Efforts to Ban Circumcision Gain Traction in California By JENNIFER MEDINA Published: June 4, 2011 SANTA MONICA, Calif. When a group of activists proposed banning circumcision in San Francisco last fall, many people simply brushed them aside. Even in that liberal seaside city, it seemed implausible that thousands of people would support an effort to outlaw an ancient ritual that Jews and Muslims believe fulfills a commandment issued by God. But last month, the group collected the more than 7,100 signatures needed to get a measure on the fall ballot that would make it illegal to snip the foreskin of a minor within city limits. Now a similar effort is under way in Santa Monica to get such a measure on the ballot for November 2012. If the anticircumcision activists (they prefer the term intactivists) have their way, cities across the country may be voting on whether to criminalize a practice that is common in many American hospitals. Activists say the measures would protect children from an unnecessary medical procedure, calling it male genital mutilation. This is the furthest weve gotten, and it is a huge step for us, said Matthew Hess, an activist based in San Diego who wrote both bills. Mr. Hess has created similar legislation for states across the country, but those measures never had much traction. Now he is fielding calls from people who want to organize similar movements in their cities. This is a conversation we are long overdue to have in this country, he said. The end goal for us is making cutting boys foreskin a federal crime. Jewish groups see the ballot measures as a very real threat, likening them to bans on circumcision that existed in Soviet-era Russia and Eastern Europe and in ancient Roman and Greek times. The circumcision of males is an inviolable requirement of Jewish law that dates back to Abrahams circumcision of himself in the Book of Genesis. They say the proposed ban is an assault on religious freedom that could have a widespread impact all over the country. Beyond the biblical, there are emotional connections: checking for circumcision was one of the ways Jewish children could be culled from their peers by Nazis and the czars armies. People are shocked that it has reached this level because there has never been this kind of a direct assault on a Jewish practice here, said Marc Stern, associate general counsel for the American Jewish Committee, an advocacy group. This is something that American Jews have always taken for granted that something that was so contested elsewhere but here, were safe and were secure. Mr. Hess also writes an online comic book, Foreskin Man, with villains like Monster Mohel. On Friday, the Anti-Defamation League issued a statement saying the comic employed grotesque anti-Semitic imagery. Jena Troutman, the mother of two young boys who is promoting the ballot measure in Santa Monica, said she did not think of herself as a crusader against religion. Instead, she views her work as a chance to educate would-be parents against a procedure that can really do serious damage to the child. I am just a mom trying to save the little babies, Ms. Troutman said. Id rather be on the beach, but nobody is talking about this, so I have to. Ms. Troutman has run the Web site wholebabyrevolution.com for two years, and she is fond of rattling off sayings like Your baby is perfect, no snipping required. Well versed in the stories of circumcisions gone awry, she said the recent death of a New York City toddler who was circumcised at a hospital convinced her that she should push for the ballot measure. Ms. Troutman, who has worked as a lactation educator and a doula, said she often approached women on the beach to warn them about the dangers of circumcising, but she has declined to answer questions about her own children. Although precise numbers are not known, several studies have indicated that circumcision rates have been declining in the United States for the past several years and now range from 30 percent to 50 percent of all male infants. Many medical groups take a neutral approach, saying that the practice is not harmful and that there is not enough scientific evidence to conclude that it is necessary, and leave the decision to parents and their doctor. Several studies have linked circumcision with a reduction in the spread of H.I.V. Roughly half of the 694 baby boys born in the Santa Monica-U.C.L.A. Medical Center and Orthopaedic Hospital in 2010 were circumcised before they left the hospital, officials there said. Dr. David Baron, a family physician, certified mohel someone who performs ritual circumcision and former chief of staff at Santa Monica-U.C.L.A., said that he would not press any parent to circumcise a son but that he viewed the effort to ban the procedure as ridiculous and dishonest. To say it is mutilation is wrong from the get-go, Dr. Baron said. It is a perfectly valid decision to say that it is not what you want for your child. Any doctor who says it is needed is not being honest, but to say that it needs to be banned is shocking. If the ballot measure passed, it would certainly face legal challenges. But several legal experts said it was far from certain that it would be struck down in a court. Ms. Troutman said she considered putting religious exemptions in the measure, but then decided, Why should only some babies be protected? Rabbi Yehuda Lebovics, an Orthodox mohel based in Los Angeles who says he has performed some 20,000 circumcisions over several decades, said he often had to soothe nervous mothers. I am now doing the sons of the boys I did 30 years ago, Rabbi Lebovics said. So I turn to the new mother and ask, Do you have any complaints in the way it turned out? Circumcision in California
Wrong! I've been with both cut & uncut, & believe me...uncut feels much better. Just sayin'... And I agree that the decision should be left up to the guys after they turn 18. Exactly why none of my 3 sons were circumcised at birth-& so far, they're not complaining! (19, 17 & 14)
I think both alternatives (ban on infant circumcision and letting the parents decide) have some merit, and I dont really have an opinion on which one is better.
The ban on female circumcision makes sense. A ban on male circumcision works up to a point... Banning Jews from having this done would likely be shot down as an infringement on freedom of religion, however. Otherwise, it would take a federal ruling to establish that circumcision isn't a procedure defensible by freedom of religion.
My most recent girlfriend had never been with a cut guy until me, but she now seems to prefer it. ...just sayin'... lol
Yeah, those "pro-circumcision idiots"...: Circumcision Rates Are Way Down...Despite the Facts Regarding STDs Circumcision rates have gone way down. Researchers found that the procedure is somewhat less common today than it was 10 years ago. The report was written in light of research that proves circumcision greatly reduces the risk of contracting HIV and numerous other STDs during penile-vaginal sex. The study explains: "The publication of three recent studies showing that circumcision of adult, heterosexual men reduces their risk for acquiring human immunodeficiency virus infection and other sexually transmitted infections has stimulated interest in the practice of routine newborn male circumcision." Aside from HIV, several other sexually transmitted diseases have long been associated with a lack of circumcision. These include genital ulcer disease and chlamydia. Infant urinary tract infections and penile cancer have also been linked with STDs. Maria Wawer, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health adds: "What we've found is that male circumcision is protective against a wider range of infections than we previously thought, including reducing the risk of acquiring herpes, though it's not 100 percent protective. The mucosal layers under the foreskin are a prime target for the entry of viruses, particularly H.I.V." The new report reveals that in all three measurements used by the CDC, the number of circumcisions performed dropped five percent. One study, the National Hospital Discharge Survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, showed that of the nearly 20 million babies surveyed, fewer than 12 million were circumcised between 1999 and 2008. That's a decrease from 62.5% to 56.9% over that decade. Women who have sex with uncircumcised men appear to be at higher risk of cervical cancer. And a lack of circumcision has been linked to the spread of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. HPV can cause cervical cancer. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/233821.php (*)(*)(*)(*)ed doctors, trying to prevent diseases all the time....how "barbaric" of them...right?
Harm is an interesting term... if you fracture a babies jaw, and it has no memory of it, and heals fine, did you do it no "harm"? I am curious how those against circumcision feel hermaphroditic babies should be addressed... and how they feel about pierced ears before 18. I am curious how those for circumcision feel about female circumcision and breast feeding till 9.
I don't understand these crybabies who whine b/c they had been circumcised - what's done is done. Then to suggest it should be the male's decision when he turns 18?! I'd heard men talk about having it done later in life - like for a medical reason - and they said the pain was excruciating..... My son was circumcised when he was 2 days old. No muss, no fuss and most importantly, he has no memory of the pain......... Interesting article.
My son was when 1 day old. I still like uncomfortable questions on both sides. I accept that I did my son minor harm he will not remember that he will eventually benefit from and be thankful for. However I fall against baby ear piercing. A circumcision is less likely to be infected, and puncturing a child for jeweled adornment seems as bizarre to me as cutting off a foreskin is to some. I am also curious how you feel about women who breastfeed WAY beyond social acceptability .
Circumcisions shouldn't be banned unless they aren't done in first world countries. In those third world countries it amounts to mutilation, but in America we do circumcisions with care and anesthesia to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering. As long as circumcisions are humane, they are protected by religious freedom rights.
I agree, ear piercings have no medical benefit. Circumcisions do, the risk of losing sensitive skin that enhances sexual pleasure to protect from infection has a good risk to reward benefit. Furthermore from a religious point of view, enhanced sexual pleasure from extra foreskin leads to more sin and temptation. If circumcisions can mitigate some of that temptation to sin, it is a moral sacrifice.
To answer your question about baby ear piercing - every time I see a baby girl w/EARRINGS digging into her tiny ears, it makes my TEETH RATTLE! It's DISGUSTING! Let the baby be a baby and they're pretty enuf w/o that cheap charlie junky jewelry stuck on them..... Ctrl, I really believe these women who breast-feed beyond babyhood has a serious mental problem. I don't know what it is, but to me.... it's not normal and it sure isn't good for the child. There's different ways to bond w/your kid w/o having them at your boob for every dinner time.... teeth and all.... Besides that, I think it would take the child longer to learn to be independent if they're still being breast-fed at the age of 2-3-4.... that's not mothering them, that's smothering them... very mentally unhealthy for both.
There's an expression for this kind of mothering and couldn't think of it - now I remember..... it's called 'attachment parenting' - and some people thinks it's wonderful. These mothers also 'wear' their babies all day long, in these sack things they hang over their shoulders... cooking, washing, cleaning - they're wearing their baby instead of putting it down so it can learn to move, crawl, play w/toys, learn what babies need to learn....... It's a very different world out there......
Just because a baby cannot articulate pan, and the memory has no way to file it, does NOT mean that the pain had "no effect"! Studies of medical procedures done without anesthesia show marked negative effects on health and recovery, and on a child's mental state.
There are also "health benefits" to having fingernatilas and toenails permanently removed at birth - you certainly will not contract infections from ingrown nails that can lead to amputation, and germs cannot reside and infect you from under our fingernail tips! But people foolishly would stop a parent from having this done to their baby because there is not a massive religious and puritanical lobby to have made it seem "normal". Aside from the Jewish lobby who wants EVERYONE circumcised to prevent a repeat of the Nazi era where circumcision was able to be used as a sting indicator of Jewishness, it became extremely popular in the Elizabethan Puritan era, where it was widely recommended by doctors as way reduce sensation in the penis and thus, theoretically gets a boy to "self-pollute" (masturbate) less, and helps him avoid the then well-known dangers of "mental illness", "moral decay", "dissipation" and "homosexuality" that occurs from frequent sessions of polishing the shaft. Anti-masturbation devices. How did we "decide" that circumcision was a "good idea"? By the sexual obsessions of religious nutcases! http://www.cracked.com/article_19520_5-insane-ways-fear-masturbation-shaped-modern-world.html
Actually, that's not true. The surveys I've seen state that women like the feel of the foreskin better than just the bare penis head. Maybe you should start a poll.
I suppose there may be some folks opposed to snipping the umbilical cord as well, but I don't think this is a matter of such majestic consequence as some males would fancy. Those who subscribe to the homunculus theory - that an actual person appears at the instant of conception - may want to ask them, but I doubt if they could care less. Can it be long before evening television fare features commercial messages with prissy golfers in lizard shirts schmoozing about viagra, incontinence, and their synthetic foreskins? What a country! (Hi, Boomer! Oakland's Oracle!)
