No circumcision in San Francisco? Jews, Muslims sue to stop proposed ban

Jennifer and Jeremy Benjamin (left) talk to Leticia Preza (on right, holding her six-month-old) at news conference in San Francisco on June 22, 2011.

/ AP Images

(CBS/AP) Cut it out. That's the message a group of Jews and Muslims want to deliver to proponents of a proposed circumcision ban scheduled to be on the ballot in San Francisco ballots this November. And now they've taken their message to court.

The group filed suit on Wednesday to block the measure banning male circumcision, arguing that California law bars local governments from restricting medical procedures.

"It's a measure that would basically infringe upon my rights as a Muslim to practice here," said plaintiff Leticia Preza, 31, who has a 4-year-old son and baby daughter. "It would also take away my rights as a parent to choose what's a good procedure for my child."

Other plaintiffs share similar sentiments. "As Jews, we take the threat of banning circumcision personally," said Jeremy Benjamin. "This measure singles us out, along with the Muslim community, as illegitimate and unwanted in our own city."

The city by the bay is set to be the first U.S. city to hold a public vote on banning male circumcision, after city officials confirmed last month that the initiative had enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

The proposed law would ban circumcision on males under the age of 18. What if a child is born into a religion that requires circumcision? It wouldn't matter - the scalpel wielder would face a misdemeanor charge punishable by a $1,000 fine or up to one year in jail.

Supporters of the ban say male circumcision is an unnecessary, painful, form of genital mutilation that parents should not be allowed to force on their child.

But the measure faces fierce opposition, especially among Jews and Muslims who consider circumcision a sacred religious rite. They say the ban would violate their constitutional rights.

International health organizations promote male circumcision to help reduce the spread of the AIDS virus, but there hasn't been the same kind of push in the U.S., because nearly 80 percent of American men are already circumcised, compared with a 30 percent average worldwide.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says the procedure cuts both ways. In its official policy statement on circumcision - updated in 2005 - the academy says circumcision has the potential to reduce the risk for bladder infections and help prevent transmission of sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS. But they also say there's anecdotal evidence of potential downsides, like pain and a reduction in sexual sensation.

No matter how you slice it, this is one emotionally charged debate.

Tell us what you think about male circumcision.

[Born-Jewish]

I was born Jewish and circumcised in accordance with the Law. Today having discarded the magical thinking and fluff of Judaism, I am still left with the ugly scar of circumcision. Yes it affects sex, and causes impotence to occur much more frequently and earlier.

I am left with the "mark" and a mutilated *****, that belongs to a religion that I am not a part of. My religious rights were violated, my body used as a sacrifice to a God, that doesn't exist. So much for my religious freedom, eh?

Children should be protected from rape, molestation, and sexual assault, even if it is their "loving" parents who want to do it.

Pass the law, let them sue.

[Uncle_Jeebers]

Amen, brother!

[marcetienne1]

Even the slightest ceremonial pinprick of a baby girl's genitals is illegal. Why it is ok to remove an infant boy's healthy sexual organ that has over 20,000 erogenous nerve endings and is the most sensitive part of an infant boy's *****? www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html

Male circumcision is equivalent to removing the clitoral foreskin, one of several types of female circumcision all of which are illegal to perform on infant girls even though the harms and (purported but false) health benefits are the same.
The Dutch Medical Association recently issued a report backed by 7 other medical associations finding infant male circumcision is harmful, has no medical benefit and infringes on a child's right to bodily automony. www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306

And a recent study in Denmark just found "circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfillment." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947

The South African Medical Association just denounced infant male circumcision as unethical and illegal and expressed "serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission."

http://www.intactnews.pfeyz.com/openpublish/article/south-african-medical-association-denounces-circumcision-infants

The Dutch Medical Association's May 2010 report, backed by 7 other national medical associations, concluded:

"Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical or psychological complications."
"Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child's right to automony and physical integrity."
"There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as there is for female genital mutilation."
"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene."

www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306

British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons' 9/09 report declared:

"There is no evidence to support routine circumcision of newborn and infant males."
"The stated benefits of protection against urinary tract infection are marginal, and do not justify mass circumcision. Our changing understanding of the relationship between urinary tract infection and chronic renal disease further weakens the case for routine circumcision."
"There is evidence that circumcision does result in memory of painful experiences, and is not quite as simple and low risk as your report suggests."

www.smh.com.au/national/letters/no-evidence-to-support-routine-circumcision-20090911-fkna.html#ixzz1P8R3xMTG

Australian College of Physicians' 9/09 report declared:

"The benefits of infant male circumcision that have been promoted over time include the prevention of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases, and the reduction in risk of penile and cervical cancer. Current consensus of medical opinion, including that of the Canadian and American Paediatric Societies and the American Urological Society, is that there is insufficient evidence that these benefits outweigh the potential risks. That is, routine infant male circumcision, i.e. routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended."

www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf

[md2205]

Any surgery is a form of mutilation. Hey, ear piercings are not to be allowed because they are a form of mutilation. If you say ear piercing doesn't hurt, well, my five sons were circumcised by a mohel and were given a bit of wine as anesthesia and they didn't cry during the procedure. I believe that circumcisions in the hospital by a doctor hurt because they use a different procedure than a mohel does.

[michaelkmooney]

To read a fully-referenced article that debunks the nonsense supporting circumcision, see: http://www.wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=5792

[intactive]

No, Brokennews, the proposed age-restriction (not a ban) would recognise that a male's genitals (like a female's) are HIS property - not the state's, not his parents', and not their religion's.

[rf35]

Let the vote go forward and then try to sue if it passes. I don't think Jews should be able to use their children to advertise their religion. What if the male child overcomes religious brainwashing or just wants to convert to a religion that doesn't require removal of any body parts?

As for Muslims, who cares?

[Directphoto]

Omigod.. is this why I was Circumcised as a baby? What about My choice? I didn't have one.

[KOTFrank]

In 1950, Dr. Eugene Hand, a supportor of Circumcision, reported 41 cases of Jewish infants contracting tuberculosis from mohels, "History of Circumcision" page 574.
Doctor Jewish American Scholar Anthropologist Leonard Glick on "Circumcision" youtube video interview by Bonobo3D tells of other transmission of disease by mohel sucking the newly circumcised. http://*******.com/6ybqb6h
(Muslim) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKJnZ8YuHkk

Weird Didn't know I was anti-Semitic til I spoke out against slicing off little boy's ***** tips. Low standard these days. Religion is no excuse for carving up your kid!! Your religion is not above the law of decent human ethics.

Science News "Half of adult males carry HPV" Male circumcision and the use of condoms have shown little protection against HPV infection, Monsonego says.
Swaziland Times "More circumcised men are HIV positive"
All Africa "Uganda: New HIV/Aids Messages Worsening HIV Situation"
CircumcisionAndHIV "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells" Lot De Witte
The Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) 2010 Circumcision Statement:
"There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene."

Would organizations such as the WHO, UNAIDS or UNICEF ever consider "research" on female circumcision? If "studies showed" that female circumcision "could reduce the risk of sexually transmitted HIV/AIDS by 60%",
would these organizations ever endorse it and call for mass female circumcision campaigns? Would you, Annie Lennox, ever get behind them? Why or why not?

I hope that I have brought attention to the underlying sexism in this campaign to circumcise a mass population of men. "Research" and "benefits" seem to matter only when it comes to male circumcision; female circumcision would NEVER be endorsed, not even if there were "studies" that said that it
reduced HIV risk by 100%. I'm sure of it.

Here are some studies that show a correlation between female circumcision and a lowered HIV transmission rate. I somehow doubt that the WHO or UNAIDS would ever take them seriously though.

Stallings et al. 2009
"Risk of HIV among women who had undergone Female Circumcision is roughly half that of women who had not. Association remained significant after adjusting for region, household, wealth, age, lifetime partners and union status."
Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: For better or for worse?
3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment
International AIDS Society

"Women who have undergone Female Circumcision have a significantly decreased risk of HIV-2 infection when compared to those who had not."
Kanki P, M'Boup S, Marlink R, et al.
"Prevalence & risk determinants of HIV type 2
(HIV-2) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1
(HIV1) in west African female prostitutes
Am. J. Epidemiol. 136 (7): 895-907. PMID

You might tell me that female circumcision causes all this damage, that women lose the ability to orgasm. "Studies show" that male circumcision "doesn't affect satisfaction", and thus this is why circumcision can be recommended. But did you know, studies ALSO show that women who have been circumcised do not lose their ability to orgasm? In fact, women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital mutilation in the world, are still able to orgasm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html

Still, others claim that having one?s labia removed actually INCREASES "satisfaction."

http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/labiaplasty-clinical-study.html

Please understand that I am in no way trying to justify female circumcision: The point that I'm trying to make to you is that when something is wrong, when something is a human rights violation, it doesn't matter how many studies have been written for it. It doesn't matter if it?s couched in medical terms. It doesn't matter that it is performed in a clean environment by doctors, with clean utensils and pain killers. Genital mutilation is
genital mutilation, whether it is performed on women or men. "Male" is not a diagnosis. Foreskin is not a birth defect.

[KOTFrank]

What these religions are seeking is a gag order stop the political process of free speech. What a disgusting display might and power. Looks like a fight between DAVID AND GOLIATH except this time David is not Jewish and his name is not David. It's Lloyd Schofield. Everyone should have a RIGHT TO VOTE!

MGMbill has clear language to the effect that it neither regulates nor prohibits a legitimate medical practice. A medical practice is one that has a bona fide diagnosis of mobidity or functional deformity and meets generally accepted medical guidelines. Genital cutting for religious or cultural reasons does not qualify under the state law the MGM opponents are attempting to invoke.

OMG, This law "singles you out" does it? I didn't know most circumcised males in the USA are Jewish or Muslim. San Francisco mgmbill.org is all inclusive, no one gets special treatment as you would seek. The only exception FOR circumcision IS medical necessity which you did not bother to mention. It's not a total ban.Medical Circumcision-YES permitted. Cosmetic elective-NO becuase it's not medical! DUH.

There's no constitutional right to use children as billboards to inscribe your religious beliefs.

Hey circumcision is NOT an "good procedure":
The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations 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.
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

Male #circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark.(circumcision makes orgasm harder) http://*******.com/3zpo3uq

A young doctor who blogs says it should be criminalized. http://drpate.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/end-genital-mutilation-now/

Statement to Jewish Americans on #Circumcision by Ronald Goldman, Ph.D. #i2 #p2 http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/62011NewsRelease.htmHIV

Circumcision critic and Jewish, Rebecca Steinfeld calls it MGM, Male Genital Mutilation, is an Under 35 member of the 250 y.o. Jewish Chronicle Board http://t.co/T7bv4OU Steinfeld says"Men, too can be victims of unjust hegemonic systems tolerated in the name of tradition, culture or religion".

[JackieNO]

Baby boy pen is part removal should already be considered illegal under the 1996 federal law banning genital cutting -- 14th Amendment equal protection clause. Those saying that preventing the cutting off of pe nis parts of a baby boy violates the cutter's freedom of religion, are way out there in irrational land. One's religion ends where their knife touches another human's body. The idea that another human's ritual (rite) trumps ones right to body parts is insane and creepy. Baby boy pen is parts removal cuts off thousands of fine touch and stretch nerves. This is like disconnecting the fingertips or lips from the brain. No human should be subjected to sensory system harm as well as a forced decrease of sexual function and PLEASURE for life!

Non-therapeutic circumcision (NTC) of male minors violates the boys' rights to autonomy and to physical integrity.

The complications of NTC include loss of erogenous tissue (always), scarring, loss of sensitivity, sinus formation, painful micturition, erectile difficulties and psychological harm. The reason these side effects are not often discussed is that most harmed adults are too ashamed, many don't realize how their bodies have been modified and they face the humiliation of ignorant comments seeking to further humiliate them for speaking out. Also, each cut is different with some men have severe problems and others not having issues until they age. There is also woefully inadequate record-keeping.