitzah B'peh (sucking of blood from wounded penis with one's mouth): One of Them Dies, Nothing Happens
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=2
"Rabbi ordered to pay NIS 1.18 million for botched circumcision"
http://www.cirp.org/news/haaretz12-14-04/
"Unlicensed mohel suspected of injuring infants"
(What licensed mohel or Dr, ISN'T injuring an infant???)
http://www.cirp.org/news/jerusalempost11-09-2000/
Baby recovers from 'brit mila' amputation
http://www.cirp.org/news/jpost1/
Perhaps Hess' depiction of "Monster Mohel" may not be so outlandish after all?
Conclusion
The "anti-Semite" label may have held water, IF the intactivist movement targeted only Jewish circumcision. Let's not forget that in this country, of all circumcision, only 3% comprises of Jewish brisim. The rest of the 97% are secular circumcisions that happen at hospitals. And, as I have shown, circumcision is not universal among Jews. Some of the most outspoken members of the intactivist movement also happen to be Jewish. Intactivists believe that circumcision, when practiced on healhty, non-consenting minors, is a violation of basic human rights, regardless of religion, race, age, or sex.
Is Foreskin Man "anti-Semitic?" That's debatable. The comic, is not focusing on hating Jews, it focuses on the disdain the creator has for the circumcision of infants. In context, "Monster Mohel" is just another villain in a comic book. Was Hess' idea to publish the comic book ill-conceived? Yes. He should have thought twice about publishing something that could potentially be hurtful to his own cause. Will efforts to pass the ban in San Francisco fail? Yes. The ban is going to be labeled "anti-Semitic" and an infringement on "religious freedoms" and "parental rights." To be sure, it is going to crash and burn.
But intactivists were going to be labeled "anti-Semitic," and the ban was going to crash and burn anyway, in spite of the comic book. Intactivists were fooling themselves if they thought this ban even had a ghost of a chance. The whole point of proposing the ban was to bring attention to an issue that is usually extremely taboo and off-limits. It's real easy to call circumcision a "non-issue" until somebody proposes a ban on it. Now, people can no longer ignore this "non-issue," and have no choice but to openly talk about it. Circumcision advocates are horribly mistaken if they think it's the last they'll hear of intactivists once this ban gets voted down. Whether they like it or not, the intactivist movement is here to stay.
Intactivists have solid challenges that accusations of "anti-Semitism" can no longer silence. Once the political theatre is over, the questions of legality, ethics and human rights remain, and circumcision advocates, religious and/or secular, must address them.
The Issues
To what extent are "parental rights" and even "religious freedoms" protected? How far are parents allowed do what they want with their children before we call Child Protective Services?
As an example of the law stepping in between parents and children, very recently, a mother lost custody of her daughter for injecting Botox into her.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/pageant-mom-loses-8yo-daughter-over.html
As if that weren't enough, the state of New Jersey has just passed a law prohibiting the use of Botox on children 18 and below, unless it is medically necessary. (Surprise, surprise! This is just what people who are against circumcision want!)
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/botox-bill-yes-circumcision-bill-no.html
In Fresno, a man is jailed for tattooing his son.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/20/97834/fresno-father-who-tattooed-son.html
In Oregon, a law was just passed that prohibits parents from denying their children medical care, much to the chagrin of the "Followers of Christ" church, who believes that god alone should cure disease.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/religious-freedom-parental-choice-or.html
In 1996, a federal ban on female circumcision was passed. There are actually many kinds of female genital cutting, some of which dwarf in comparison to male infant circumcision. But in America, parents cannot even draw a few drops of blood for "symbolic" purposes.
In May, last year, the AAP tried to approve a "ritual nick" for girls. The procedure wouldn't remove anything, and the AAP admitted that it was much less severe than male circumcision. The logic behind this was that if they offered a "ritual nick" here in the States, then parents wouldn't take their daughters abroad to have more drastic procedures done. There was a world outcry, and the month of May did not end before the AAP was forced to retract their endorsement. The message was clear; under no circumstances were medical professionals to come near a girl's vulva with a knife, not even for a "ritual nick."
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html
In America, one parent's "freedom" is another parent's crime. While parents who have their boy circumcised "celebrate," parents who have their girl circumcised go to jail.
http://www.cirp.org/news/ajc2006-11-01/
A girl loses her clitoris, heads roll. A boy loses his life, it's "Oops, it won't happen again."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html?_r=2
So why this double-standard?
Why this two-track system that treats boys and girls differently?
These are serious questions that simply can no longer be dismissed by pointing at a comic book and screaming "anti-Semite" all day long.
DISCLAIMER:
What I've expressed in this blog does not necessarily reflect the view of all intactivists. At this very moment, the Foreskin Man comic is causing great debate and consternation, even among the intactivist movement. While some of us see the depiction of "Monster Mohel" as just another comic book villain, and simply the depiction of another child circumciser, others are deeply disturbed by it and see it as hurtful to the intactivist movement. I think we all agree, however, that Hess' move was ill-conceived and that he should have never published this comic.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Diane Cole: Circumcision FAIL
Does circumcision prevent HIV in women?
No, but it does seem to prevent proper brain functioning.
In what I can only describe as an act of pure desparate idiocy, Diane Cole tries to launch a "rebuttal" to the proposed ban on male circumcision that will be on the San Francisco ballot this November, shooting her own self in the foot.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343492869888506.html
And then our very own HIV test results—his and hers—arrived. Peter was positive. I was negative. How had it happened that I never became HIV-positive myself?
It wasn't until recently that we knew: He was circumcised.
The claim is that circumcision is supposed to prevent HIV transmission in MEN, but this seems to escape her...
Poor circumcision advocates. So desperately they want to find some pseudo-scientific alibi for deliberate child abuse that they forget to switch their brains on.
Here's Cole's attempt to sound intelligent:
"...here is the reason I am alive today: In the same way that circumcision vastly diminishes the chance of infecting women with the human papillomavirus that causes cervical cancer, studies suggest that circumcision also helps guard against the transmission of the HIV virus. In both cases, cells on the inside of the male foreskin are implicated in spreading the virus. But if the foreskin is removed, a source of infection is also removed."
Actually, it has never been proven that circumcision reduces HPV, nor HIV for that matter. Few people know this, but the HIV "studies" are nothing but statistical analyses of data hand-picked by circumcision advocates that call themselves "scientists."
It's true. Ask a circumcision advocate to tell you how exactly circumcision prevents anything, and all they can do is point to three so-called "randomized controll trials" in Africa and give you that magical 60% figure we've all heard. But they can never, nor will they ever tell you with 100% certainty how exactly this happens. They cannot furnish a causal link, only ad-hoc/post-hoc explanations that they can't demonstrably prove. They may as well be trying to explain the existence of god.
Not even Cole could tell you. She mentions that cells inside the foreskin are implicated, but did she actually even bother to check which ones?
The cells she refers to are the Langerhans cells, and they were implicated in the spread of HIV, not HPV.
Actually, the Langerhans cells hypothesis was blown out of the water a long time ago.
Studies found that not only are Langerhans cells found all over the body and that their complete removal is virtually impossible, it was also found that Langerhans cells that are present in the foreskin produce Langerin, a substance that has been proven to kill the HIV virus on contact, acting as a natural barrier to HIV-1.
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/de_Witte_2007.pdf
To date, there is no working hypothesis behind any of the so-called "studies" in Africa. It's all pure assertion based on skewed, carefully selected data. Entire "mass circumcision campaigns" are being carried out in Africa based on "studies" that don't even have a working hypothesis.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/soka-uncobe-our-us-tax-dollars-at-work.html
In fact, recent reports are showing that the promotion of circumcision in Africa is actually confusing Africans, giving them a false sense of security, encouraging complacency in the use of condoms, making the situation WORSE.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html
Americans have a cultural bias in favor of circumcision that will only allow them to see "studies" and "evidence" in favor of circumcision, and none that contradict it. The following information is found in many other of my posts regarding circumcision and the assertion that it prevents HIV:
Countries in Africa where HIV was found to be more prevalent among the circumcised:
Cameroon table 16.9, p17 (4.1% v 1.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR163/16chapitre16.pdf
Ghana table 13.9 (1.6% v 1.4%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR152/13Chapter13.pdf
Lesotho table 12.9 (22.8% v 15.2%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR171/12Chapter12.pdf
Malawi table 12.6, p257 (13.2% v 9.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR175/FR-175-MW04.pdf
Rwanda , table 15.11 (3.5% v 2.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf
Swaziland table 14.10 (21.8% v 19.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf
Studies that found contradicting data:
According to USAID, "There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
"Conclusions: We find a protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries for which there are nationally-representative HIV seroprevalence data. The results are important in considering the development of circumcision-focused interventions within AIDS prevention programs."
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2197431
"Results: ...No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries."
http://apha.confex.com/apha/134am/techprogram/paper_136814.htm
Other countries where both HIV and circumcision are prevalent:
According to Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims. In Malaysia the majority of the males in the Muslim population are circumcised, whereas circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community. This means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.
http://www.mmail.com.my/content/39272-72-percent-aidshiv-sufferers-malaysia-are-muslims-says-council
In the 2010 Global AIDS report released by UNAIDS in late November, the Philippines was one of seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections. Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20110102-312124/Philippines-HIVAIDS-problem-worries-UN
Despite circumcision being near-universal, it hasn't stopped HIV transmission in Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/failing-the-aids-test-1.249088
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/israeli-gays-shun-condoms-despite-worrying-rise-in-aids-1.249372
http://www.haaretz.com/news/has-the-aids-cocktail-worked-too-well-in-israel-1.258520
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hiv-diagnoses-in-israel-climb-new-cases-among-gays-up-sharply-1.248651
The most obvious smoking gun: The United States of America
Circumcision hasn't stopped HIV in our own country.
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/1998/19981125_global_epidemic_report_en.pdf
And, it hasn't stopped other STDs either.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/13/us-infections-usa-idUSTRE50C5XV20090113?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
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.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177
"So there you have it: My husband's circumcision saved my life."
Oblivious to her is the fact that it was her HUSBAND whom circumcision was supposed to benefit.
In fact, "studies show" that women are 50% more likely to acquire HIV from circumcised men.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2960998-3/fulltext
Cole is luckier than she cares to realize.
"If the San Francisco initiative passes, and encourages other communities to do the same, who knows whose lives won't be saved."
The lives of circumcised men, that's for sure.
The "studies" that say circumcision might "reduce the risk of HIV" have serious flaws. They lack working hypotheses and their conclusions don't correlate with real world data.
But even assuming that they were 100% accurate, the reduction in HIV transmission would still only be 60% over a period of 1.5 years (the short duration of the studies), and only in female to male transmission. In light of the fact that condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission, not to mention the transmission of other STDs, by over 90%, in BOTH partners, but most of all, in light of the fact that babies are at absolute zero risk for sexually transmitted HIV, or any other STDs for that matter, these "studies" would still be a moot point.
But we must ask ourselves, how much do we actually care about so-called "medical benefits?"
Do we? Really?
What if there were "studies" that showed that female circumcision offered "potential medical benefits" for girls? Would we allow, request it for our daughters? What if there were "studies" that said female circumcision "reduced" the likelihood of some disease? What if "studies showed"that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV transmission?" Because there are few studies that show precisely this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
Additionally:
"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
http://www.islamictreasures.com/manners-of-welcoming-the-new-born-child-in-islam-sku16723.html
How interested would we be in the "potential medical benefits" for girls? Would we support further "research" into the matter? Would we allow the National Institutes of Health, Johns Hopkins etc., to fund "research" in Africa? Well what about countries where female circumcision isn't as "severe?"
But let's ask a different question, would we support "research" in finding alternative ways to provide the same "medical benefits" as male circumcision? If doctors came into your child's birthing room and said "We have great news! This new vaccine offers the same protections as circumcision and more! Now we don't have to circumcise your child anymore!" How would American parents react?
As always, the bottom line...
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Nor is it a congenital deformity or a genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue found in all males at birth.
Circumcision in healthy boys is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue. It permanently alters the appearance and mechanics of the penis, and it puts a child at risk of infection, disfigurment, complete ablation and even death.
Thanks to research and modern medicine, we now have better, more effective, less-invasive ways to prevent disease, so that circumcision is not needed anymore (actually, it was never needed).
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is by very definition infant genital mutilation. It is child abuse and a violation of basic human rights, and doctors have no business performing it in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less giving his parents any kind of "choice."
No, but it does seem to prevent proper brain functioning.
In what I can only describe as an act of pure desparate idiocy, Diane Cole tries to launch a "rebuttal" to the proposed ban on male circumcision that will be on the San Francisco ballot this November, shooting her own self in the foot.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343492869888506.html
And then our very own HIV test results—his and hers—arrived. Peter was positive. I was negative. How had it happened that I never became HIV-positive myself?
It wasn't until recently that we knew: He was circumcised.
The claim is that circumcision is supposed to prevent HIV transmission in MEN, but this seems to escape her...
Poor circumcision advocates. So desperately they want to find some pseudo-scientific alibi for deliberate child abuse that they forget to switch their brains on.
Here's Cole's attempt to sound intelligent:
"...here is the reason I am alive today: In the same way that circumcision vastly diminishes the chance of infecting women with the human papillomavirus that causes cervical cancer, studies suggest that circumcision also helps guard against the transmission of the HIV virus. In both cases, cells on the inside of the male foreskin are implicated in spreading the virus. But if the foreskin is removed, a source of infection is also removed."
Actually, it has never been proven that circumcision reduces HPV, nor HIV for that matter. Few people know this, but the HIV "studies" are nothing but statistical analyses of data hand-picked by circumcision advocates that call themselves "scientists."
It's true. Ask a circumcision advocate to tell you how exactly circumcision prevents anything, and all they can do is point to three so-called "randomized controll trials" in Africa and give you that magical 60% figure we've all heard. But they can never, nor will they ever tell you with 100% certainty how exactly this happens. They cannot furnish a causal link, only ad-hoc/post-hoc explanations that they can't demonstrably prove. They may as well be trying to explain the existence of god.
Not even Cole could tell you. She mentions that cells inside the foreskin are implicated, but did she actually even bother to check which ones?
The cells she refers to are the Langerhans cells, and they were implicated in the spread of HIV, not HPV.
Actually, the Langerhans cells hypothesis was blown out of the water a long time ago.
Studies found that not only are Langerhans cells found all over the body and that their complete removal is virtually impossible, it was also found that Langerhans cells that are present in the foreskin produce Langerin, a substance that has been proven to kill the HIV virus on contact, acting as a natural barrier to HIV-1.
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/de_Witte_2007.pdf
To date, there is no working hypothesis behind any of the so-called "studies" in Africa. It's all pure assertion based on skewed, carefully selected data. Entire "mass circumcision campaigns" are being carried out in Africa based on "studies" that don't even have a working hypothesis.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/soka-uncobe-our-us-tax-dollars-at-work.html
In fact, recent reports are showing that the promotion of circumcision in Africa is actually confusing Africans, giving them a false sense of security, encouraging complacency in the use of condoms, making the situation WORSE.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/male-circumcision-and-hiv-in-africa.html
Americans have a cultural bias in favor of circumcision that will only allow them to see "studies" and "evidence" in favor of circumcision, and none that contradict it. The following information is found in many other of my posts regarding circumcision and the assertion that it prevents HIV:
Countries in Africa where HIV was found to be more prevalent among the circumcised:
Cameroon table 16.9, p17 (4.1% v 1.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR163/16chapitre16.pdf
Ghana table 13.9 (1.6% v 1.4%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR152/13Chapter13.pdf
Lesotho table 12.9 (22.8% v 15.2%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR171/12Chapter12.pdf
Malawi table 12.6, p257 (13.2% v 9.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR175/FR-175-MW04.pdf
Rwanda , table 15.11 (3.5% v 2.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf
Swaziland table 14.10 (21.8% v 19.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf
Studies that found contradicting data:
According to USAID, "There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
"Conclusions: We find a protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries for which there are nationally-representative HIV seroprevalence data. The results are important in considering the development of circumcision-focused interventions within AIDS prevention programs."
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2197431
"Results: ...No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries."
http://apha.confex.com/apha/134am/techprogram/paper_136814.htm
Other countries where both HIV and circumcision are prevalent:
According to Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims. In Malaysia the majority of the males in the Muslim population are circumcised, whereas circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community. This means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.
http://www.mmail.com.my/content/39272-72-percent-aidshiv-sufferers-malaysia-are-muslims-says-council
In the 2010 Global AIDS report released by UNAIDS in late November, the Philippines was one of seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections. Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20110102-312124/Philippines-HIVAIDS-problem-worries-UN
Despite circumcision being near-universal, it hasn't stopped HIV transmission in Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/failing-the-aids-test-1.249088
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/israeli-gays-shun-condoms-despite-worrying-rise-in-aids-1.249372
http://www.haaretz.com/news/has-the-aids-cocktail-worked-too-well-in-israel-1.258520
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hiv-diagnoses-in-israel-climb-new-cases-among-gays-up-sharply-1.248651
The most obvious smoking gun: The United States of America
Circumcision hasn't stopped HIV in our own country.
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/1998/19981125_global_epidemic_report_en.pdf
And, it hasn't stopped other STDs either.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/13/us-infections-usa-idUSTRE50C5XV20090113?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
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.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177
"So there you have it: My husband's circumcision saved my life."
Oblivious to her is the fact that it was her HUSBAND whom circumcision was supposed to benefit.
In fact, "studies show" that women are 50% more likely to acquire HIV from circumcised men.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2809%2960998-3/fulltext
Cole is luckier than she cares to realize.
"If the San Francisco initiative passes, and encourages other communities to do the same, who knows whose lives won't be saved."
The lives of circumcised men, that's for sure.
The "studies" that say circumcision might "reduce the risk of HIV" have serious flaws. They lack working hypotheses and their conclusions don't correlate with real world data.
But even assuming that they were 100% accurate, the reduction in HIV transmission would still only be 60% over a period of 1.5 years (the short duration of the studies), and only in female to male transmission. In light of the fact that condoms reduce the risk of HIV transmission, not to mention the transmission of other STDs, by over 90%, in BOTH partners, but most of all, in light of the fact that babies are at absolute zero risk for sexually transmitted HIV, or any other STDs for that matter, these "studies" would still be a moot point.
But we must ask ourselves, how much do we actually care about so-called "medical benefits?"
Do we? Really?
What if there were "studies" that showed that female circumcision offered "potential medical benefits" for girls? Would we allow, request it for our daughters? What if there were "studies" that said female circumcision "reduced" the likelihood of some disease? What if "studies showed"that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV transmission?" Because there are few studies that show precisely this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
Additionally:
"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
http://www.islamictreasures.com/manners-of-welcoming-the-new-born-child-in-islam-sku16723.html
How interested would we be in the "potential medical benefits" for girls? Would we support further "research" into the matter? Would we allow the National Institutes of Health, Johns Hopkins etc., to fund "research" in Africa? Well what about countries where female circumcision isn't as "severe?"
But let's ask a different question, would we support "research" in finding alternative ways to provide the same "medical benefits" as male circumcision? If doctors came into your child's birthing room and said "We have great news! This new vaccine offers the same protections as circumcision and more! Now we don't have to circumcise your child anymore!" How would American parents react?
As always, the bottom line...
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Nor is it a congenital deformity or a genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue found in all males at birth.
Circumcision in healthy boys is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue. It permanently alters the appearance and mechanics of the penis, and it puts a child at risk of infection, disfigurment, complete ablation and even death.
Thanks to research and modern medicine, we now have better, more effective, less-invasive ways to prevent disease, so that circumcision is not needed anymore (actually, it was never needed).
Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is by very definition infant genital mutilation. It is child abuse and a violation of basic human rights, and doctors have no business performing it in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less giving his parents any kind of "choice."
Friday, May 20, 2011
Botox bill yes, circumcision bill no?
Spurred by the pageant mom botox incident:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/pageant-mom-loses-8yo-daughter-over.html
New Jersey lawmakers have passed a bill limiting the use of botox in minors.
According to MSNBC:
"Minors in New Jersey won't be able to get Botox injections without a doctor saying it's medically necessary under a bill moving through the Assembly."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43097169/ns/health-health_care/
But what about parental choice?
"Isn't the government in our lives enough as it is?"
So go the arguments against the male infant circumcision ban in San Francisco.
Limiting medical procedures for children to only those that are medically necessary, however, is the exact same point of the San Francisco circumcision ban.
The Botox bill cites a study that shows teenagers receive 12,000 Botox injections in 2009, two times that of 2008.
In America, 1.3 million boys undergo the needless surgery of circumcision, and yet this doesn't seem to be a problem.
Excerpt from the MSNBC article:
"It is dangerous enough for adults," said Assemblyman Herb Conaway, who is also a physician. "Children certainly shouldn't be subjected to this procedure."
The argument for circumcision in an infant is slightly different though. It goes something more along the lines of:
"It's a traumatic and more involved procedure for adults. It's better to do it to children who will be too young to remember."
I'm sure if you gave a baby botox, the baby wouldn't remember it either.
Another strange argument says that "Circumcision is a more involved and traumatic procedure for adults. In chidlren the procedure is more minimal, the risks are less, and the child doesn't remember."
Actually, no. An adult penis is easier to work with. A baby's penis is small, and more delicate, increasing the risk for botches and ablation.
In the previous post, I talked about the situation in Richmond, VA, where a doctor makes a living fixing botched circumcsions:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/circumcision-botches-and-elephant-in.html
And I also wrote on other risks, such as infection, partial or full ablation and even death:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/04/circumcision-kills.html
More from MSNBC:
"Botox is a key revenue driver for its maker Allergan Inc., based in Irvine, Calif. Sales grew 10.1 percent to $364.5 million during the first quarter. That total includes sales of Botox as a wrinkle treatment and other uses, including treatment for repeated migraine headaches and muscle spasms."
Hey! Did you know that circumcsion is a key revenue driver for certain medical professionals, and consumer product manufacturers?
1.3 million baby boys are circumcised a year in the United States alone. At a dollar per procedure, that is already $1,300,000 a year. The going rate for a circumcision procedure is approximately $300 American; multiplied by 1.3 million, that is approximately $390,000,000 a year that circumcision brings in based on the procedure alone.
Based in La Jolla, CA Advanced Tissue Sciences are the makers of Dermagraft-TC, which is an artifical skin created from harvested foreskins from infant circumcision.[1] They are also the makers of NouriCel, another product made from harvested foreskins,[2] and one of the main ingredients of SkinMedica's TNS Recovery Complex product.[3]
Dermagraft-TC is FDA approved,[4][5] and it sells for about $3,000 per square foot and one foreskin contains enough genetic material to grow 250,000 square feet of skin.[6]
Advanced Tissue Sciences has sold about $1 million worth of cultured dermis to Proctor & Gamble, Helene Curtis, and other such businesses for pre-market testing. Advanced Tissue Science's foreskin-derived merchandise held a $32 million stock offering in the beginning of 1992.[7]
In 1996 alone, Advanced Tissue Sciences could boast of a healthy $663.9 million market capitalization performance.[8]
References:
1. "Dermagraft-TC: Overview". Advanced Biohealing, Inc.. http://www.dermagraft.com/about/overview/. Retrieved 2011-03-06. "Dermagraft is manufactured from human fibroblast cells derived from newborn foreskin tissue."
2. "The Foreskin Mafia". Acroposthion.com. http://www.acroposthion.com/acroposthion_019.htm. Retrieved 2011-03-06. "TNS contains... NouriCel-MD which is... a combination of Natural Growth Factors, matrix proteins, and soluble collagen. Human Growth Factors extracted from cultured cells of foreskin..."
3. "SkinMedica Introduces TNS Recovery Complex". SkinMedica. 2002-02-12. http://www.corporate.skinmedica.com/press/2002/skinmedica-launches-tns-recovery-complex. Retrieved 2011-03-06. "TNS Recovery Complex is the only product containing a professional concentration of NouriCel®, a new cosmetic ingredient from leading tissue-engineering company Advanced Tissue Sciences."
4. "Dermagraft-TC: General Information". Advanced Tissue Sciences. MediLexicon International Ltd. 2011. http://www.medilexicon.com/drugs/dermagraft-tc.php#GeneralInformation. Retrieved 2011-05-07. "Dermagraft-TC is the first human, fibroblast-derived temporary skin substitute for the treatment of partial-thickness burns that has been approved for marketing by the FDA."
5. "Advanced Tissue Sciences' temporary wound covering Dermagraft-TC approved for marketing by FDA". Transplant News. HighBeam Research. 1997-03-28. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-47248437.html. Retrieved 2011-05-07. "the Food and Drug Administration has approved Dermagraft-TC"
6. Circumcision. Daecher M. Icon 1998;2(2):70-3.
7. Julie Pitta. Biosynthetics. Forbes 10 May 1993: 170-171 Note: The 32-page Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc. 1997 Annual Report refers to "fibroblasts" but does not contain the word "foreskin."
8. Biotech's Big Discovery. Hall CT. San Francisco Chronicle. October 25, 1996: E1, E4.
There's plenty more too.
Organogenesis, based in Canton, MA, profits, from Apligraf, which is a synthetic skin created from harvested foreskins.
http://www.organogenesis.com/about_us/headquarters.html
http://www.apligraf.com/professional/what_is_apligraf/how_is_it_made/
LifeCell Corporation based in Branchburg, profits from the creation and sale of AlloDerm(R), another skin graft created from harvested infant foreskins.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-16828845.html
SkinMedica is a manufacturer of various skin products. Their product TNS Recovery Complex contains Advance Tissue Sciences' NouriCel. This product has been made famous by the fact that Oprah Winfrey promotes it.
http://www.plasmetic.com/skin/skin-care-cosmetics/foreskin-face-cream-from-skinmedica-promoted-by-oprah-winfrey.html
http://www.richguysclub.com/oprah-endorses-babies%E2%80%99-foreskins-used-to-make-cosmetics/
So as you can see, there's more to circumcision that meets the eye. Scratch beneath the surface and you'll find an entire industry that solely depends on the continuance of the harvesting of foreskins from healthy, non-consenting individuals.
To close on the Botox bill:
"Federal and state regulations already restrict the use of Botox on patients under 18. The new legislation would require doctors to document in a patient's chart the non-cosmetic medical reason for performing the procedure on a minor. Responsibility for adopting those regulations would be left to the state medical board and health commissioner.
The bill passed 10-1 in committee. There's no companion bill in the Senate."
In my opinion, it would be nice if male infant circumcision were regulated in exactly the same way. Unless it is medically necessary, restrict circmucision on patients under 18. Require doctors to document in a patient's chart the non-cosmetic medical reason for performing the procedure on minors. The state medical board and health commissioners should be responsible for adopting these regulations.
Earlier San Francisco circumcision ban posts:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/san-francisco-circumcision-ban.html
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/religious-freedom-parental-choice-or.html
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/pageant-mom-loses-8yo-daughter-over.html
New Jersey lawmakers have passed a bill limiting the use of botox in minors.
According to MSNBC:
"Minors in New Jersey won't be able to get Botox injections without a doctor saying it's medically necessary under a bill moving through the Assembly."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43097169/ns/health-health_care/
But what about parental choice?
"Isn't the government in our lives enough as it is?"
So go the arguments against the male infant circumcision ban in San Francisco.
Limiting medical procedures for children to only those that are medically necessary, however, is the exact same point of the San Francisco circumcision ban.
The Botox bill cites a study that shows teenagers receive 12,000 Botox injections in 2009, two times that of 2008.
In America, 1.3 million boys undergo the needless surgery of circumcision, and yet this doesn't seem to be a problem.
Excerpt from the MSNBC article:
"It is dangerous enough for adults," said Assemblyman Herb Conaway, who is also a physician. "Children certainly shouldn't be subjected to this procedure."
The argument for circumcision in an infant is slightly different though. It goes something more along the lines of:
"It's a traumatic and more involved procedure for adults. It's better to do it to children who will be too young to remember."
I'm sure if you gave a baby botox, the baby wouldn't remember it either.
Another strange argument says that "Circumcision is a more involved and traumatic procedure for adults. In chidlren the procedure is more minimal, the risks are less, and the child doesn't remember."
Actually, no. An adult penis is easier to work with. A baby's penis is small, and more delicate, increasing the risk for botches and ablation.
In the previous post, I talked about the situation in Richmond, VA, where a doctor makes a living fixing botched circumcsions:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/circumcision-botches-and-elephant-in.html
And I also wrote on other risks, such as infection, partial or full ablation and even death:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/04/circumcision-kills.html
More from MSNBC:
"Botox is a key revenue driver for its maker Allergan Inc., based in Irvine, Calif. Sales grew 10.1 percent to $364.5 million during the first quarter. That total includes sales of Botox as a wrinkle treatment and other uses, including treatment for repeated migraine headaches and muscle spasms."
Hey! Did you know that circumcsion is a key revenue driver for certain medical professionals, and consumer product manufacturers?
1.3 million baby boys are circumcised a year in the United States alone. At a dollar per procedure, that is already $1,300,000 a year. The going rate for a circumcision procedure is approximately $300 American; multiplied by 1.3 million, that is approximately $390,000,000 a year that circumcision brings in based on the procedure alone.
Based in La Jolla, CA Advanced Tissue Sciences are the makers of Dermagraft-TC, which is an artifical skin created from harvested foreskins from infant circumcision.[1] They are also the makers of NouriCel, another product made from harvested foreskins,[2] and one of the main ingredients of SkinMedica's TNS Recovery Complex product.[3]
Dermagraft-TC is FDA approved,[4][5] and it sells for about $3,000 per square foot and one foreskin contains enough genetic material to grow 250,000 square feet of skin.[6]
Advanced Tissue Sciences has sold about $1 million worth of cultured dermis to Proctor & Gamble, Helene Curtis, and other such businesses for pre-market testing. Advanced Tissue Science's foreskin-derived merchandise held a $32 million stock offering in the beginning of 1992.[7]
In 1996 alone, Advanced Tissue Sciences could boast of a healthy $663.9 million market capitalization performance.[8]
References:
1. "Dermagraft-TC: Overview". Advanced Biohealing, Inc.. http://www.dermagraft.com/about/overview/. Retrieved 2011-03-06. "Dermagraft is manufactured from human fibroblast cells derived from newborn foreskin tissue."
2. "The Foreskin Mafia". Acroposthion.com. http://www.acroposthion.com/acroposthion_019.htm. Retrieved 2011-03-06. "TNS contains... NouriCel-MD which is... a combination of Natural Growth Factors, matrix proteins, and soluble collagen. Human Growth Factors extracted from cultured cells of foreskin..."
3. "SkinMedica Introduces TNS Recovery Complex". SkinMedica. 2002-02-12. http://www.corporate.skinmedica.com/press/2002/skinmedica-launches-tns-recovery-complex. Retrieved 2011-03-06. "TNS Recovery Complex is the only product containing a professional concentration of NouriCel®, a new cosmetic ingredient from leading tissue-engineering company Advanced Tissue Sciences."
4. "Dermagraft-TC: General Information". Advanced Tissue Sciences. MediLexicon International Ltd. 2011. http://www.medilexicon.com/drugs/dermagraft-tc.php#GeneralInformation. Retrieved 2011-05-07. "Dermagraft-TC is the first human, fibroblast-derived temporary skin substitute for the treatment of partial-thickness burns that has been approved for marketing by the FDA."
5. "Advanced Tissue Sciences' temporary wound covering Dermagraft-TC approved for marketing by FDA". Transplant News. HighBeam Research. 1997-03-28. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-47248437.html. Retrieved 2011-05-07. "the Food and Drug Administration has approved Dermagraft-TC"
6. Circumcision. Daecher M. Icon 1998;2(2):70-3.
7. Julie Pitta. Biosynthetics. Forbes 10 May 1993: 170-171 Note: The 32-page Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc. 1997 Annual Report refers to "fibroblasts" but does not contain the word "foreskin."
8. Biotech's Big Discovery. Hall CT. San Francisco Chronicle. October 25, 1996: E1, E4.
There's plenty more too.
Organogenesis, based in Canton, MA, profits, from Apligraf, which is a synthetic skin created from harvested foreskins.
http://www.organogenesis.com/about_us/headquarters.html
http://www.apligraf.com/professional/what_is_apligraf/how_is_it_made/
LifeCell Corporation based in Branchburg, profits from the creation and sale of AlloDerm(R), another skin graft created from harvested infant foreskins.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-16828845.html
SkinMedica is a manufacturer of various skin products. Their product TNS Recovery Complex contains Advance Tissue Sciences' NouriCel. This product has been made famous by the fact that Oprah Winfrey promotes it.
http://www.plasmetic.com/skin/skin-care-cosmetics/foreskin-face-cream-from-skinmedica-promoted-by-oprah-winfrey.html
http://www.richguysclub.com/oprah-endorses-babies%E2%80%99-foreskins-used-to-make-cosmetics/
So as you can see, there's more to circumcision that meets the eye. Scratch beneath the surface and you'll find an entire industry that solely depends on the continuance of the harvesting of foreskins from healthy, non-consenting individuals.
To close on the Botox bill:
"Federal and state regulations already restrict the use of Botox on patients under 18. The new legislation would require doctors to document in a patient's chart the non-cosmetic medical reason for performing the procedure on a minor. Responsibility for adopting those regulations would be left to the state medical board and health commissioner.
The bill passed 10-1 in committee. There's no companion bill in the Senate."
In my opinion, it would be nice if male infant circumcision were regulated in exactly the same way. Unless it is medically necessary, restrict circmucision on patients under 18. Require doctors to document in a patient's chart the non-cosmetic medical reason for performing the procedure on minors. The state medical board and health commissioners should be responsible for adopting these regulations.
Earlier San Francisco circumcision ban posts:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/san-francisco-circumcision-ban.html
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/religious-freedom-parental-choice-or.html
Thursday, May 19, 2011
San Francisco Circumcision Ban on November Ballot
It looks like the needed signatures have been validated, and it looks like the much talked about San Francisco circumcision ban will indeed be on the November ballot.
I'll keep this short, as I've already blogged twice about the subject, here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/san-francisco-circumcision-ban.html
...and here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/religious-freedom-parental-choice-or.html
Now, as I've said before, I don't delude myself; I know that this measure simply could not pass. Our country is still pretty much blinded by its own cultural bias to see its double-standards.
But all is not lost, the fact that such a measure is even being proposed is forcing this nation to question something that is otherwise just joked about.
If you visit the website for the ban, you can see how just many news outlets have already picked the story up:
http://mgmbill.org/sfmgmbill.htm
The citizens of this country can no longer ignore the elephant in the room. The apprehension this subject rouses in people is testament to what people really think of the matter. Some would like for it to be this "non-issue," but apprehension always, always betrays apathy.
The measure will never pass, but the good thing is that it is providing an opportunity for the citizens of this nation to educate themselves.
Intactivists, let's make the most of it.
I'll keep this short, as I've already blogged twice about the subject, here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/san-francisco-circumcision-ban.html
...and here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/religious-freedom-parental-choice-or.html
Now, as I've said before, I don't delude myself; I know that this measure simply could not pass. Our country is still pretty much blinded by its own cultural bias to see its double-standards.
But all is not lost, the fact that such a measure is even being proposed is forcing this nation to question something that is otherwise just joked about.
If you visit the website for the ban, you can see how just many news outlets have already picked the story up:
http://mgmbill.org/sfmgmbill.htm
The citizens of this country can no longer ignore the elephant in the room. The apprehension this subject rouses in people is testament to what people really think of the matter. Some would like for it to be this "non-issue," but apprehension always, always betrays apathy.
The measure will never pass, but the good thing is that it is providing an opportunity for the citizens of this nation to educate themselves.
Intactivists, let's make the most of it.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
San Francisco Circumcision Ban
At the end of last year, a man named Lloyd Schofield made the news by announcing his resolve to ban circumcision in San Francisco. The ban would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise boys, and offenders would be punished with a fine of up to $1,000 or up to a year in jail. To put the ban on the ballot for the November election, Schofield would have had to collect 7,000 signatures. On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, Schofield submitted 12,265 signatures to the city's Department of Elections, far exceeding the amount necessary for the initiative, and emotions are running high.
Supporters of the ban cite that there is already a federal ban on female circumcision, only instituted in 1996. The ban makes any kind of genital alteration to a girl’s genitals, major or minor, illegal, and there is no exception for religious, traditional or cultural reasons. Those who oppose the ban, however, assert that male and female circumcision “aren’t the same,” and that such a ban would infringe on “parental rights” and “religious freedom.” On my blog, I will discuss some of the topics and arguments that come up whenever this ban is brought up.
Too much government intervention
People opposed to the ban often pout that “the government is taking over our lives.” They cite the latest crackdown on McDonalds' happy meal toys as an example of how San Francisco is taking government intervention to ridiculous proportions. While I will agree that the happy meal law is ridiculous, comparing the selling of happy meal toys with a permanent, cosmetic, surgical alteration of a child's genitals is a gross non-sequitur. Furthermore, I must point out how the government already intervenes, and in many cases, it is a welcome intervention.
Quite frankly, if parents had the freedom to do whatever they want with their children, there would be no need for child protective services. If parents could get away with doing whatever they want with their children by mere virtue that they are their children’s parents, then there would be no such thing as child abuse. Parents fed up with their children would be allowed to beat them limp, parents who felt like it could engage in sexual acts with their children, and if they wanted to, they could toss them into the bay. After all, they ARE the parents, and who is the government to stick its nose where it doesn’t belong?
No, sometimes the government does need to intervene; not all acts on a child are justified because a parent performs or endorses them.
This ban would infringe on parental choice and religious freedom
Directly related to what I have discussed above, this statement bemoans “government intervention,” and it seems to imply that an act is justified when it’s a “religious ritual.” The fact of the matter is that yes, even when it comes to religion, when it involves the abuse of children, the government can and does step in. Can snake handlers involve their children in their rituals? Can Jehovah’s Witnesses deny blood transfusions to their children? Can Muslims slash their children’s heads on the Day of Ashura? Can people where female circumcision is a custom have their daughters circumcised?
The fact of the matter is that there is already a federal ban on female circumcision, and there is no exception for “religious,” “traditional” or “cultural” reasons. Female circumcision is a custom in certain African tribes, and it is observed as “Sunnah” by Muslims all over the world, including different countries in Africa, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. The federal ban criminalizes female circumcision in any way, shape or form, and it infringes on the “parental rights” and “religious freedoms” of people from these countries, and yet nobody seems to mind.
This anti-Semitic act is an attack on Jews
Because circumcision is a religious blood ritual central to Jewish identity, the proposal of this ban is already being pawned off as a deliberate act of anti-Semitism. This accusation might hold water, if the ban specifically banned Jews from circumcising their children. I must remind readers that in America circumcision isn’t exclusive to Jews. Only about 3% of all circumcisions that happen in this country are Jewish brisim performed by mohelim; the rest are secular circumcisions performed at hospitals.
Male and female circumcision are not the same
Somehow, advocates of male circumcision have managed to keep the thoughts “Female circumcision is mutilation” and “Male circumcision is religious, cultural tradition” in their heads simultaneously, albeit in different compartments. Whereas they give importance to “religious tradition” and studies that show circumcision might have “medical benefits” in male circumcision, female circumcision is condemned a priori.
“Male circumcision and female circumcision are not the same,” claim advocates, “because male circumcision is an important religious tradition.” “Female circumcision is meant to subjugate a woman, and control her sexuality, and anyway, male circumcision has health benefits.” Advocates of male circumcision go to great lengths to keep male and female circumcision separate in their heads, to maintain the harmony between venerating the same act as “religious tradition” and “prophylactic surgery” in males, while condemning it as “genital mutilation” in females. But closer examination reveals that none of these alibis actually hold any water.
While advocates of male circumcision defend male circumcision as “important religious tradition,” somehow it escapes them that female circumcision is also. While they condemn female circumcision because its purpose is to “subjugate women” and “diminish their sexuality,” actually, so was male circumcision. Rabbi Maimonides says in his Guide for the Perplexed that diminishing the male organ was precisely the whole reason behind circumcision, and John Harvey Kellogg marketed circumcision in America as a way to stop masturbation.
"...with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is... the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible...
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision...
...violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened."
~Rabbi Moses Maimonides
"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind...In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." ~Dr. John Harvey Kellogg
“Female circumcision,” claim some, “completely eliminates a woman’s ability to orgasm.” Most Americans accept without question that “female circumcision is so much worse than male circumcision, because it involves the complete excision of the clitoris, cutting off of the labia, and the sewing up of the vaginal opening to leave a small hole for menstruation,” and not much evidence is needed to substantiate these claims. The reality is much different however.
In reality, there are quite a few varieties of female circumcision, and not all of them involve the removal of the clitoris and/or the sewing up of the vaginal opening. The WHO divides the severity of female circumcision into four different categories. According to an article in the New York Times “A Cutting Tradition,” the kind of female circumcision most people in the West are familiar with is actually the rarest kind of female genital mutilation. Cutting off the clitoris, outer labia and sewing the remaining opening so that it heals together can be called “infibulation” or “pharaonic circumcision,” and it comprises of only 15% of all female circumcision globally. The rest isn’t as severe, and contrary to popular belief, even women who have undergone the worst kind of female circumcision are able to orgasm.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496293/abstract
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975
Believe it or not, female genital mutilation exists in the West, albeit not in the sense that most people think. There are surgeons that offer cosmetic surgery to women who would like to have their labia reduced, and/or completely removed, and/or remove their clitoral hoods. This is also female genital mutilation, but the difference is that when it happens in a clinic in the West, the procedures are euphemised in scientific terms. The reduction or complete removal of the labia is called "labiaplasty," and the removal of the clitoral hood is called "unroofing." Don't believe me? Google these terms. When it happens in the African bush to girls and women against their consent, these self-same procedures are condemned as "female genital mutilation." What makes them acceptable in the West is medically euphemising it, the same way we prefer to call the removal of the foreskin "circumcision." Additionally, and this is at the crux of the argument against male infant circumcision, women undergo these procedures out of their own volition.
Incidentally, "studies show" that labiaplasty can increase sexual satisfaction for both the woman and her partner.
http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/labiaplasty-clinical-study.html
From the site:
- The study found an overall satisfaction rate of 97.2% for women undergoing labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction
- An overall satisfaction rate of 83% in women having a vaginal tightening procedure (vaginoplasty/perineoplasty), and 91.2% for women combining both “outer” and “inner” work
- Sexual satisfaction with 92.8% of women having both experienced improvement in their sexual satisfaction
- The data also revealed that those women undergoing vaginal tightening (vaginoplasty) reported an estimated 82.2% overall improvement in their partner’s sexual satisfaction as well.
Quite a contrast from what we're told, that female genital mutilation, nicely couched in clinical terms here, "reduces" or "elliminates" a woman's ability to orgasm.
Readers, please do not conflate my pointing out of the facts with wanting to justify female circumcision. I am against the forced genital mutilation of ALL sexes. My purpose is to underscore the blatant sexist double-think with which we often dismiss male infant genital mutilation. Often the justification for male infant circumcision is "it doesn't reduce or affect a man's sexuality like female circumcision does." I have just shown proof that female circumcision doesn't always deminish or elliminate a woman's sexuality. In fact, as shown above, "studies show" that it may actually IMPROVE it. The point that I'm trying to drive home is that the same alibis do not equally justify the forced genital modification of both sexes.
Female circumcision can range from infibulation to a simple prick to draw blood. Last year, in May, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) tried to endorse a “ritual nick” for girls. The idea behind this was that if a “ritual nick” were available here in the US, then parents would be less inclined to take their girls abroad to undergo more severe forms of female circumcision. The AAP itself admitted that the severity of the “ritual nick” would be dwarfed in comparison to male infant circumcision. The month of May did not pass before the AAP was forced to retract their statement. The world had spoken loud enough for the AAP to get the message; under no way shape or form will any doctor come near a girl’s genitals with a knife, not even for as much as a “ritual nick.”
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html
Of course the list of “reasons” why male and female circumcision “aren’t the same” doesn’t end here. Female circumcision is supposed to be much much “worse” than male circumcision because it is performed on girls and women who are old enough to remember, it is performed in the bush, with no pain killers, by an amateur using dirty utensils like rusty razor blades and glass shards. In some cases, girls bleed to death. Of course, many boys and men are circumcised in pretty much the same way in those same exact countries. Every year, in South Africa, scores of young men die as a result of ritual circumcision, and many more lose their entire penises to gangrene, but this is accepted as “tradition.” Besides, in the West, baby boys are circumcised in pristine hospitals using sterile utensils by a professional. But would we accept circumcision in baby girls under these same circumstances? Are these acts universally acceptable when performed on infants that will be “too young to remember?” Or do these double-standards only apply to baby boys, and only when regarding circumcision?
It is often said "female circumcision is worse than male circumcision because it is performed in newborns, where they will be unable to remember." Actually, most Americans are unaware that in the Muslim and Filipino tradition, boys are circumcised at a much older age. They only know that female circumcision happens to girls and women...
Kurdish girl being circumcised
Muslim boy being circumcised
...but do they feel the same sympathy for the boy being circumcised not too far away?
In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes circumcision to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.
Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons. (Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")
It is only through sexist double-think that we allow ourselves to feel disgust for only one of these pictures.
American readers may yet dilute themselves saying "babies who are circumcised as newborn boys, like we do here in the US, can't remember a thing." But does "not remembering" really make the act any more justifiable?
For readers who stomach it, I encourage you to visit these blogs. Here, parents in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore discuss their baby daughter's "sunat" pretty much the same way American parents talk about their son's circumcisions online. Here too, the subjects of permanent genital modification will also "not remember" what has happened to them. But does this fact justify the act here? What is the list of things that you can do to a child because "s/he can't remember?" And isn't this, the taking advantage of the defenseless, the very definition of abuse?
Blog links here. CAUTION - Not for the squeamish:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
http://www.mummysg.com/forums/f40/have-you-sunat-your-girls-29826/
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot.com/2010/10/sunat-baby-girl.html
Male circumcision has health benefits
When the undeniable equality of the situation begins to become unmistakably obvious, when "religious freedom" and "parental choice" begin to fail as alibis for permanent genital modification, the conversation inevitably has to be directed to all the potential “medical benefits,” however dubious they may be. Circumcision advocates start to talk about how “studies show” a circumcision “helps prevent” this or that disease. They will not talk about the controversies surrounding the studies, or the fact that even if they were without controversy, the “benefits” that circumcision affords are already easily attainable by means that don’t involve radical genital surgery.
Advocates are careful to mention that circumcision “reduces the risk of UTI,” but not that UTI is already more rare in boys than in girls, and it is easily treatable with antibiotics. They’ll mention that “studies show” that “circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer,” but not that the rate is already 1 in 100,000 men that smoke and don’t practice good hygiene. (1 in 6 men will get prostate cancer; by this logic removing our children’s prostates is more urgent.)
Right now, the biggest anti-foreskin canard is the claim that circumcision “reduces the risk of HIV by 60%.” Circumcision activists parade the latest trials in Africa as circumcision’s ultimate vindication. They’ll never mention, however, the real world evidence. In other African countries, HIV was found to be more prevalent among circumcised men.
In the following African countries, HIV was found to be more prevalent among the circumcised:
Cameroon table 16.9, p17 (4.1% v 1.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR163/16chapitre16.pdf
Ghana table 13.9 (1.6% v 1.4%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR152/13Chapter13.pdf
Lesotho table 12.9 (22.8% v 15.2%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR171/12Chapter12.pdf
Malawi table 12.6, p257 (13.2% v 9.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR175/FR-175-MW04.pdf
Rwanda , table 15.11 (3.5% v 2.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf
Swaziland table 14.10 (21.8% v 19.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf
According to USAID, "There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
See also:
"Conclusions: We find a protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries for which there are nationally-representative HIV seroprevalence data. The results are important in considering the development of circumcision-focused interventions within AIDS prevention programs."
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2197431
"Results: ...No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries."
http://apha.confex.com/apha/134am/techprogram/paper_136814.htm
According to Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims. In Malaysia the majority of the males in the Muslim population are circumcised, whereas circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community. This means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.
http://www.mmail.com.my/content/39272-72-percent-aidshiv-sufferers-malaysia-are-muslims-says-council
In the 2010 Global AIDS report released by UNAIDS in late November, the Philippines was one of seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections. Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20110102-312124/Philippines-HIVAIDS-problem-worries-UN
Despite circumcision being near-universal, it hasn't stopped HIV transmission in Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/failing-the-aids-test-1.249088
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/israeli-gays-shun-condoms-despite-worrying-rise-in-aids-1.249372
http://www.haaretz.com/news/has-the-aids-cocktail-worked-too-well-in-israel-1.258520
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hiv-diagnoses-in-israel-climb-new-cases-among-gays-up-sharply-1.248651
And circumcision advocates will conveniently forget to talk about the fact that circumcision hasn't stopped HIV in our own country.
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/1998/19981125_global_epidemic_report_en.pdf
And, it hasn't stopped other STDs either.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/13/us-infections-usa-idUSTRE50C5XV20090113?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
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.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177
But here's the kicker: What if there were "studies" that said the kind of circumcision performed in say, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, "reduced" the likelihood of some disease? What if “studies showed” that female circumcision “reduced the risk of HIV transmission?” Would that make female circumcision in baby girls OK? Because there are few studies that show precisely this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
Additionally:
"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
http://www.islamictreasures.com/manners-of-welcoming-the-new-born-child-in-islam-sku16723.html
On the surface, circumcision advocates care about a myriad of "health benefits." Doctors that pretend to be on the fence often step back and say "circumcision has pros and cons, and it's up to parents to weigh them." But would they ever consider the "health benefits" of circumcising baby girls? Would doctors allow parents to "weigh the pros and cons" of female circumcision? And if parents felt that it was medically advantageous to have their daughter's labia and/or clitoral hood removed, would they be legally obliged to perform labiaplasties/unroofing in baby girls? Incidentally, apart from male infant circumcision, for what other non-theraputic surgery do doctors allow parents to make their own diagnosis and assessment?
WOULD we ever consider the "health benefits" of female circumcision? Would we ever be supportive of further "research" into the matter? WHY is it we're so interested in "studies" and "medical benefits" when it comes to male infant circumcision only?
Well what about abortion?
It seems circumcision advocates think they're very clever when bringing up the abortion debate. "You're so pro-choice, and you don't want the state telling you what to do with your body, yet you support government intervention when it comes to a parent's choice to circumcision?" - they ask, oblivious to the crux of the argument; banning male infant circumcision IS about choice, and it IS about the right to a person's body.
I've already talked about the limitations of "parental choice." The abortion debate is a red herring. The fact of the matter is neither side of the abortion debate can consistently argue in favor of circumcision. It is hypocritical to be for a child's "right to life," but not for the right to his genitals. It is inconsistent to be against chopping up a child in his mother's womb, but in favor of chopping him up as soon as he comes out. It is also hypocritical to apply "my body, my choice" to just the mother. Circumcision, is a personal choice, and at such, it belongs to the person in question. Healthy infant boys never "choose" this for themselves.
Well what about ear piercing?
What about it? I’m against the piercing of baby girls’ ears too, though I don't think piercing a child's ears can compare to cutting the ear off. If doctors were giving baby boys prince alberts, even without cutting off the foreskin, I'd still be against it. And if doctors were performing ear piercing and using "medical benefits" as a pretext, you can bet that I'd be at the front of that line.
Let’s talk about a similar cosmetic procedure that adults get, but that they have gotten in trouble for imposing them on children; in the recent past, parents have gone to court for tattooing their children. In one case in Fresno, CA, a father was taken to court for tattooing his street gang symbol onto his child’s abdomen. Infant circumcision was actually brought up as a parallel. If parents have the “right” to circumcise their (male) children, and the right to pierce their daughters’ ears, then doesn’t it follow that they should be allowed to tattoo their children?
No, said the courts.
It’s a non-issue!
Circumcision is a very touchy taboo subject. It’s sexual, dirty and vulgar, and bringing it up rouses people’s passions and emotions on either side. When it is brought up, people do what is within their power to put an end to the conversation and change the subject quickly. If male infant circumcision is this "non-issue" and "not a big deal," then why does it anger people so much to bring it up in conversation? The tension, passion and emotion that the mere mention of this subject arouses in people is manifest of what people actually think about the subject.
What I find amusing is how people try to minimize the situation. If people could "care less," then what's the big deal with ending the practice? In places where girls and women are circumcised, they don't think it's "such a big deal either." Just as men in this country say "I was circumcised, and I'm fine," so do the women in countries where female circumcision is practiced.
A still from Bondo: A journey into Kono womanhood, a documentary by Sunju Ahmadu. Following an assertion by a Freetown-based Nigerin doctor and anti-FGM activist, that African women do not understand ‘wellness’ and think that sexual intercourse is only for reproduction, two young Kono girlfriends, one excised and one not, discuss their personal experiences and beliefs about whether excision affects sexual pleasure. The excised woman expresses confidence in her ability to experience complete and even greater sexual fulfilment than her unexcised friend, and reaffirms her pride in being a bondo initiate.
So men who are circumcised in child hood are "confident" in themselves. They feel they weren't violated, and can feel sex as good as the next guy, if not even "better." But if you go to countries where women are circumcised, so do the women. The sexist double-standard is that this "confidence" in having "gotten over" forced genital modification that happened such a long time ago, the minimizing of it into something that's "not such a big deal" can only be used to justify it in boys; only when it is done to girls is it considered "female genital mutilation," and this is not legitimized by adult women's sour grape attitude after the fact.
Conclusion
For better or for worse, female circumcision is also an important "rite of passage," and a "religious rite." Parents in countries where baby girls are circumcised say that it's "a little snip," and some even say that male circumcision is worse. But in this country, one parent's "freedom" is another parent's crime. The federal ban on FGM also infringes on "religious freedom" and "parental choice." Many decry the latest proposal in San Francisco as an "infringement on parental rights and religious freedoms." But how much do we care about those really?
Determined to justify their own religious practice and traditions, and blinded by their own cultural bias, circumcision advocates jump the "religious freedom and parental choice" ship, to the "medical benefits" life raft. But upon closer analysis we realize that that boat don't float either. "Studies show" that female circumcision might also have "medical benefits," but we don't seem to be interested in such "research." "Studies," it seems, only matter as far as justifying male circumcision goes.
Circumcision is a loaded topic, and under most other circumstances, the conversation gets shut down. Though it is a "non-issue" and most people are "over it," for whatever reason people would rather not talk about it. And this, I believe, is the true value of this proposed ban. The mere proposition of putting a ban on circumcision on the ballot has gotten this country buzzing. News outlets all over the nation are picking it up, and perhaps for the first time in history, the people of this country are being forced to question their own cultural values.
I do not delude myself; I know that this ban will never pass, not the way things stand now. But at the very least, it is forcing this country to confront a double-standard that they have been ignoring for so long.
Bottom line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Nor is it a congenital deformity or a genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue found in all males at birth.
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.
Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less giving their parents any kind of "choice."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)