Voters Asked to Ban Circumcision

[Mark]

SF Voters Asked to Ban Circumcision

A ban on circumcision could end up on San Francisco's November ballot.

A voter in the city says he will submit more than 12,000 valid signatures to the elections office today. That's more than the 7,200 needed to get the measure on the ballot.

The proposed new law would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise a person before they are 18-years-old.

"We don't come at this from a religious angle," Lloyd Schofield told the San Francisco Examiner. "We feel this is a very harmful thing. Parents are guardians. They are not owners of children. It's a felony to tattoo a child."

The Department of Elections has 30-days to review the signatures and determine if the measure qualifies for the November ballot.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Voters-Asked-to-Ban-Circumcision-120698339.html

[Kilika]

"We don't come at this from a religious angle," Lloyd Schofield told the San Francisco Examiner. "We feel this is a very harmful thing. Parents are guardians. They are not owners of children. It's a felony to tattoo a child."

That says it all. Their attitude is that children don't actually belong to the parents, so I guess that means they belong to the greater community?

Tattoo? If anything, if calling it body art, it's not a tattoo, it would be defined as scarring and body modification, technically. But it's not art in any way. It's been hotly debated for many years whether it's medically beneficial or not. It's done for medical and/or religious reasons.

[Mark]

SF Circumcision Ban To Appear On November Ballot

In November, San Francisco voters will be asked to weigh in on what was until now a private family matter: male circumcision.

City elections officials confirmed Wednesday that an initiative that would ban the circumcision of males younger than 18 in San Francisco has received enough signatures to appear on the ballot. The practice would become a misdemeanor.

Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that should not be forced on a young child.

But opponents say such claims are alarmingly misleading, and call the proposal a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms.

The initiative's backers say its progress is the biggest success story to date of a decades-old nationwide movement to end circumcision of male infants in the United States. A similar effort in Massachusetts last year failed to gain traction.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/27941438/detail.html

[Kilika]

So what's the Jewish community's thoughts on this? I would expect them to be screaming from the rooftops in protest.

[Mark]

Ban on Circumcision Could Become Law in Santa Monica

Circumcising a boy under the age of 18, even for religious reasons, may soon be against the law in Santa Monica.

A proposed ban on circumcision is already on the November ballot in San Francisco.

Now supporters of the MGM Bill, which stands for male genital mutilation, are hoping to do the same in Santa Monica.

Female circumcision, or also called female genital mutilation, is already outlawed in the U.S.

Jenna Troutman, a spokeswoman for the group MGM Bill and founder of the website wholebabyrevolution.com, says males should get the same protection.

The group describes circumcision as a painful and unnecessary procedure.

But according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV, urinary infections and the transmission of STD's.

Circumcision of male infants is a religious requirement in Judaism and some say a ban would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The proposed measure in San Francisco would "make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or **** of another person who has not attained the age of 18,"

Under the San Francisco measure, circumcising a boy would result in a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-circumcision-ban-santa-monica,0,857021.story

[Mark]

Oy vay! Foreskin Man sparks cutting-edge scandal
Campaign literature sports Aryan superhero battling stereotyped Jewish 'Monster Mohel'

An organizer behind a growing campaign to outlaw circumcision for infant boys now has created a comic book specifically targeting that Jewish practice, and critics say he's gone too far by using Nazi images and stereotypes.



"This comic is modern anti-Semitism at its best. It is one story to fight against circumcision, and another to portray Jews in a false anti-Semitic stereotype. The Jewish depictions look like they came right out of Nazi Germany propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s," wrote Hailey Dilman in a commentary at Digital Journal.

The comic is called "Foreskin Man" by MGMBill Comics. Its first edition was launched last year by Matthew Hess, who is president of the campaign lobbying for a vote that would end "male genital mutilation."

A vote is scheduled on that proposal is San Francisco in the fall, and in support of that effort, Hess released a second edition of the comic.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, the comic book's "Monster Mohel" and its "grotesque anti-Semitic imagery and themes" are "disrespectful and deeply offensive."

(Story continues below)

Read more: Oy vay! Foreskin Man sparks cutting-edge scandal http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=308237#ixzz1OZyzukHb

[Kilika]

The standard fallback experts; the ADL. 

If there is any group that knows racism, it's the ADL.

[Mark]

The standard fallback experts; the ADL. 

If there is any group that knows racism, it's the ADL.

You should really check out the comic. for once i agree with the adl. 

http://www.foreskinman.com/

Its in the second issue, not that the first is any better, but it just goes to show this whole circumcision ban thing is just an attack on God. The second issue is really bad.

[Kilika]

Oh, I have no doubt that it's down right evil. I was just taking the opportunity to point out the fact that the ADL is a bunch of racists themselves, and how ironic it is that they have such a racist organization comment about racism.

My point is that the media always falls back to asking the "experts", and it's many times the ADL that they call on for comments on stuff like this.

Even false prophets tell half-truths, but that doesn't make them credible experts.

But yeah, I have no doubt that this whole thing is really a religious attack, and has nothing to do with medical issues.

[Mark]

gotcha... 

[Mark]

San Francisco ban on circumcision a cut too deep for the faithful

“I can guarantee you a person who receives cutting on his genitals as an infant is not getting any religious uplifting from the event,” said Lloyd Schofield, the measure’s proponent in San Francisco. “When you do it when you’re older, you’re making a choice and it’s meaningful to you. We want to stop this and put choice back in the hands of men.”

The Jewish circumcision ritual is traditionally performed on the eighth day of a boy’s life. Rather than upend thousands of years of tradition, Jewish groups have joined with legal professionals, doctors and elected officials in opposing the measure through the recently formed Committee for Parental Choice and Religious Freedom.

“We’re opposing the ban on the grounds of religious freedom,” said Nancy Appel, Anti-Defamation League associate regional director. “San Francisco has a reputation for crazy things happening here, but we are concerned that this may embolden others.”

If it does pass, the proposal could face a legal challenge on First Amendment grounds, given that it denies Jews and Muslims their right to free exercise of their religious beliefs, said Joel Paul, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.

Even placing the issue on the ballot violates the Constitution’s establishment clause, regardless of the election’s outcome, he said.

“No religious group should have to defend its convictions in a general election,” Mr. Paul wrote in an email. “Religious minorities should not be forced to persuade the majority that their religious practices should be allowed.”

rest: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/13/for-faithful-san-fran-ban-on-circumcision-a-cut-to/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+delicious%2Fgqlf+%28Christian+Headlines+Top+Headlines%29

[Kilika]

The Jewish circumcision ritual is traditionally performed on the eighth day of a boy’s life

That's the heart of the matter right there. THAT is what they oppose. They oppose Israel and everything about it. If Jews aren't allowed to practice their religion, then what right do other people have to exercise the religious beliefs that circumcision should be done at an older age? That's a double-standard, which is typical of the world.

[Mark]

Correct, this has nothing to do with the actual procedure itself. Its the fact that it was given to the Jews by God.

Also the Muslims pratice this, for the same reason, although God didnt give it to them, so i wonder how that will play out once they realize that its going against the muslims also.

[clarkhudson]

Lloyd Schofield, a San Francisco resident, has successfully gathered 7,700 valid signatures in his plan to legally prohibit male circumcision. It was confirmed by election administrators that his proposition will be on the city's November ballot. However, he is being opposed by U.S. Representative Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), who's suggesting a bill, referred to as the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011, which tries to stop San Francisco and other cities from banning circumcision. I found this here: San Francisco to vote on circumcision issue.

[Mark]

Judge moves to block San Francisco circumcision ban vote

San Francisco residents will not be voting in November on whether to prohibit circumcision after all, according to a tentative ruling by a Superior Court judge made public Wednesday.

Judge Loretta M. Giorgi ordered the city’s director of elections to strike the measure from the ballot because she said  it was “expressly preempted” by the California Business and Professions Code.

Under that statute, only the state is allowed to regulate medical procedures, and “the evidence presented is overwhelmingly persuasive that circumcision is a widely practiced medical procedure,” the ruling said.

Proponents of the ban argue that circumcision is akin to male genital mutilation and should not be allowed. A group of doctors, families and community groups sued last month to get the measure off the ballot, arguing that it was anti-Semitic and violated state law.

Giorgi ruled that “it serves no legitimate purpose to allow a measure whose invalidity can be determined as a matter of law to remain on the ballot after such a ruling has been made.”

She is expected to finalize the decision at a hearing Thursday morning.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/judge-moves-to-block-san-francisco-circumcision-ban-vote.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+delicious%2Fgqlf+%28Christian+Headlines+Top+Headlines%29

[Mark]

Male circumcision rates at hospitals dip: CDC


The number of baby boys getting circumcised in hospitals has dropped slightly in the past decade, health experts said on Thursday.

Researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed data from three national surveys to track changes in hospital rates of circumcision, which involves removing the foreskin of the ****.

In one survey, newborn male circumcision rates fell to 56.9 percent in 2008 from 62.9 percent in 1999. In another, rates of circumcision fell to 54.7 percent in 2010 from 58.4 percent in 2001. In a third, rates fell to 56.3 percent in 2008 from 63.5 percent in 1999.

The CDC said the figures likely underestimated the actual rate of circumcisions because they did not include circumcisions performed within communities.

rest: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/02/us-male-circumcision-idUSTRE78141H20110902

[Mark]

German Court Makes Circumcision for Religious Reasons a Crime

A German court has ruled that circumcising male infants for religious reasons, as Jews in particular have done for thousands of years, constitutes grievous bodily harm and is a crime, regardless of parental consent.

A public health specialist who is also a traditional Jewish circumciser called the ruling “stupid,” suggesting Wednesday that while “politically-correct modern liberal thinkers” would not be open to persuasion about Jewish values, they should at least consider studies finding wide-ranging health benefits from the procedure.

Anti-circumcision groups – “Intactivists” – welcomed the ruling and urged courts elsewhere to follow suit.

In a ruling bound to fuel a long-running debate over circumcision, a regional court in Cologne said Tuesday that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents.”

“A child’s body is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision,” German media outlets quoted the ruling as saying. “This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later about his own religious affiliation.”

“The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised,” it said.

For Jews, however, circumcision of baby boys at eight days has been a key tenet of faith for some 4,000 years. Prescribed by God in Genesis 17, it symbolized that a person was in covenant with his Creator.

The removal of the foreskin is also a rite of passage in Islam – sometimes at birth, sometimes at seven or at puberty. In some African cultures, circumcision plays a part in manhood rituals in the mid- to late-teens.

Millions of parents in America and other western countries routinely circumcise their baby boys, for reasons including hygiene, health benefits or family tradition.

The case in Germany arose when prosecutors charged a doctor in a lower court with grievous bodily harm, after a four-year-old Muslim boy he circumcised experienced complications and bleeding.

That lower court acquitted the doctor, on the grounds he had acted with the parents’ consent and so had been within the law.

In Tuesday’s regional court decision, the acquittal held, since the court said the doctor was not aware that the procedure was illegal. Now that the court has declared it so, the ruling may well set a legal precedent applicable in future cases.

The head of Germany’s Jewish Central Committee, Dieter Graumann, called the ruling an “outrageous and insensitive act.”

Prof. Fred Ehrlich of the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at the University of New South Wales in Australia has circumcised thousands of boys, both as a surgeon and as a mohel, an official Jewish circumciser.

Invited to respond to the court ruling, he told CNSNews.com Wednesday it was “stupid, if nothing else, but then we know the law is an ass.”

“There is no way of persuading politically-correct modern liberal thinkers of the role of Jewish values, but they missed the latest statistical research data,” Ehrlich said.

Over the past decade or so, studies have found significant health benefits from the practice, including a lower risk of contracting HIV-AIDS among heterosexual men, lower rates of infection from the virus that causes cervical cancer among the wives or partners of circumcised men, and most recently, a slightly lower risk of developing prostate cancer.

“Circumcision is akin to vaccination,” Ehrlich said. “It has significant benefits in preventing urinary infection in infants, with its small but not negligible mortality rate, in preventing AIDS in adulthood, in preventing penile cancer as well as cervical cancer in female partners.

“There is no doubt about the benefit of circumcision, so all we need to do is find out the best time.”

The ideal age was undoubtedly the biblically mandated eighth days after birth, Ehrlich argued.

“Our Patriarchs were on the ball because neonates profit most – urinary infection, phimosis – the operation is easiest and can be done with local anesthetic and the earlier the better,” he said. (Phimosis is the inability to retract the foreskin.)

“The first few days of life may be associated with excessive bleeding but the blood clotting mechanisms are improved by about one week of age,” Ehrlich said. “So, the eighth day is close to the perfect time to carry out this public health measure – forget about the Jews.”

Critics, such as the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in the U.S. and the International Coalition for Genital Integrity (ICGI) strongly oppose what they regard as a medically-unnecessary procedure, which some critics say amounts to mutilation.

“We applaud the German court ruling, that acknowledges the rights of all children to genital autonomy and believe that courts worldwide should follow suit,” NOCIRC executive director Marilyn Milos said in response to queries.

“From the baby’s perspective, circumcision is an assault,” ICGI director Dan Bollinger told CNSNews.com. “The German court realizes this, too.”

“The consensus among Intactivists I’ve talked to is that this ruling is the latest in a long line of rulings and legislation increasing children’s rights,” Bollinger added. “Intactivism is at the same chaotic stage as Women’s Liberation was fifty years ago and Abolition was a century-and-a-half ago.”

He said the U.S. Constitution “guarantees that all citizens, including children, have an inalienable right to be secure in their own bodies. Parents cannot run roughshod over children’s rights whether they are being mean or mean well.”

Georganne Chapin, executive director of another group, Intact America, called the ruling “clear-headed and consistent with the principles of universal human rights.”

“Just as western democracies have adopted laws against the genital cutting of girls, irrespective of the culture or religious beliefs of their parents, we believe that it is only a matter of time before all western democracies refuse to tolerate religious or cultural justifications for the genital cutting of boys.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/german-court-makes-circumcision-religious-reasons-crime

[Mark]

German Circumcision Ban Rooted in Anti-Semitism?

In a ruling that should give Jews in Germany pause for thought, the District Court of Cologne outlawed circumcision. The court further stated that parents don't have the right to impose their faith on a child.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center told CBN News, "There's not a snowball's chance in h--l the Jewish people would ever look to a German court, especially when it comes to how we should define our values or fulfill our traditions."

"The declaration of one person in a German court will have zero impact on the Jewish people who have been filling the commandment of brit milah (the covenant of circumcision) since the time of Abraham," Rabbi Cooper said. "The judge should have found another way without declaring that circumcision is illegal. His ruling is illegal."

A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry told CBN News they were not ready to comment yet because they don't know how binding the ruling is since it's only a district court.

The ruling followed a botched circumcision by a Muslim doctor on a 4-year-old boy. The court ruled that circumcision constitutes physical "damage" to children and therefore could not be protected under freedom of religion. Muslims also practice male circumcision though not necessarily during infancy, with some also advocating female circumcision.

Germany's Jewish community leaders called the ruling "outrageous and insensitive."

In Judaism, brit milah has been practiced for millennia. It is based on God's commandment to Abraham and initiates the newborn into the faith of his forefathers. The procedure takes place when a male child is eight days old, the day when the infant's potassium level, which helps blood to clot, peaks, medical researchers later discovered.

This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations … And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant. (Gen. 17:10-14)

The ruling by Cologne's district court is not the first evidence of anti-Semitic leanings in the city.

The Jerusalem Post reports that in 2010, Cologne's public prosecutor dismissed a petition against a cartoon depicting a man with a Star of David eating a Palestinian child using a fork draped in an American flag, a knife with the word "Gaza" etched on it, and a glass filled with blood next to the plate.

The prosecutor ruled the cartoon did not qualify as anti-Semitic because it didn't fulfill the criteria of incitement to hatred.

Germany is not alone in the attempt to ban ritual circumcision. Sweden, Norway, Holland and Finland, as well as two groups in California, have also tried.

In 2011, a group in San Francisco gathered 12,000 signatures in support of a measure outlawing male circumcision under the age of 18 regardless of a family's religion. But a judge in California ruled the ordinance would infringe on religious freedom and it was removed from the ballot. Gov. Jerry Brown later signed a bill preventing future such attempts by local authorities.

Rabbi Cooper says all of it comes from the same root.

"Whether it's a court in Germany or an elitist group of politicians in Norway or activists in San Francisco trying to protect the health of American youngsters, it all goes back to the same root," he said.

"The Jewish people's commitment to brit milah outlived Stalin, Hitler and all the other tyrants who understood the importance of brit milah to the Jewish people. In the former Soviet Union, Jews put their lives on the line in order to get a brit milah," the rabbi said.


http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2012/June/German-Circumcision-Ban-Rooted-in-Antisemitism/

[Mark]

Germany pledges to protect religious circumcision

The German government on Friday pledged quick action to protect the right of Jews and Muslims to circumcise baby boys on religious grounds, after a court ruling that prompted international outcry.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman Steffen Seibert told reporters it was "concerned" about the judgement published by a Cologne regional court last month calling the religious rite of circumcision a criminal act.

"It is absolutely clear to the federal government that we want Jewish, we want Muslim religious life in Germany. Circumcisions carried out in a responsible way must not be subject to prosecution in this country," he said.

"It is urgently necessary that we establish legal certainty."

He said that aides from Merkel's office would now discuss with the relevant government ministries ways to put the "ancient rite" on firm legal footing.

"It is clear this cannot be put on the back burner. Freedom to practise religion is a cherished legal principle," he said.

A spokeswoman for the justice ministry said that there were three options for new draft laws to protect circumcisions on religious grounds that were under "intensive" review.

The leader of Merkel's conservative parliamentary group, Volker Kauder, called for a cross-party resolution to this effect to be passed in the Bundestag during a session next Thursday, in an interview to be published Saturday in the daily Die Welt.

The Cologne ruling said religious circumcision of male infants was tantamount to grievous bodily harm, a criminal act subject to prosecution.

It concerned a case brought against a doctor who had circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy in line with his parents' wishes.

When, a few days after the operation, the boy suffered heavy bleeding, prosecutors charged the doctor.

The court later acquitted the doctor himself of causing harm but judged that "the right of a child to keep his physical integrity trumps the rights of parents" to observe their religion, potentially setting a legal precedent.

German diplomats admit that the ruling has proved "disastrous" to the country's image abroad, particularly in light of its Nazi past, following uproar from officials in Israel as well as Muslim countries.

European Muslim and Jewish groups banded together this week to criticise the ruling and called on German MPs to pass legislation protecting the practice.

Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the Conference of European Rabbis, who organised an "emergency" meeting in Berlin of around 40 Orthodox Jewish clerics Thursday on the judgement, called it "perhaps one of the gravest attacks on Jewish life in the post-Holocaust world."

Goldschmidt, also head of the rabbinical court of the former Soviet states, said if other judges went along with the Cologne ruling "it would mean that a large part of the (Jewish) community does not have a future in Germany".

Opposition leaders said Friday they would back a new law, with the head of the Social Democrats Sigmar Gabriel calling for "legal clarity" on the matter and Renate Kuenast of the Greens welcoming the fact that a "storm of outrage" had "finally led the government to see reason".

Legal experts, however, note that drafting legislation could prove tricky in balancing religious freedom on the one hand against "physical integrity" on the other.

Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger noted this week that even with a new law, a federal court would likely have the last word on the issue.

The Cologne judges' ruling is final and cannot be appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court.

But although it only applied to the case at hand, as long as no other judgement contradicts it and no new law is passed, attorneys say that doctors and parents run the risk of prosecution under the status quo.

http://news.yahoo.com/germany-pledges-protect-religious-circumcision-111738000.html?_esi=1

[Mark]

Is Infant Circumcision a Violation of Human Rights?

In the hubbub surrounding the American Academy of Pediatrics' endorsement of circumcision this week, a single question remains unanswered: Does infant circumcision violate basic human rights?

Though opinions abound, it is largely a question without consensus, thanks to a complicated stew of medical, legal, religious and cultural beliefs surrounding the issue.

The academy's position that circumcision provides life-long health benefits is based on new evidence and differs significantly from its last public position, in 1999, which held that there was insufficient medical evidence to make a recommendation for or against the practice.

The academy's new direction will surely entrench beliefs and practices of those who support it and redouble the efforts of those who oppose it.

In the U.S., neonatal circumcision rates have dropped from a high of over 90 percent in the 1970s to about 33 percent today. In Europe, a 10 percent circumcision rate is high. Many nations have much lower rates, with England, Scotland and Wales the exceptions at 20 percent.

For both Jews and Muslims, circumcision is a religious and cultural practice. Within the last few weeks, Germany outlawed the practice of male circumcision for any but the strictest medical reasons. An atypical alliance of Jews and Muslims successfully challenged the German court's ruling and Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised to make religious circumcision practices (on males, but not females) legal once again.

Meanwhile, Austria, Switzerland, Denmark and some other European countries are considering whether circumcision should be outlawed, all at a time when the globalization of the European workforce has brought an influx of people whose cultural and religious backgrounds require it.

Back in the U.S., outspoken opposition groups have proposed bans in Massachusetts, San Francisco and nationally. The San Francisco Fringe Festival in September will include a show titled "The Revolution Will Not Be Circumcised." In neighboring Canada, a "Foreskin Pride" parade was held recently.

Some American men feel so strongly about the damage done to them that they are working to restore their foreskins by stretching the remaining tissue to create what are humorously termed faux skins. To these men, circumcision is an abomination. Many are activists who lobby legislators routinely demanding legal protections for male infants just as female infants are already protected by the law.

The U.S. position is somewhat contradictory. Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has shied away from issuing a specific recommendation, U.S. foreign aid programs pay for adult men to be circumcised in several African countries where HIV/AIDS is rampant.

The U.S. military promotes and conducts circumcisions in many of these countries. This, too, is not without controversy. Although most African governments have supported these public health programs based on research findings that circumcision decreases the likelihood of HIV transmission by 60 percent, some Africans complain this is just another American effort to manage, control and even emasculate African men.

Thus, the new academy statement stirs the waters in which already swim a variety of cultural practices, personal beliefs and religious arguments for circumcision, as well as a large number of anti-circumcision groups advocating the opposite position. Add to the mix the occasional lawsuit against doctors, hospitals and/or parents who circumcised an infant believing it was in the best interest of the child. A lawyer in Atlanta specializes in malpractice cases involving botched circumcisions (including the Kentucky man who woke up finding his entire **** removed), and doctors in several cities specialize in cosmetic adult circumcisions and even re-circumcisions.

The human rights issue emerges out of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in 1948, which proclaims that everyone has certain basic rights that supersede local laws, religious practice and cultural traditions. These rights include the right to life, liberty and security of person.

This declaration raises the thorny question of whether the decision to permanently alter one's body belongs only to that individual. It is a question not likely to go away. An international symposium will debate the matter in Helsinki in September, and the debate elsewhere will surely continue.

William M. O'Barr is a professor of cultural anthropology, sociology and English at Duke University. He is completing a book titled An Anthropologist Looks at Circumcision in American Life.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-m-obarr/circumcision_b_1840060.html

[Mark]

Berlin declares circumcision legal, but only if performed by a doctor — not as a ritual

State does not authorize mohels, requires that parents be informed of the procedure’s medical risks before consenting

One of Germany’s 16 states has declared circumcision legal, but only if performed by doctors — not, as required by Jewish law, by mohels.

Berlin, Germany’s capital and itself a state, is the first to declare the practice legal following a Cologne court ruling in June that non-medical circumcisions on children amounted to a criminal offense, according to DPA, a German news wire. National legislation is pending to legalize circumcision.

State Justice Minister Thomas Heilmann made the announcement Wednesday, saying he felt it necessary to allay fears in this “difficult transitional period,” the Associated Press reported.

The Berlin state has authorized only doctors, and not mohels, to perform circumcisions. National legislation could authorize mohels. The state also required that parents be informed of the procedure’s medical risks before consenting, and that doctors do everything possible during the procedure to reduce pain and limit bleeding.

June’s court ruling led many doctors to stop performing circumcisions in order to avoid being prosecuted. So far, complaints based on the ruling have been filed against two rabbis, although one complaint was dropped last week.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/berlin-declares-circumcision-legal-but-only-if-performed-by-a-doctor-not-as-a-ritual/

[Kilika]

That is so silly. It's like saying a person can't baptize because he might drown the person! They would have to have to be a certified hydro engineeer authorized in the movement of water within city limts, permited accordingly.

[Mark]

City Board, Citing Health Risk, Decides to Regulate Circumcision Rite

The New York City Board of Health passed a regulation on Thursday that will require consent from parents before an infant can have a form of Jewish ritual circumcision, prevalent in parts of the ultra-Orthodox community, in which the circumciser uses his mouth to remove blood from the incision.

 In a morning meeting, the nine-member panel of doctors and public health professionals said that though the regulation had been challenged by some Orthodox Jewish religious authorities as an unconstitutional infringement of their religious freedom, the risk of disease from the ancient procedure was serious enough to warrant action.

Indeed, some panel members said they believed that requiring consent did not go far enough. “It’s crazy that we allow this to go on,” said Dr. Joel A. Forman, a professor of pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

Infectious disease experts widely agree that the oral contact, known in Hebrew as metzitzah b’peh, creates a risk of transmission of herpes that can be deadly to infants, because of their underdeveloped immune systems. Between 2004 and 2011, the city learned of 11 herpes infections it said were most likely caused by the practice. Two of those babies died; at least two others suffered brain damage.

While most ritual circumcisers, known as mohelim, no longer use oral contact to pull blood away from the circumcision incision — they use gauze or sterile glass pipettes instead — the practice has been strongly defended by ultra-Orthodox Jewish rabbis who believe the practice is both safe and faithful to Talmudic codes. More than 200 ultra-Orthodox rabbis have ordered their adherents not to comply with the regulation.

“This process is being created without a shred of evidence,” said Rabbi William Handler, one of a few ultra-Orthodox Jews who gathered outside the meeting in protest. “The city is lying, and slandering compassionate rabbis.”

In an effort to educate parents, the city will now require ritual circumcisers to inform parents in writing if they will use direct oral contact during the circumcision, and must receive their written consent. The consent form states that the health department advises against the procedure because of the possibility of herpes transmission, which may cause brain damage or death. The mohelim must keep that permission document for one year.

Failure to comply may result in warning letters or fines to the mohelim. Enforcement, though, will be based on investigation of specific complaints and herpes cases, not spot checks or raids, and there are no mandatory punishments, said Dr. Jay K. Varma, the city’s deputy commissioner for disease control.

Orthodox groups, including Agudath Israel of America and the Central Rabbinical Congress, have announced that they plan to sue the city to block the regulation, which is scheduled to go into effect 30 days from official publication of the rule.

“We are convinced that this amendment will be thrown out by the courts,” said Rabbi David Niederman, a Satmar Hasidic leader.

The city believes about 3,600 male infants are circumcised with direct oral suction each year and estimates their risk of contracting herpes at roughly 1 in 4,000. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called the procedure unsafe and recommended against it.

But among doctors that work with ultra-Orthodox families, there is some doubt whether regulation is the right course.

“They feel that if their child doesn’t have the metzitzah b’peh, he is not Jewish, so this, to them, is the most important act that they can do for their son in life,” said Dr. Kenneth I. Glassberg, the director of the division of pediatric urology at Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital at NewYork-Presbyterian.

“Medically, I don’t approve of it,” he added of the oral contact, “but if you’re asking me, ‘Does it cause harm?’, I haven’t seen enough proof that it causes harm.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyregion/health-board-votes-to-regulate-jewish-circumcision-ritual.html?_r=1

[Mark]

Three months after circumcision ban, German government to legalize rite

Cabinet will approve a bill allowing professionally trained mohels to perform brit milah. ‘After legal safety, we need emotional safety,’ says German-Jewish leader

The German government is set to pass legislation that would legalize ritual circumcisions if they are performed by a medical professional, allowing local Jews to breathe a sigh of relief three months after a local court criminalized the rite and criminal charges were filed against two rabbis.

German-Jewish leaders welcomed the bill, a copy of which has been obtained by The Times of Israel. The cabinet in Berlin will discuss the 26-page bill next Wednesday, after which it will proceed to the floor of the Bundestag, where it it is expected to be voted into law within the coming days.

“It is a clear political signal that Jews and Muslims are still welcome in Germany,” said Dieter Graumann, the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. “We are happy that Jewish commandments and Jewish life are not being pushed into illegality.”

rest: http://www.timesofisrael.com/three-months-after-local-court-banned-circumcisions-german-government-to-legalize-rite/