Is Circumcision Quackery

Is Circumcision Quackery?Peter W. Adler, Esquire

ARC Legal Advisorhese are preliminary and unpolished (but hopefully useful or atleast provocative) thoughts as

to whether nontherapeutic circumcision is quack medicine. Which is alsoto ask: Are physicians who circumcisehealthy boys quacks?

Definitions. The word “quack” derivesfrom the Dutch word “quacksalver,”meaning a boaster or hawker who applies a salve. “Quacks” also loudlypromote their wares like quackingducks. “Quack medicine” is the promotion of products for profit as havingcurative powers that are unproven orineffective, or that may be harmful.According to the FDA, medicines andtreatments are quack medicine if theyare worthless or dangerous.Quackery can include deceit, such asfalsely portraying oneself as a doctor,or fraudulent medical practices. Ordinarily, “quack medicine” refers to falsemedical claims regardless of the promoter's intent. Thus, we are not askingwhether those who promote circumcision are frauds, although that will bethe next question.

Green Light forHome Circumcisions?

John V. GeishekerDoctors Opposing Circumcision,

Executive Directorircumcision is surely the onlysurgery that parents may freelyattempt at home. But since most

parents only have a few boys, they donot get much practice.Religious circumcision provides ‘cover’for the homespun variety by lending itsholy cachet and total lack of regulation.That is, because parents can allege thatthey had holy

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

Newsletter© ARC Spring 2013 Volume 10, Issue 1 (Whole Number 28)

Protecting Children's

Bodily Integrity

Attorneys for the

Rights of the Child

2961 Ashby Ave.,Berkeley, CA 94705

Fax/phone: 5104644530www.arclaw.org

email: [email protected]. Steven Svoboda......... Executive DirectorGeorganne Chapin.......... Technical AdvisorDavid Wilton....................... Legal StrategistPeter Adler.............................. Legal AnalystMarc Angelucci..... Gender Equity StrategistDavid Miller......... Director, ARC KentuckyDavid Llewellyn............. Litigation AdvisorAnthony Levin..... Director, ARC AustraliaTravis Konzelman. Networking CoordinatorJonathan Friedman... Web/Newsletter EditorJeff Borg........................... Graphic Designer

Associates of Attorneys for Rights of theChild receive no compensation. All contributions are tax deductible and go directlytowards paying the expenses of protecting

children’s genital integrity.Your comments regarding the ARC

Newsletter and its contents are [email protected]

2013 Genital IntegrityAwareness Week

Karen GlennonTue., March 26 – Mon., April 1

enital Integrity AwarenessWeek has come and gone andlike each of the last eight years

I have attended, I am left with lingering memories of conversations andfaces that I carry with me – some inspiring and some haunting.

C T

G Peter W. Adler

. . . continued on p.5

. . . continued on p.4 John V. Geisheker

Karen Glennon

. . . continued on p.7

page 2 Attorneys for the Rights ofthe Child Newsletter Spring 2013

Executive Director's MessageJ. Steven Svoboda............................ 2

Op-Eds

Inside this Issueell, what a remarkable rideour work to protect children’shuman rights has given us

lately. A number of surprising, mostlypositive events have taken place evensince our last newsletter that could neverhave been predicted. And among thegood news that we could have foretold, itcontinues to be the happy truth that somany folks are getting involved in intactivism that it is impossible for us to allknow each other.Fearless Newsletter Editor and Webmaster Jonathan Friedman continues to valiantly chip away at our numerousprojects, including keeping our websiteup to date and pounding out two or threenewsletters each year, whatever farflungportion of the globe happens to be hiscurrent location. Legal Advisor PeterAdler has kicked into even higher gear,with an upcoming publication about whycircumcision is illegal and two articles inthis newsletter issue. Our social networking team, including Social Networking Coordinator Travis Konzelmanand CircumcisionandHIV.com Curatorand attorney David Wilton continues toadd significant value to our efforts tokeep others updated on our efforts. Anthony Levin, formerly Director of ARCUK, has moved and is now Director ofARCAustralia.Right now I am hard at work writing apaper on the illegality of circumcision forthe medical ethics conference at Charleston’s Medical University of South Carolina in October. I am also writing apaper about developments in Germanyand worldwide regarding genitalautonomy for presentation at a conference at the University of Keele in the UKin September. A team of lawyers isworking with me to analyze the earlyhistory of three core United Nationsdocuments to prove human rights backing for a right to genital integrity.The Journal of Medical Ethics

(JME)—one of the world’s leadingjournals on medical ethics—is poised torelease its hotly anticipated special issueon circumcision, which includes two ofmy articles—more about those in aminute—as well as an article on circum

W

cision and the right to an open future bymy longtime collaborator Robert Darbyand an article on circumcision and parental rights by my regular coauthor,pediatrician Robert S. Van Howe, M.D.The JME paper by Bob Van Howe andme leads off the JME special issue, arguing that the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP’s) position regarding malecircumcision lacks credible support. Ourpaper has already led the JME to alsopublish a response by the AAP in whatour press release calls “an illfated attempt to justify the medically and ethically flawed arguments in its policystatement and technical report.”In the words of the JME’s own press release describing my other JME article,“Human rights lawyer J. Steven Svobodagoes a step further and argues that circumcision is a clearcut human rightsviolation, whether it is performed onboys or girls, and whether for religiousor secular reasons. Surveying the basis ofhuman rights law in Western societies,Svoboda shows that circumcision may beconsidered inconsistent with the mostwidely accepted interpretations of keyhuman rights documents, including theUniversal Declaration of Human Rightsand the United Nations Convention onthe Rights of the Child.”

Executive Director's Message

Steven Svoboda with his

kids Eli (11) and Sarita (8)

Is Circumcision Quackery?Peter W. Adler, Esquire.................... 1Green Light for Home Circumcisions?John V. Geisheker.............................1

GIAW 2013: March 26 April 12013 Genital Integrity Awareness WeekKaren Glennon................................. 12013 Genital Integrity Awareness WeekJonathan Friedman........................12“Bloodstained Men” ProvocativelyProtest their Circumcisions in D.C. asGenital Integrity Awareness WeekMarks 20th YearBloodstainedMen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14'Intactivists' Seek Support from GayMarriage SupportersBetsy Woodruff.............................. 14AntiCircumcision Protesters Cut IntoSupreme Court SceneBenjamin R. Freed......................... 15

Grassroots Intactivism

Bay Area Intactivists

Association of American MedicalColleges DemonstrationBrother K........................................23Protest Served at Physicians' AnnualDinnerJonathon Conte.............................. 25Intaction.org Clinton Protest

Human Rights Activists DemandClinton Foundation End Exploitationof AfricansIntaction. org...................................25

Spring 2013 Attorneys for the Rights ofthe Child Newsletter page 3

Intactivist attorney Rebecca Wald and JSS

Gillian Longley (left) ,

Miriam Pollack, and JSS

ARC Updates

More Than $80M Paid Out forBotched CircumcisionsHugh Young....................................18Steven's Los Angeles Radio ShowsOverview IntactivismARC................................................ 18In Search of Fatherhood Issues PressRelease Regarding ARC and AgainReprints Steven's WorkARC................................................ 19Steven Debating AAP's Dr. MichaelBrady at Doctors' Ethical ConferenceARC................................................ 19Richmond Journal of Law and thePublic Interest Publishes Article byARC's Peter AdlerARC................................................ 19ARC's Legal Advisor Submits Responseto AAP News ArticleARC................................................ 19

Contents of Special Issue on Ethics ofCircumcisionARC................................................ 16New Article Finds Fault With PediatricOrganization’s Support for Circumcision,Provoking a Formal ResponseARC................................................ 17JME Article by Steven and Bob VanHowe Favorably Mentioned by theJewish PressARC................................................ 18

JME Announcements

Our press release about the AAP waspicked up by the Orthodox Jewish publication The Jewish Press.Traffic to our website appears to havequadrupled in the wake of our recentlyreleased list of all known significant legal awards and settlements in circumcisionrelated lawsuits.This issue is stuffed with great contributions: 1) Legal Advisor Peter Adler provocatively argues that male circumcisionis medical quackery; 2) John Geishekercontributes his usual distinctive, thoughtprovoking meditation on the strange legal status accorded home circumcisions;3) Peter Adler strikes again with atrenchant response to a horrendous piecerecently published in the AAP News; 4)Exclusive to the ARC Newsletter, a special section on the expected CanadianPaediatric Society position statement onmale circumcision, including ARC’s recent letter to the CPS; 5) photoreports onGenital Integrity Awareness Week inWashington, DC; 6) reviews of two superlative recent books by friends of themovement, Robert Darby and R. CharliCarpenter; and 7) News reports includingthe Bill Clinton protest that receivedwidespread press attention.As always, we are more grateful than canbe expressed in words for the supporteach of you offers us, be it financial,emotional, logistical, as colleagues, or acombination of these roles. I have said itbefore and will keep on saying itwe literally could not do it without you! Ashas always been the case since we started, 100% of all taxdeductible donationsgo directly to defraying the costs of safeguarding children. Donations can besent to J. Steven Svoboda, ARC, 2961Ashby Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705, ormade through paypal at our website(www.arclaw.org/donate) or using thepaypal address [email protected] SvobodaExecutive Director

Steven and ARCWebmaster and

Newsletter Editor Jonathan Friedman

President Clinton's Event Disruptedby AntiCircumcision ActivistsDeirdra Funcheon..........................26Intaction Protesters Disrupt ClintonFoundation Event by Calling Attentionto African Circumcision ExploitationAnthony Losquadro........................ 26Stop Exploiting AfricansGary Costanza............................... 27


motives when the heat comes on, whatwould normally constitute child sex abuse gets a free pass.If that were not disturbing enough, wenow see a new trend: laws in Californiaand Germany protect home circumcisionfrom oversight or challenge. In NewYork, a new consent form ‘regularizes’septic and dangerous oralgenital contactof the bleeding boy. More such laws canbe expected.AngloAmerican law has always shortedchildren. They began as chattel and havebarely progressed to actual ‘person’ in800 years. The law has not yet focusedon the legality of nontherapeutic genitalcutting on male minors. But there aresome casebycase legal precedents forguidance.Being forced to call 911 is a red flagthat sloppy circumcision techniques wereemployed. This might embarrass the larger community, requiring a sanction forthe inept, if only for simply being inept.The number of ‘successful’ home circumcisions—no 911 call needed—iscompletely unknown.Bathtubs as surgical venues are not ideal,suggesting a convenient drain for hemorrhage, and thus, premeditation of therisk. Kitchen tables are problematic, withor without the dishes cleared. Kitchentables of urologists are perfectly OK.As for tools, linoleum cutters, huntingknives, swords, box cutters, etc., are notas tolerable as scalpels, due to the visual‘ick’ factor.Hemostasis is important—as the failuretherein is embarrassing to hearabout—and horse styptic powder, despitethe suggestion of maximum effectiveness, seems an inadequate agent for controlling bleeding.Ice is not the most convincing anesthetic,if use of anesthesia is claimed as a defense. No anesthesia is probably betterthan pathetic efforts—which suggest admission of pain—and are easier to defend in the courts as being similar toclinical settings. Wine as anesthetic for a

minor is okay if the minor is an infant.Older children—probably not so much.Age only sortof matters. Infants are always fair game. Unwilling 14yrolds?Less so. A 14yearold boy from Oregonresisted a forced circumcision occasionedby his Dad’s dubious religious conversion. His urologist testified under oaththat boy’s preferences were irrelevant,suggesting that boy would need to bedrugged or restrained. The boy won onremand after fiveyear struggle.Religious motivation claimed—no proofneeded—will be given HUGE accommodation. For example, Old Testamentmotives in hands of fundamentalistChristian are frowned upon, as onemother was sentenced to home probationafter botching her son's circumcision.Any good attorney could look at California's AB 768 and find the languageneeded to suggest that California lawgives a greenlight to homegrown circumcisions, providing a loophole a firstyear law student could drive a semithrough. The 2012 German law legalizing circumcision is similarly indulgent.Circumcision opponents have begun tocall such laws, accurately, “boxcutterlaws.”Were it not completely immoral for me, Iwould be prepared to defend a parentwho claimed in good faith to understandCalifornia law as an open invitation toobey Biblical mandates using tools athand—rocks, pot shards, sharpenedsticks—biblical style (cf: Abraham andIsaac). Or, this being the bronze age,copper knives.Yes, I’m bitter—sadly this is verifiable—but that’s because I have been do

Wine drips from the mouth ofan

8-day-old baby during a bris

(Jewish circumcision) ceremony

. . .Green Light for Home Circs? from p. 1

Canadian Pediatric Society

Pediatricians Set to Soften Stance onCircumcisionSharon Kirkey.................................21ARC Sends Letter to CanadianPediatric SocietyARC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Berkeley Symposium ProceedingsPublishedARC................................................ 20Steven's Paper on Genital AutonomyPublished, Praised by AntiFGC ScholarARC................................................ 20

Book Reviews

Review: The Sorcerer's ApprenticeReview by J. Steven Svoboda......... 28Review: Forgetting Children Born ofWar: Setting the Human Rights Agendain Bosnia and BeyondReview by J. Steven Svoboda......... 29

Consent Rule May Proceed for aCircumcision RitualSharon Otterman............................31Penn Researchers Charge OrthodoxMisused Report on CircumcisionRite, Claim Findings on MetzitzahB'Peh Were DistortedSeth Berkman................................. 31Circumcision Controversy EndangersFight To Keep Rite Legal in GermanyA.J. Goldmann, Donald Snyder

and Nathan Jeffay.......................... 32

Metzitzah B'peh

News

Queens Infant Disfigured in BotchedBris, Lawsuit ChargesJames Fanelli................................. 34Parents Sue South Carolina forSurgically Making Child FemaleHolly Yan and Joe Sutton............... 35


Quacks are often called “snake oil salesmen.” These were men who sold worthless remedies in North America duringthe mid19th century.Methods. What are the methods ofquacks, and do some American physicians and their trade associations usethose methods?As depicted in Westerns, quacks wouldcome unannounced to a new town, gather large audiences, build trust by claiming to be doctors and by having 'plants'in the audience, make as much money aspossible selling worthless products, thenget out of town quickly before peoplelearned that what they had bought had nomedicinal value. Quacks are in it solelyfor the money.Circumcision, likewise, is a multibilliondollar, verticallyintegrated businesswhich supplements the incomes of physicians and hospitals. The AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics (AAP) is a tradeassociation, after all. As such, it has aninterest not only in promoting the healthof children, but also in protecting the income of physicians.The 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision (TFOC)perhaps inadvertently concedes thatphysicians are in it at least in part for themoney. The opinion states that it is theproduct of a multidisciplinary task forceof AAP members and other stakeholders,including other medical associations (ofobstetricians, who perform most circumcisions) and medical specialists. “Stakeholder” means “a person or group thathas an investment, share, or [financial]interest in something as a business or industry.” Physicians are entitled to makemoney, but not by performing medically

unnecessary surgeries at the expense ofhealthy boys.Quacks aggressively promote theirproducts and cures. The AAP, representing all American pediatricians, has aggressively promoted circumcision since1971, even though in none of its officialstatements has it ever recommended thesurgery. For example, in 2012, the TFOCissued a press release to the media aboutthe supposed medical benefits of circumcision, and its claims were published inleading newspapers.An article in AAP News this April informs all American pediatricians that it isa good and acceptable practice to solicitconsent to circumcision from all parents.Years ago, a Harvard physician asked mywife and myself whether we wanted tocircumcise our newborn son, eventhough we had never given circumcisiona thought. American physicians and theirtrade associations certainly promote circumcision aggressively, while the RoyalDutch Medical Association counsels itsphysicians to use their best efforts to deter parents from circumcision.Quacks may claim that their product orservice has been “Used for centuries!”,suggesting that this proves its effectiveness. In litigation in San Francisco, aprincipal argument of the proponents ofcircumcision was that it has long beenthe most common surgical procedure inAmerica. How long a procedure has beenused has nothing to do with whether ornot it has medicinal value. Cave paintings depict drilling holes in the brain torelease evil spirits, and it used to becommonplace to use leeches to drawblood until fairly recently. Both of thesepractices are now considered ineffectiveand harmful.

Quacks are also known as “con men,”from the word confidence. They mustgain the trust or confidence of their victims. It is easy for physicians to gain thetrust of laypeople. After all, they havespent years becoming M.D.'s, while therest of us know next to nothing aboutmedicine. We have no choice but to trustand to rely upon physicians to be honestwith us about our health and the health ofour children.Quacks also may prey upon people's incapacity, emotions, and fears, as do someAmerican physicians in the context ofcircumcision. In America, where the surgery is commonplace, parents are likelyto be completely ignorant about the foreskin.For example, few Americans know thatthe foreskin is a moist mucous membrane, not an extraneous piece of skin,that it is fused to the glans at birth, that itprotects the glans from infection, or thatit has immunological properties. Physicians are unlikely to enlighten them: the2012 AAP opinion, for example, makesno mention whatsoever of the functionsof the foreskin, even though they are wellknown amongst the international community. Parents may never have discussed circumcision with their spousesbefore the birth of their child (my wifeand I had not), let alone with theirfriends.Physicians solicit consent from motherswhen they are recovering from givingbirth, usually with drugs, and are unlikely to be thinking clearly. In my case,my wife, a physician, told me, “you decide,” the only medical decision that sheever deferred to me in our thirty years ofmarriage. Thus, physicians who solicitconsent to circumcision from mothers

. . . Is Circumcision Quackery? from p. 1

ing this work fulltime, for nearly 14years, during which time more than 15million U.S. boys have been subjected tomedical fraud and the whims of parentsbesotted by 200BCE superstition, or 19thcentury antisexual superstitions that pregerm MDs invented and refuse to ‘uninvent.’ And, of course, the prospect foreasy money.

It is not much more complicated thanthat, I am very sorry to relate. John D. Geisheker details the astonish-

ing lack of regulation on home circum-

cisions in an article found here:

http://newmalestudies. com/OJS/in-

dex. php/nms/article/view/60

Baby Dies in Israeli Hospital FollowingCircumcisionYori Yanover .................................. 36R2.2m for Boy's Botched CircumcisionSharika Regchand ......................... 36


take advantage of their vulnerable position, of which physicians must be aware.In Europe, both parents must give theirconsent to circumcision, but in America,the consent of one parent is legally valid(if fully informed). Thus, physicians cantarget whichever parent seems morelikely to consent. Men make especiallyeasy targets. In 2000, approximately79% of American men were circumcised.American physicians know that fatherswho are circumcised often want their sonto “to look like them.” Physicians arelikely to tell parents that this is a validreason for choosing circumcision, eventhough that reason has nothing to do withmedicine.In soliciting consent, physicians are alsolikely to frighten parents by mentioningpenile cancer and HIV. The only reasonto mention these diseases to parents is tofrighten them into consenting, insofar asinfants are not at risk of penile cancer orSTDs, and circumcision does not preventthose diseases.In hawking their wares, snake oil salesmen would pretend that supplies werelimited or that time was limited, pressuring people to buy. Likewise, Americanphysicians often ask parents shortly afterthe birth of a boy, “Have you decidedwhether or not to circumcise your son?”,pressuring them to decide, when the parents may never have thought of it beforehand. And if parents say “no,” Americanphysicians reportedly often badger parents, pressuring and intimidating them.They may then claim, for example, thatcircumcision is best performed on newborns, who are best able to tolerate thepain. How many parents have said “no”only to be badgered until they said“yes”?Quacks are not “transparent”: they mayconceal the truth. For example, quacksdid not disclose the ingredients of theirelixirs—usually readily available fluids—until federal regulations required it.Similarly, the 2012 AAP circumcisionpolicy statement does not disclose conflicts of interest to the public, eventhough this is standard medical policy inpublishing articles. A person has a conflict of interest when his activities or in

terests can be advanced at the expense ofanother person. The 2012 AAP circumcision policy statement states that conflicts, if any, have been disclosedinternally, which is of no value to thepublic. I recently submitted a response toan AAP News article, and the AAP required me to publicly disclose conflictsof interest, yet it failed to do so itself inits 2012 opinion.Obviously, it is important to knowwhether the male members of the 2012AAP Task Force on Circumcision arecircumcised themselves (in which casethey are unlikely to oppose it), andwhether they are Jewish and believe thatcircumcision is commanded by their God(in which case it furthers their intereststo promote circumcision). Are they paidto circumcise? The probability is highthat many members of the TFOC haveconflicts of interest which they failed todisclose, so we should be suspiciousabout their medical claims.The TFOC's members did not includeany European physicians—who tend tobe opposed to circumcision—anyEuropean men with foreskins, any intactivists who are opposed to circumcision,any men seriously injured by circumcision, or any men angry to have beencircumcised against their will. Thus, theAAP did not seek or want unbiased opinions. In a recent article in the AAP's Pediatrics journal, a large group ofEuropean physicians stated that theAAP's 2012 Policy Statement on Circumcision showed an obviouscultural bias and was out of step with theprevailing view on the subject in Westerncountries.Even though many articles during thepast decade have questioned the legalityof circumcision, the AAP has simply repeated its claim that parents have theright to make the circumcision decisionfor religious, cultural, and personal reasons, which is to say for any reason, evenon a whim, without responding to arguments to the contrary. The AAP does notengage in an open dialogue with physicians, ethicists, lawyers, and intactivistswho hold opposing points of view. TheAAP does not appear to be interested infinding out the answer to: What ethicaland legal rules apply to circumcision?

When the AAP issued its 2012 circumcision policy statement online, it quicklystopped publishing replies. The AAP appears to be lobbying legislators behindthe scenes to reinstate Medicaid coverageof circumcision in some states withoutgiving the public an opportunity to comment, even though it has been compellingly argued that it is unlawful forphysicians to use Medicaid to pay forcircumcision. In short, the AAP is elusive, not transparent.Quacks often claim that their remedy is“backed by scientific studies,” and “citehundreds of publication, which may bemisinterpreted, outdated, irrelevant,and/or based on poorly designed research.” Physicians, ethicists, and lawyers have accused the AAP ofcherrypicking studies and of ignoringconflicting studies.Some quacks added turpentine to theirbottles to give them a medicinal smelland taste, which could have poisoned andkilled people. The TFOC claims that therisk of harm from circumcision is low,but contradicts itself by stating that itdoes not know the true extent of the injuries, though it certainly should. TheTFOC also does not refer to the oftcitedclaim in a published article that the surgery kills over one hundred Americanboys per year. The AAP implies that circumcision can be fatal only when performed in unsterilized settings. AttorneysFor the Rights of the Child has compileda growing list of settlements for negligently performed circumcisions, yetthere is no mention of these in the 2012AAP opinion.Thus, quacks act in callous disregard forthe safety and welfare of people they deceive. “Nor do quacks keepcount—while they fill their bank accounts—of how many people they lureaway from effective medical care intodisability or death.” A large part of theTFOC report discusses the supposed benefits of circumcision, with no evidentregard for the feelings or bodies of helpless newborn babies and injured men.According to American medical associations, infants tolerate circumcision painwell (in fact, often no anesthetics areused), and serious injuries are “untowardevents.” American medical associations


have never mentioned and thus do notseem to care that many men are angry atphysicians and their parents about circumcision, or that many parents regrethaving made the circumcision decision.In short, it certainly appears that the AAPand many American physicians use themethods of quacks to obtain consent tocircumcision.Quackery? Still, it remains to be asked,is circumcision quackery? Do Americanphysicians and their trade associationsmake unproven and false claims aboutthe surgery, and understate the risks? In anutshell, American medical associationsclaim that circumcision is a low risk procedure that improves the health of boysand men, like immunizations, but is it?1. Starting in the late 1800's, physiciansfalsely claimed that circumcision curedor prevented a long list of diseases suchas epilepsy, and even claimed that itcured all diseases, when there was noscientific evidence for the claims.2. “Parents have the right to make thecircumcision decision for religious, cultural, or personal reasons,” which is to

say for any reason. Parental consent tomedical procedures is invalid unless ithas a valid medical basis.3. “Physicians have a right to operate onhealthy boys” at the request of parents.Even if circumcision has benefits, physicians do not have the right that theyclaim to perform it.4. “Circumcision prevents penile cancerand STDs including HIV.” These claimsare highly contested. Penile cancer(which is extremely rare), and STDs including HIV all occur in the UnitedStates where a high percentage of menhave been circumcised.5. “Circumcision has potential benefits.”Even if it does, it still does not benefitthe vast majority of boys and men.6. “The benefits of circumcision outweighthe associated risks.” Given that few boysand men benefit at all from circumcision,and that it risks serious injury and death,the risks clearly outweigh the benefits,not the reverse as the AAP claims.7. “Circumcision is not harmful.” Circumcision harms all boys as by invading

living tissue, causing pain, increasingsensitivity to pain, possibly for life, andpossibly causing posttraumatic stressdisorder. It also leaves an “endless lineof wounded men” by removing up tohalf of the penile covering, disfiguringthe penis, reducing penile girth andlength, and leaving a scar, itself proof ofinjury.8. “Circumcision does not impair men'ssex lives.” Circumcision destroys normalsexual function, whereby the highlyelastic foreskin moves forward over theglans and back toward the base in a virtually frictionless “gliding action.” TheTFOC does not address studies showingthat circumcision removes the mostsensitive part of the penis, and reducessexual satisfaction for men and their female partners.Conclusion. Discharging healthy boysfrom hospitals with their genitals intactis good for their health. Cutting off theirforeskins is painful, dangerous, and badfor their health. Circumcision is quackery and physicians who circumcise arequacks.

This year marked the 20th anniversary ofDavid Wilson’s presence in WashingtonDC to be a voice for children, to teach ofthe harms of circumcision, the benefits ofa foreskin and advocate for the right of allchildren to have dominion over their ownbodies. We had a large crowd of intactivists to mark this milestone. It was wonderful to see representatives from themajor intactivist organizations present:NOCIRC, Intact America, Saving OurSons, Peaceful Parenting, The WholeNetwork, and ERIC to name a few. It’salways great to hear Marilyn Milos andGeorganne Chapin speak. They are so

GIAW 2013

. . .GIAW2013 continued from p. 1

Intactivists pose in front ofthe Supreme Court, GIAW2013, March 28



knowledgeable and proficient with thepublic. This movement is growing andgaining momentum. I strongly believe theeducation of future parents is crucial toending medical circumcision in America.The facts support ending it. The parentsjust need to have access to and understand the facts. While doctors could leadin ending this procedure, I don’t thinkthey will. I believe it will take large scalerefusal by educated parents before themedical community begins to examine itcritically. We won’t see that large scalerefusal until the parents understand howvaluable the foreskin is for their baby andthe man he will grow to become.This was the first time I’ve been able tobe present at GIAW every day. Crowdsseemed down from past years. I attributethis to a few things: A large portion ofthe west lawn was fenced for turf restoration, a consequence of the Inaugurationin January. The spring season was unseasonably cold with not a cherry blossom in sight which caused thepostponement of the Cherry BlossomFestival – an event that typically bringsthousands into the city.The first two days blessed us with an opportunity to take our message to a largegroup of demonstrators outside of theSupreme Court building where issues ofmarriage equality were being heard bythe court. Our message of genital integrity was generally well received amongstthis audience. We were blessed to haveJames Loewen from Vancouver with usfor the week. James is a videographerand a historian for our movement. He recorded two conversations I had whilethere.The first was with a Jewish man who sawit as a religious choice that the parent wasentrusted to make. When asked if Christian parents should be allowed to tattoo across on their child, he immediately said“No.” His reasoning was that it was apermanent mark on the child. He didn’tsee that his circumcision scar was a permanent mark of his parent’s religiouschoice upon his body. When I elaboratedon the appropriateness of this he quicklysaid “But it’s for hygiene.”I gently pulled him back to the issue ofreligious freedom. He told me that he

didn’t practice his faith. We went on todiscuss hygiene and other aspects. I amthankful for his willingness to talk withme and have a dialogue. You can see thevideo here:http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZxfgMn9lGO0James recorded another memorable conversation with a man in the medicalfield. (http://youtu.be/dFUzrQBQq8)The video does not catch the part wherethis man discloses that he is Afghani.Here is a man with a deep cultural bias,likely a deep religious bias (he didn’tdisclose his religion) and an Americanmedical bias. Despite this, he was willing to talk. He was ignorant of the sexualfunction of the foreskin. He was interested in data on HIV/AIDS. I was able toprovide him with a card specifically addressing the circumcision/HIV connection (or lack thereof). While I was notsuccessful in changing his mind on themedical aspects, he left our conversationadmitting that the rights of the boy havemerit and suggested we should stick tothat angle. Another seed planted.Back at the Capitol lawn, I and severalother intactivists spoke with a group of1314yearold school kids from Christiansburg, VA on a tour of the city. Oneyoung man stood out starkly from thegroup of kids. His maturity level waswell beyond his age. He is originally

from Cuba. He had a full understandingof the value of the foreskin and was confident to share that he was intact. Heasked for an “I love my foreskin” buttonand immediately pinned it to his sweatshirt. His classmates were speaking theusual “Yuck, it’s dirty” myths. Theiryouthful disparaging comments didn’tfaze him.When speaking with minors, I have totread carefully with sexual education andanatomy, mindful to not get into toomuch sexual detail that can be construedas inappropriate. I stick exclusively toanatomy and science and leave out anysubjective material. Many of the kidstook info cards, even though they werelaughing off the issue. Many of them toldus they were circumcised. One boy didn’teven know if he was or not, asking us“What is it if it looks like a mushroom?”When we answered, he said somberly“I’m circumcised then.” It’s a painfulreality to learn that your body waschanged. A fellow intactivist told me asthe kids were leaving that one of theirchaperones was confiscating their infocards. I missed that censorship.I had a confident little girl, approximately 810 years old, march right up tothe wall and say “I don’t think youshould be here.” I asked her “Why?” Sheresponded assertively “I don’t think thisis appropriate.” I looked behind her and

Gillian Longley (Colorado NOCIRC) educates passerby from the

West Lawn ofthe Capitol, GIAW2013, March 28


saw a man and a younger boy who appeared to be with her. I projected myvoice a bit to make sure he was able tohear what I was saying to her. I responded by telling her that this was actually avery appropriate thing because, historically, this is THE place to voice your disapproval of legislative matters. When ourCongress has enacted a law that is not inaccord with our Constitution, it’s theduty of the people to protest and to speakout against it.The man behind her changed his demeanor and began to seriously listen tome at this point. I explained that in someplaces in the world, they cut part off ofthe private parts of girls but that we protect girls in America from that by a federal law. I told her that in America, weoften cut off part of a boy’s private partswhen he is a baby, so we don’t give thatsame protection to boys! I explained thatthe 14th amendment to our Constitutionstates that we shall not enact a lawbiased against gender. She said “Oh, ok,I didn’t know that.” They all walkedaway thinking about it. I really admiredher confidence to march right up andspeak her mind. May she continue toconfidently bring questions to those larger and more powerful that she is.I had awesome conversations on separateoccasions with two different Muslimmen. One was from Syria, the other fromAzerbaijan. Both were very interested in

the sexual function and anatomicalstructure of the foreskin. Neither hadever heard any of those biological facts. Icovered every aspect of circumcision thatI know! They were willing to view aninfo card that showed closeup photosdepicting the differences between thecircumcised penis and the intact one.They both took information cards withlinks to numerous sites for further research. They shared their religious perspectives with me, both clearly statingthat it was not required by their religioustext. It was a great pleasure to speak tosuch open minds and to learn about circumcision from their perspectives. I haveno doubt those men have gone on to lookinto the issue in greater detail using theresources I was able to provide.This year marked the first appearance ofthe Bloodstained Men and Their Friendsat GIAW. These intactivists, wearingwhite with red “bloodstains” on theirgenital area, present a stark image – onethat makes the direct connection thatevery circumcised baby grows up to become a circumcised MAN. It’s provocative. They were present on the Capitollawn and also walked around the mallarea of the city interfacing with the public in many areas. They were a powerfulpresence, a thought provoking image anda conversation starter.It’s a powerful personal experience topublicly protest – to speak truth to power

(l. to r. ):Rob Tsvetkov, Karen Glennon, Jonathon Conte,

and Colleen Corcoran, GIAW2013, March 28

Emily Kirsch holds a reproduction of

Van Lewis' original sign, March 28

in our nation’s Capitol – the home ofCongress and our Supreme Court. I onlyhope to live long enough to be in front ofthe Supreme Court when they hear thisissue, and I firmly believe they WILLhear and debate this issue! The event atGIAW that has the greatest “protest” feelto me is the march from the Capitol tothe White House. I deeply appreciate thefreedom to speak out. Far too many inthe world don’t have this freedom. Certainly the boys strapped down, enduringforced genital cutting didn’t have theirvoices heard and honored. It is the least Ican do to give my voice to their ignoredscreams.This year, we marched on the actual anniversary of the signing of the FGM bill(March 30th). We assembled over 100people – many of them families withchildren. It’s a powerful picture to seeentire families and the next generation ofintact and/or educated children. It wasinteresting watching the responses of


BloodstainedMen and Their Friends demonstrate on the National Mall, GIAW2013

DavidWilson in front ofthe

National Monument, GIAW2013

Alexander Partridge, GIAW2013

BloodstainedMen

and Their Friends

in front ofthe

White House after

marching from the

Capitol, GIAW

2013, March 30

drivers and their passengers as wewalked along the roadway. I rememberturning the corner and seeing a youngmuscular man driving a truck with thewindow down and his arm resting on thedoor frame. I could see a tribal motif tattoo on his bicep peeking out from theedge of his tight tshirt sleeve. He waslaughing at our signs. I made eye contactwith him, smiled and called out “Bodymodifications are an adult decision!”. Itapped my arm, hinting at his visible tattoo and said “I love your tat!”. He smiledand I watched the reality of my firststatement click in his head. He got it!Every year I come home with the face ofat least one man that haunts me for along while. On our return to the Capitollawn from the White House, we walkedto the Washington Monument and up theMall. I walked a while with the Bloodstained Men and Friends, engaging ineducational discussion along the way asthey handed out info cards. A few ofthese discussions got lengthy and I wassoon left behind.As I was making my way back by myself, I came upon a young man andyoung lady sitting on a bench that hadcircumcision info cards in their hands.They appeared to be boyfriend/girlfriend.I asked if they had any further questions.She quickly said “No”. His body language said yes, although he remained silent. Something told me to ignore herand not to talk with them so I begantelling them the history of the medicalization of circumcision in America. Weended up having a long detailed conversation and the weight of what hadhappened to this young man fell uponhim right before my eyes. It was devastating to watch.

I assured him that parents who circumcise their sons do so because they lovethem. Parents who leave their sons intactdo so because they love them. The difference between these two parents iseducation. His face will be in my mind’seye and his sadness will weigh on myheart for a long time. As I hand out infocards to young men, I feel like I could besaying to them “Here’s your bomb,” because I know that these young men, justbeginning their sexual exploration, areeager to learn any and all informationabout sexual anatomy and activity. Iknow they will go home and do furtherresearch. I know they will be devastatedand angry at what they learn. We havedone a wonderful job of putting the anatomical and functional facts together. Wehave done an excellent job of delving into ethics, law and bodily rights. What wedo not have is emotional support resources, mental health resources, griefcounseling resources. I see this as a gaping hole in our work to help victims/survivors. I hope the mental health fieldcatches up quickly on this issue so thatmen can know that there are support resources for them and they are not alone.


Intactivists in front ofthe White House after marching from the Capitol, GIAW2013

Intactivists pose in front ofthe Capitol, GIAW2013

ARC needs your support.

Visit http://arclaw.org/donateto support ARC throughdonation or membership.

You can also donate a portion of yourAmazon. com purchases. Visit

http://arclaw.org/donate to learn how.

In the years that I have been doing faceto face education I have found that thekey to effectively getting people to thinkcritically on this issue is to find whatthey know, find what they think, andstart there. Most people have the willingness to talk as long as they feel heard. AsPeggy O’Mara once told me “Before youcan take a mother anywhere, you have tomeet her where she is.” The facts are onour side. The truth has its own longevity.What we have to have is the willingaudience to hear us. We have to presentour message in a way that shows that it issafe to speak with us, that we will notyell and attack. What inspires me so

much about GIAW is that we have somany willing to listen and ask questionsand sincerely engage with us. Hundredsof them are youth – future parents – whowill know the facts and who will say“HELL NO” and protect their baby boys.Bringing a painful truth to an ignorantpublic is emotionally draining. Making itto GIAW can have its difficulties for usall (financial, time constraints, familyand work commitments, etc). Gettingthere is so rewarding. One of the mostrecharging aspects of it is spending timewith other intativists: learning from eachof our styles, sharing stories, learning

about each other, seeing our smiles andthe sparkle in our eyes, knowing thatthere are other loving and compassionatesouls doing this work is so inspiring.Genital integrity advocacy can be alonely and isolating endeavor. I am always so renewed by my time amongstfellow intactivists. May the energy ofGIAW 2013 keep us going through outthe year and may we meet up again nextyear. I look forward to the time when wecan celebrate the bodily integrity of allchildren in America and ultimately theworld.


Genital IntegrityAwareness Week 2013

Jonathan FriedmanARC Webmaster and Newsletter Editor

March 26 April 1, 2013he 2013 edition of Genital Integrity Awareness Week (GIAW)marked a milestone in intactivist

history. GIAW 2013 represented the 20thanniversary of the event, and had thelargest group of marchers yet. 120people marched from the Capitol to theWhite House. GIAW 2013 also turnedout the largest showing of BloodstainedMen to date. The Bloodstained Menconcept – started by Richard Duncker inthe UK – has been catching on worldwide. I participated in my first Bloodstained Men & Women demonstration inBerlin last December, and I was now excited to be a part of it in DC.This was my second year at GIAW. I arrived by car on the first day, Tuesday,March 26th, together with Rob Tsvetkovand Keith Mitchell. It was great to beable to catch up with my fellow NewYork City intactivists on the ride toWashington, DC.As we arrived on the west lawn of theCapitol in the early afternoon, we sawGIAW organizer David Wilson holdingup his gigantic “Whose Penis? WhoseBody? Whose Rights?” sign. I waspleased to have the opportunity to inter

view David about the history of GIAW.After starting the Stop Infant Circumcision (SIC) Society, David held a soloprotest on April 1, 1993 in front of theWhite House and Supreme Court. Davidoriginally chose the April 1st (AprilFool's Day) date to put a humorous spinon a touchy subject. April is also ChildAbuse Prevention Month, so it madesense to start demonstrating at the beginning of April. Also, March 30th marksthe date in 1997 that the US law forbidding female genital mutilation (FGM)went into effect. After three years ofholding an annual protest, David movedthe event to the east steps of the Capitol.Van Lewis and Benjamin Lewis joinedthe protest in 1999. [Editor’s Note—VanLewis sadly passed away in 2011 aftermany years of groundbreaking activism.Steven was honored to speak at his memorial service in Tallahassee in 2011.]

Afterwards GIAW became a weeklongevent.NOCIRC joined the GIAW organizers in2001—the same year Steven and ARCfirst attended. That year marked GIAW’sfirst march of about one hundred intactivists up the Capitol’s eastcenter steps in2001. The video is available on YouTube:www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR5ijiaTTC4On March 26, the first day of GIAW2013, the weather was really nice andsunny and there were lots of groups ofyoung students on school trips. Many ofthe students were extremely receptive towhat we had to say, but their teachersand principals sometimes weren't soopenminded. It wasn't uncommon forprincipals to threaten disciplinary actionif students took our informational cards,but we always managed to find a studentthat would take a stack to dole out laterout of sight from their chaperones. Itwas always great when the intact youngmen would come over and take photoswith us.I donned my Bloodstained Men whitebody suit, spraypainted a red splotch on,and joined the others in making an eyecatching demonstration. Many parentswere offended, saying “How could youshow this to children?” I answered with,“How could you do this to children?”

Jonathan Friedman demonstrates on the

west lawn ofthe Capitol, GIAW2013

Intactivists on the east-center steps

ofthe Capitol, GIAW2001

T

DavidWilson, GIAW2013


Several of the Bloodstained intactiviststeamed up and went to the NationalMall, where many groups of studentswere entering and exiting the museums.I joined in on March 27, the second dayof GIAW 2013, and found it to be a verypowerful experience. We distributedhundreds of cards and had hundreds ofphotos taken of us, some with groups ofstudents that rushed over to pose with us.As always, many foreigners wereshocked to learn that in the US, boys arecommonly circumcised. I explained thatcircumcision can affect nonUS residentsbecause, for example, the World HealthOrganization and UNAIDS are spendingmoney on mass circumcision campaignsin Africa, and that a lot of the money iscoming from European countries. Theyoften responded, “that's so crazy!” Indeed.Raised as an Orthodox Jew myself, I alsohad the opportunity to speak to a lot ofOrthodox Jewish men. I have noticed thatmany intactivists approach Jewish peopleand start talking about religion, whichmay backfire by inadvertently seeming toconstitute an attack on their religion. It'sbetter to just educate them on the functions of the foreskin, the harms of cir

cumcision, and Jewish intactivism. I alsotalked to them about Metzitzah B'peh,quoting Moses Maimonides' view thatcircumcision is intended to harm physically and sexually. Finally, I delved intocomparisons of ancient circumcision andthe modernday practice, and referredthem to the Brit Shalom movement in theStates and Israel. Most folks accepted thecard I offered them. Hopefully the message is spreading.I was pleased to meet intactivist documentarian James Loewen for the firsttime. Once in a while I meet a great individual with a big heart, a deep concernfor issues and the people affected, andpowerful skills and motivation to effectively work for change. James is one ofthose people. We spoke at length aboutour backgrounds and our beliefs. Jamesworks so hard and always produces outstanding photos and videos of events thatrepresent us very well as individuals andas a movement.I also met Brother K for the first time.[Editor’s Note: Brother K’s article aboutGIAW appears on p.22.] Brother K is afeisty bornagain intactivist who putaway the neoncolored balaclava andprotest sign in the 80s only to recently

BloodstainedMen and Their Friends protest in front ofthe Capitol, March 30, GIAW2013

Kathryn Glines with a full-size

bloodstained Obama in front of

the White House, GIAW2013

pick it up again, reincarnated as a bloodstained man. Brother K enjoyed being inthe spotlight at the nation's capital, butmore importantly, he was really movedat how the students would flock to us topick up informational cards and to snapphotos.The march to the White House wasreally inspiring. We gathered on the West


'Intactivists' Seek Support fromGay-Marriage Supporters

Betsy WoodruffMarch 27, 2013National Review

www.nationalreview.comt today’s colorful progaymarriage protest outside of the Supreme Court, two people were

the undoubted standouts: Brother K andFranny Max, anticircumcision activists— or “intactivists,” as they call themselves — sporting white jumpsuits withbight red circles around their crotches.They told me that it’s National GenitalIntegrity Week, so intactivists fromaround the country are holding their 20thannual protest in Washington. The intactivists argue that, because the U.S. haslaws against female genital mutilation,baby boys don’t receive the same equalprotection under the law as baby girls,and they hope people who support gaymarriage on equalprotection groundswill also end up supporting an infant circumcision ban.Brother K, who says that he made that hislegal name in 1986 as part of a “personaljourney” to shake off what he felt “was aspiritual mark of an angry, ancient god,”hoisted a large white sign with a red circleon it that said “DON’T CUT HISPENIS!” He spent much of the rally

A“Bloodstained Men”

Provocatively Protest theirCircumcisions in D.C. as

Genital Integrity AwarenessWeek Marks 20th Year

Bloodstained Men Press ReleaseMarch 28, 2013www.prweb.com

A growing international movementasserts that all children have a humanright to protection from unnecessary

genital surgeryBloodstained Men will perform

on the Capitol West LawnSaturday March 30 at 1pm

Genital autonomy activists demonstrateon the Capitol West Lawn March 26 April 1, will march from the Capitol

West Lawn to the White HouseSaturday March 30 at 2pm

Lawn of the Capitol for a group photograph of Bloodstained Men [which appears on the bottom of this page]. Ourmarch through the streets gained greatattention from vehicular and pedestriantraffic. I felt so proud of everyone participating, even the kids in strollers. Positive reactions were numerous, as werethe extremely negative ones. One maneven flashed us; luckily, I missed thatone. Another man yelled at us whilejumping up and down.When we reached the White House, therewere lots of people passing by who sawour huge banners and stopped to talkwith us. While I don't think the WhiteHouse paid much attention to us, and thecardboard cutout of Obama wearing abloodstained suit [which appears on thispage] seemingly went unacknowledgedby the President, our real target audience,the people of the United States, listenedto our message to protect all childrenfrom forced genital cutting.It was great catching up with friends andmeeting new folks. It was fantastic having had the opportunity to demonstrateand educate, as well as to share ideaswith everyone. I will definitely be backfor GIAW 2014.

hen passersby see a crowd ofmen in bloodstained whitecoveralls posing on the West

Lawn of the U.S. Capitol this week, theywill be witnessing a provocative newtactic in the growing movement to abolish the circumcision of children.The “Bloodstained Men” protest theircircumcisions by performing politicaltheater in white coveralls with bloodycrotches symbolizing the genital woundsthat were forced upon them in childhood.“Circumcision permanently amputatesthe most sensitive parts of the penis anddiminishes sexual experience for life,”states Bloodstained Man Jonathon Conte.“Our bloodstained coveralls force peopleto face the reality that infant circumcision inflicts permanent physical, psychological and sexual damage upon boysand the men they become. Our mission isto make people understand that infantcircumcision is sexual violence, and aserious humanrights violation.”The Bloodstained Men concept has beenembraced by activists on both sides ofthe Atlantic and performers come from awide range of cultural backgrounds, including Jews such as Brooklyn residentJonathan Friedman. “When I was eightdays old, a mohel (Jewish traditional circumciser) botched my circumcision andthen sucked my bleeding penis afterwards,” Friedman states. “I was sexuallyassaulted and mutilated by my familyand religious community, and that is whyI will be joining the Bloodstained Men inWashington D.C. on Saturday [March30].The March 30 Bloodstained Men performance is a highlight of a week ofdemonstrations to mark the 20th GenitalIntegrity Awareness Week, an annualevent where activists from across theUSA and around the world converge onthe West Lawn of the Capitol to demonstrate for a ban on child circumcision.This year’s event also marks the 16thanniversary of the passage of the 1997Female Genital Mutilation Law (FGMLaw), which protects females under theage of 18 from all forms of unnecessarygenital surgery. As event organizer DavidWilson of the Stop Infant CircumcisionSociety (SIC Society) notes, “the FGM

Law currently discriminates against boysby leaving them unprotected. Boys deserve equal protection according to theEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” On Saturday March30 at 2 p.m., activists will march fromthe Capitol West Lawn to the WhiteHouse to demand that the FGM Law beextended to ban the medicallyunnecessary genital cutting of all children.In the 20 years since the debut of GenitalIntegrity Awareness Week, child circumcision has become more controversialthan ever. “Each year our demonstrationswill be bigger and bolder,” Wilsonpromises. “Our momentum is building,and we will not stop until all children areprotected from the sexual abuse knownas ‘circumcision’.”

W


Anti-Circumcision ProtestersCut Into Supreme Court Scene

Benjamin R. FreedMarch 27, 2013

DCist

www.dcist.comhile most of the thousands ofdemonstrators lined up outside the U.S. Supreme Court

today were there to show their opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, ahandful of people were getting snippyabout a completely different issue. Circumcision.This week marks the 20th annualDemonstration Against Infant Circumcision, a yearly protest in which hundreds of “intactivists” descend uponWashington to clamor for an end to the

practice of doctors removing newborninfant boys' foreskin, whether for religious purposes or because it's a standardpractice in American medicine.“Forcing children to participate in bloodrituals is wrong,” says Jonathan Conte, aSan Francisco resident holding a largesign reading “Equal Justice” above alarge, graphic photo of a newborn beingcircumcised. “Religion of one's parentsis not a reason to abuse.”Noting that the federal government adopted legislation in 1996 banning vaginalcircumcision, Conte wants to see a similar measure adopted that protects penises. While the removal of the foreskin isan agesold custom in Judaism, Contesays that accounts for only a fraction ofcircumcisions performed in the United

States, where it was adopted as a standard medical procedure for newborns inthe mid19th century.“That started 150 years ago as a way tocurb masturbation,” he says. Conte alsoargues that the reasons for circumcisioncontinuing as a customary operationkeep changing, such as AIDS prevention,despite what he says is a lack of evidence. It's also a practice he says is uniqueto American medicine.“Most of the world's men have theirwhole penises, and they're not droppingdead,” he says.To his very open frustration, Conte doesnot have his whole penis either. He wassnipped at birth, and he says he resentshis parents for electing to have the oper

W

standing with his legs apart and both armsabove his head, yelling about the crimethat is circumcision. Max, who protestedalongside him, held a red stop sign thatsaid “STOP CIRCUMCISING BABIES.”“I would say, on balance, we’re getting alot more support here than not,” he tellsme. “It is equal rights, and that’s whatthis rally’s all about. It’s equal rights forbaby boys.”He says he and his fellow protesters hadreceived mostly positive feedback fromthe antiDOMA protesters.“I would say that, by and large, a lot ofmembers of the LGBT community havebeen founders and major participants inour movement,” he adds.When asked if he thought the argumentsused to defend samesex marriage couldalso be used to oppose circumcision, hesaid, “Absolutely, absolutely. And it’sgoing to come to that someday. It willhappen. It will happen.”Max said that between the protesters onthe West Lawn of the Capitol and infront of the Supreme Court, their causedrew about 25 people today. She addsthat they’re expecting around 100 togather on Saturday for a march meant todraw attention to the issue. They’ll meetat 2 p.m. on the Capitol’s West Lawn and

proceed to the White House, where theywill stay until about 10 or 11 p.m.“If I support everybody’s right to getmarried, then it’s only logical,” she says.“If you wouldn’t cut a baby girl, whywould you cut a baby boy?” “Genital integrity for all!” she adds. “If I woke uptoday and I found out that I’d been circumcised at birth, I’d be hoppin’ mad.”Karen Glennon, another intactivist, saysshe found signs of agreement from the antiDOMA protesters. “I’ve actually had a greatdeal of positive reception,” she says. “Thosepeople who are in support of marriageequality see it as a choice issue and as anequality issue. We came here to bring ourmessage to this crowd because it’s very receptive,” she adds.Jeremy Kung, who carried a sign thatsaid “OCCUPY FORESKIN,” tells methat part of the reason he’s an intactivistis that he wasn’t circumcised.“I’ve got a foreskin, I know what it feelslike, I know how good it feels,” he says.He also believes there’s a connectionbetween supporting samesex marriageand opposing infant circumcision.“It’s all about equality for everybody,” hesays. “They’re both humanrights issues.Everyone should have the right to lovewho they want to love, marry who they

want to marry, just like everybody who’sborn should have the right to decide ifthey want to keep their healthy bodyparts.”But not everyone at the rally was thrilledto share the Supreme Court’s front patiowith the intactivists. “They should not betrying to coopt our messaging here,”says Alan Eckert, who was protestingagainst DOMA.“I think that they are trying to equateequality with what their vision of a human right is, and those are two completely different messages, and we needto stay on focus here,” he adds.Another protester, who only wanted tobe identified as Kurt, also told me that hethought the intactivists were detrimentalto the cause. But a third progaymarriage protester, Jorge Gardner, says theintactivists didn’t seem like much of adistraction.“They seem to be pretty accepted aroundhere, yeah,” he tells me. “I haven’t seenmany people, like, argue with them oranything, so they seem pretty accepted.”I asked him if he thought it was fair tocount the intactivists as part of the progressive movement, and he responded,“Part of the progressive movement? Idon’t know what that is. I’m only 17years old.”


Contents of Special Issue onEthics of Circumcision

xford University's Practical Ethics Blog has issued an announcement

(http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/03/announcementjournalofmedicalethicsspecialissueoncircumcision/) bythe Journal of Medical Ethics (JME)providing further information on thecontents of the upcoming special issueon male circumcision.The announcement states that the JMESpecial Issue titled, “The Ethics of MaleCircumcision” will include (in additionto the article by me and Robert VanHowe criticizing the American Academyof Pediatrics' policy statement and technical report that was published earliertoday) the following:– A defense of circumcision by politicaltheorist Joseph Mazor based on thechild's best interests. (!)– A suggestion by Dena Davis that itmay be time to reopen the conversationon the most mild forms of female genitalcutting. (!)– An article by political scientist Matthew Johnson arguing that religious cir

cumcision should be permitted in secular,multicultural societies but that individuals should be able to seek damagesagainst the community for any harm theythereby suffered.– Medical historian Robert Darby assesses the narrow question of whether theprinciple of the child’s right to an openfuture applies to nontherapeutic, infantmale circumcision. By drawing analogieswith the case of “designer deafness” (inwhich deaf parents deliberately seek tohave children with diminished sensorycapacity), Darby argues that circumcisionis indeed in violation of this principle,and hence is objectionable from an ethical and human rights perspective.– An article by Israeli philosopherHanoch Ben Yami arguing that religiouscircumcision is a barbaric custom butthat an outright ban would be harmful, soproposing instead a series of gradual reforms.– Pediatrician Robert Van Howe considers the normative basis of the doctrineof parental rights—sometimes used tojustify circumcisions in both the secularand religious case—and argues that parental rights are a “dead dogma” that haveoutlived their usefulness for conceptualizing the relationship between parentsand their children. Instead of rights, VanHowe suggests that parents have an obligation to preserve and protect their

ARC Updates

JME

O

ation conducted, as well as the doctorwho performed it.“Every one of my sexual partners hashad sex with a mutilated man,” he says.Conte says that a circumcised man of ismissing roughly 15 square inches of protective issues around the glans, or head,of his penis, an effect he displays byrolling up a small handbill preaching theills of foreskin removal. “It permanentlyalters the form and function of thepenis,” he says. “The glans is mucosaltissue. It's meant to be covered.”Then there are the effects on the most

important functions of the penis. Contewants to assure people he speaks withthat circumcised men—like himself—arestill capable of sex and procreation,though in his opinion it can be a bitdodgy.“I'm not saying cut men can't have sex,”he says. “Or that they can't feel pleasureor get erections. Sex without a foreskinis much more abrasive and dry. It's themechanics of it.”Moreover, the circumcision opponentssay the practice is one more example ofthe U.S. medical system's feeforservicesetup, in which doctors have a natural in

centive to perform as many procedures aspossible. Only, in the case of circumcision, Conte says doctors are being paidto lop a body part that “years of evolution” haven't discarded.“Can you imagine if doctors were making money cutting off other parts ofhealthy baby boys?” he asks.Conte and his fellow “intactivists” willbe in town through the weekend, culminating with a march from the U.S.Capitol to the White House on Saturday.The demonstration will be “extremelydiverse” he says. “We have both victimsand intact people.”

children’s rights, including those of bodily integrity and the preservation of anopen future.– Human rights lawyer J. StevenSvoboda goes a step further and arguesthat circumcision is a clearcut humanrights violation, whether it is performedon boys or girls, and whether for religious or secular reasons. Surveying thebasis of human rights law in Western societies, Svoboda shows that circumcisionmay be considered inconsistent with themost widely accepted interpretations ofkey human rights documents, includingthe Universal Declaration of HumanRights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.– An analysis by German law professorsReinhold Merkel and Holm Putzke of thenew German law protecting the right tocircumcise and the Cologne court decision that preceded it.The announcement says that the issuealso includes editorials by JulianSavulescu and by Brian Earp. Earppresented an outstanding talk at the October 2012 Helsinki symposium that wasfeatured in the last ARC Newsletter. Theannouncement also says that additionalcommentaries have been invited from(procircumcision) philosopher DavidBenatar and from philosopher David P.Lang.


ARC Issues Press ReleaseAnnouncing New Article

Criticizing AAPand AAP's Response

e issued a press release onMarch 16, 2013 announcinga new article appearing on

March 18, 2013 by Steven and RobertVan Howe that criticizes the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics' (AAP's) positionon male circumcision. Our article, leading off the latest issue of the Journal ofMedical Ethics, provoked the AAP intotaking the unusual step of filing an illfated response in the pages of the samejournal. Steven has a second article inthe same issue analyzing male circumcision as a violation of human rights. Theentire issue is devoted to the subject ofmale circumcision and also includes asolo contribution from Bob Van Howeand another from Robert Darby.Here is the text of the press release:New Article Finds Fault WithPediatric Organization’sSupport for Circumcision,

Provoking a Formal Response

Berkeley, CA – Human rights attorney J.Steven Svoboda and pediatrician RobertS. Van Howe, M.D. have published anew article in one of the world’s leadingjournals on medical ethics arguing thatthe American Academy of Pediatrics’(AAP’s) position regarding male circumcision lacks credible support. The article,titled, “Out of step: fatal flaws in thelatest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision,” is being published onlinetoday, leading off the latest issue of theJournal of Medical Ethics (JME). TheUS’ premier organization of pediatricianshas already arranged for the JME to publish its response in what Svoboda andVan Howe view as an illfated attempt tojustify the medically and ethically flawedarguments in its policy statement andtechnical report.Svoboda and Van Howe criticize theAAP’s apparent cultural bias in favor ofcircumcision, which they note puts theAAP firmly out of step with world medical opinion on this issue. They argue thatthe AAP documents suffer from troublingdeficiencies, ultimately undermining

their credibility. According to the authors,these deficiencies include the omission ofcritical issues, biased use of the medicalliterature, and conclusions that are notsupported by the evidence given.Svoboda commented, “The AAP ignoresso many important topics that it is hard toknow where to begin. For example, theanatomy and function of the foreskin arenot mentioned in their documents, eventhough they propose to cut it off withoutfirst considering the harm and pain thatresult from its removal. The AAP’s circumcision recommendations contradictits own bioethics policy statement, whichrequires pediatric care to be based onlyon the needs of the patient. Nontherapeutic circumcision is incompatible withwidely accepted ground rules for surgicalintervention in minors.”Dr. Van Howe, a Clinical Professor atMichigan State University College of Human Medicine, said, “When physiciansdecide whether to do a procedure, theymust, and normally do, exclude from theirmedical decisions nonmedical factors regarding the parents’ culture. Contrary towhat the AAP suggests, doctors are notcultural brokers. Their duty is promotingand protecting the health of their patients,not following practices lacking a solidethical and medical foundation.”Svoboda and Van Howe write that theAAP report suffers from being twoandahalf years out of date at the time of itspublication. They note that the last literature search was performed in April 2010for a report published in August 2012.Svoboda and Van Howe write that studiesthat suggest benefits for circumcision appear in the technical report while at leastone hundred studies that fail to support abenefit or that find detrimental effects ofcircumcision are left out. The authors addthat the AAP also cherrypicks information from within the articles it cites, selecting bits of language out of contextthat lend support to its position while often ignoring contradictory data.Svoboda commented, “The response toour article by the AAP Task Force callsfor avoiding an ideological agenda.When European authorities agree thatcultural bias rather than scientific fact isdriving the AAP’s position, I would sug

gest that our only agenda is ethical andmedically sound care for infants andyoung children. The AAP fails to raiseany substantive argument pointing toeither evidence or reasoning about whichwe are mistaken.”The AAP itself concedes, Svoboda andVan Howe write, that the there are vastdifferences between HIV transmission toadults in Africa and to children in theUS. In Africa, the authors observe, oneof the most likely places to contract HIVis in a health clinic. Svoboda observed,“The US has the highest rates of circumcision, of HIV, and of other sexuallytransmitted infections in the industrialized world, so the chance that the firstcan prevent the other two seems extremely remote.”Svoboda asked, “Why is the AAP promoting public funding for an unnecessary and harmful surgery when we findourselves struggling even to provide basic care for all our children? In thesedays of rising medical costs and scarceresources, we simply cannot afford tocontinue to carry out such a harmful andoutmoded practice.”While the AAP attempts to paint itself inits reply in the JME as being in line withworld medical opinion, in fact, as notedby Svoboda and Van Howe, the AAP hasput itself in a shrinking minority in attempting to justify an outmoded culturalpractice that results in the death of morethan one hundred boys each year. Circumcision also leads to frequent legaljudgments and settlements in favor ofplaintiffs, as documented by a list released today of more than fifty suchcases totaling over $80 million(www.arclaw.org/resources/settlements).Even the American Medical Associationagrees that there is insufficient justification for performing the procedure onnewborns absent specific medical indications. Unlike the AAP, its peer organizations in Europe and also in Australia,the United Kingdom, and Canada recognize that medical considerations must beconsidered in conjunction with ethicaland legal considerations and therefore,male circumcision should be neither recommended to parents nor funded bygovernment insurance systems.

W


More Than $80M Paid Out forBotched Circumcisions

Hugh YoungCircumstitions

www.circumstitions.comver $80 million has been paidout in settlements for botchedand wrongful circumcisions

since 1985, according to Attorneys forthe Rights of the Child.ARC has been compiling a list of casessince 1997 and first published it onMarch 16, 2013 on their website:http://arclaw.org/resources/settlementsThe cases range from a $22.8 millionsettlement for a boy in Atlanta, Georgiawho had his penis severely burnt, to a$30,000 settlement for a Palm Beach,California, boy who lost more than hisforeskin to a mohel.Two of the cases, totaling $18.3 million,were won against Mogen CircumcisionInstruments Ltd, makers of the Mogenclamp. The company has effectively beensued out of business, yet the Mogenclamp is still one of the most commoncircumcision devices still being used.It's unclear how much of ARC's settlements list covers the total number ofcases out there. This is because the number of botched circumcision cases thatwere settled out of court is unknown. Inaddition, cases that were successfullyblamed on something else, such as anunderlying precondition or poor after

OSteven's Los Angeles

Radio Show AppearancesOverview Intactivism

n Friday, April 26, 2013, Stevenappeared on Maria Sanchez'hourlong show, “The Maria

Sanchez Show,” on Los AngelesbasedInternet radio station LATalkRadio.com.Maria is a longtime friend of ARC and ofintactivism and we are glad to see that shehas returned to active media work. Thewideranging discussion was designed toupdate Maria's listeners on events in recent years and also provided a historicaloverview of medicalized and religiouslybased circumcision and of intactivism.Steven mentioned the wealth of recentpositive developments in intactivism,such as greater visibility in general massmedia and among nonintactivist scholars, as well as advances in Internet availability of information and in socialnetworking that have generally assistedthe growing success of safeguarding

O

JME Article by Steven and BobVan Howe Favorably Mentioned

by the Jewish Press

uoting from our recent press release, the Jewish Press favorablymentioned the article by StevenSvoboda and pediatrician Robert

S. Van Howe that was recently publishedby the Journal of Medical Ethics. Apparently the Jewish Press is the only weeklynewspaper read by most Orthodox Jews.You can read the article on the JewishPress website: www.jewishpress.com.

Q

care, are also, of course, unknown.In its 2012 circumcision policy, theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics stated,“The majority of severe or even catastrophic injuries are so infrequent as tobe reported as case reports (and weretherefore excluded from this literaturereview)” before concluding (without actually weighing them) that “the benefitsoutweigh the risks.”

bodily integrity. Steven also discussed(1) the American Academy of Pediatrics'(AAP's) August 2012 policy statementand technical report and recent responsesto it in the Journal of Medical Ethics (bySteven and Bob Van Howe) and in Pediatrics (by a large group headed byMorten Frisch), as well as the AAP'scounterresponses to both articles; (2)developments in Germany including thelandmark June 2012 court case upholdinga right to bodily integrity and the subsequent legislation (about which Stevenis currently writing a paper for presentation in the UK in September); (3) the upcoming October 2013 ethical debate inSouth Carolina between Steven and theAAP's Dr. Susan Blank regarding thelegality of male circumcision.On Wednesday, June 12, 2013, Stevenmade his second appearance of 2013 onMaria Sanchez' show. He discussed (1)several important legal developmentsincluding the recent $1.3 million awardin an infant circumcision case in theChicago area as well as circumcisionrelated lawsuits in Queens and in SouthAfrica and a lawsuit filed by theSouthern Poverty Law Center over thegenital mutilation of an intersex child;(2) recent news of and some of the largerissues raised by the development of anew circumcision device (the PrePex)that is endorsed by the World HealthOrganization and is intended to helppromote the practice in third worldcountries as an asserted preventive ofHIV and AIDS; and (3) an overview ofthe continually increasing success of

A few months ago, the German PediatricAssociation (BVKJ) favorably cited anearlier version of Svoboda’s and VanHowe’s article, noting that even if benefits do exist the procedure can safely bedelayed until the boy himself can makethe decision.The JME considers the issue of male circumcision important enough to have devoted an entire special issue to the topic,including a second article by Mr.Svoboda on male circumcision and hu

man rights, and a second article by Dr.Van Howe about male circumcision andparental rights.Svoboda and Van Howe’s article appearsat a similar publication date with a commentary to appear in the AAP’s own Pediatrics by thirtyeight leading Europeanmedical authorities, who have independently reached a conclusion consistentwith Svoboda and Van Howe’s in criticizing the cultural bias in the AAP’s twodocuments.


In Search of Fatherhood IssuesPress Release Regarding ARC andAgain Reprints Steven's Work

e are pleased to report that InSearch of Fatherhood magazine has issued a press re

lease on March 20, 2013 regarding ARCand regarding Steven's work. WhileSteven was interviewed by themagazine for a 2009 cover article, morerecently they have published reprints of adifferent article of Steven's in each of thelast four issues.While Steven was interviewed by themagazine for a 2009 cover article, morerecently they have issued a press releaseregarding ARC's work and have published reprints of Steven's articles in eachof their last five issues.Their recently published Spring 2013 issue contains a reprint of part two ofSteven's article, “The Limits of the Law:Comparative Analysis of Legal and Extralegal Methods to Control Child BodyMutilation Practices.”We are grateful to the magazine(http://globalfatherhooddialogue.blogspot.com) and to its editor Diane A. Sears fortheir longstanding commitment to creating a better world and to promotingwork in a number of different fields relating to the wellbeing of children andfamilies.

WRichmond Journal of Law andthe Public Interest PublishesArticle by ARC's Peter Adler

e are pleased to announce thatan article by ARC's Legal Advisor, Peter W. Adler, “Is Cir

cumcision Legal?”, has been published inthe Spring 2013 issue of the RichmondJournal of Law and the Public Interest.One chapter of the issue will be devotedto children and the law.In his article, Peter Adler shows that inthe 21st century, the material facts aboutcircumcision are known and the law isclear. Circumcision is dangerous, harmsall boys and men, benefits few, if any,and any benefits can be achieved moreeasily and effectively without it. Boys,like girls and adults, have an absoluteright to genital integrity under the common law, constitutional law, criminal law,tort law, and human rights law. Physicians cannot ethically or lawfully operateon healthy children, and parents' religious or other beliefs are of no account.In fact, physicians and parents have aduty to protect their children from nontherapeutic genital cutting. Circumcisionis illegal: let us count the ways.

ARC's Legal Advisor SubmitsResponse to AAP News Article

Attorney Peter Adler, ARC's Legal Advisor, submitted to the American Academyof Pediatrics' AAP News a response toJeffrey L. Brown's recent article publishedin the April 2013 issue, “Medicallegalrisks associated with circumcision ofnewborn males: need for revised consent.”Brown's article somewhat remarkablysuggests that physicians should inform allparents of the “benefits” of circumcisionin order to avoid potential legal liability.The text of Peter's article appears below.

Peter W. Adler, EsquireLegal Advisor

Attorneys for the Rights of the ChildReply to Jeffrey L. Brown, "Medical-leg-

al risks associated with circumcision of

newborn males: need for revised con-

sent", AAP News, April 2013

r. Brown argues that in order toavoid legal liability, physiciansshould inform all parents of the

2012 opinion of the AAP's Task Force onCircumcision that circumcision preventsUTIs, penile cancer, and some STDs including HIV, and that these benefits outweigh the associated risks.In fact, physicians risk civil and criminalliability for every circumcision, whethernegligently or properly performed. Following Dr. Brown's advice would alsoinvite suits for misrepresentation.First, telling parents that they have theright to make the circumcision decisionfor religious, cultural, or personal reasonsmisleads them. Parents cannot riskharming or harm their children for religious reasons.[1] In any event, licensedhealth care professionals cannot ethicallyor legally operate on children for reasonshaving nothing to do with medicine.[2]Second, telling parents that circumcisionprevents diseases and that the benefitsoutweigh the risks, like immunizations,further misleads them. Sexually activemen must still practice safe sex. Physicians therefore must inform parents thatcircumcision is very unlikely to benefittheir son at all.

W

intactivism and the work of Attorneys forthe Rights of the Child including theexcellent achievement by Legal AdvisorPeter Adler and by webmaster JonathanFriedman. You can listen to the podast on the ARC

website: www.arclaw.org.

Steven Debating AAP's Dr.Michael Brady at Doctors'

Ethical Conference

teven recently accepted an invitation to speak in October at theTwentieth Annual Thomas A. Pitts

Lectureship in Medical Ethics, to be held

D

S

at the Medical University of South Carolina pursuant to a conference titled,“Ethical and Legal Issues in Pediatrics.”Steven is the only nonphysician invitedto speak, and will be debating Dr.Michael Brady, a member of the AAP'sTask Force on Circumcision, in a talkentitled, “Newborn Male Circumcision isUnethical and Should be Illegal.”The title was not Steven's choice butafter some consideration, he decided toaccept it. At the same event, Steven willalso appear in a “Seminar on PediatricControversies” opposite several notedsupporters of circumcision.We hope for the event to be videotaped sowe can post the video to our website.


Berkeley SymposiumProceedings Published

pringer has published the proceedings of the 2010 Berkeley symposium. This is the eighth and last

such book. It is titled Genital Cutting:Protecting Children from Medical, Cultural, and Religious Infringements and isedited by George C. Denniston, FrederickM. Hodges, and Marilyn F. Milos. Steven

is honored to have been able to contributeto all eight books and to be able to leadoff the final volume with the paper hepresented in Berkeley titled, "TorturedBodies, Tortured Doctrines: InformedConsent as a Legal Fiction Inapplicable toMale Circumcision." This paper revisitsthe topic of informed consent that BobVan Howe, James Dwyer andSteven wrote about in 2000, but this timefocuses on several problems with even

applying the informed consent frameworkto infant male circumcision. The Springerebook sells for $149 and the hardcoverbook sells for $189. The first chapter of our latest symposiumbook is available on the ARC website.The full version is available on theSpringer site at:http://www.springer.com/medicine/pediatrics/book/9789400764064.

SSteven's Paper on Genital

Autonomy Published, Praisedby Anti-FGC Scholar

lobal Discourse has published onJune 20, 2013 Steven's article ongenital autonomy, that is, on the

importance of protecting all children fromgenital cutting regardless of whether theyare male, female or intersex. The articlealso looks at the practice of cosmetic female genital cutting by consenting adults.The article is titled, "Promoting GenitalAutonomy by Exploring Commonalitiesbetween Male, Female, Intersex, andCosmetic Female Genital Cutting," and isadapted from the paper Steven presentedon September 1, 2011 at the conferenceheld at the University of Keele, "Law,Human Rights, and NonTherapeutic Interventions on Children."

A comment on Steven's article, publishedin Global Discourse as a reply to his article and authored by female genital cutting (FGC) scholar Sara Johnsdotter,finds itself largely in agreement withSteven's article and has no serious critiques of it. Steven had praised Johnsdotter's articles in his reviews of the twovolumes on FGC edited by Bettina ShellDuncan and Ylva Hernlund and published in 2000 and 2007. We are pleasedat the growing convergence between thedifferent branches of work on genitalautonomy. Both Steven's article and Johnsdotter's

comment are available on the ARC

website: www.arclaw.org

G ARC needs your support.

Visit http://arclaw.org/donateto support ARC throughdonation or membership.



Third, physicians must inform parentsthat circumcision is painful, risks manyinjuries, and that the extent of the injuriesis unknown. Not disclosed by the TFOC,circumcision can be fatal and is alwaysharmful. For example, it is invasive, disfiguring, prevents normal sexual function, and removes the most sensitive partsof the penis.[4] Fully informed parentsare unlikely to consent to the operation.Finally, American courts could rule atany time that nontherapeutic circumcision is illegal. Children have the absolute right under many provisions ofAmerican and international human rightslaw to personal security, autonomy, andequal protection of the law. Circumcision

also violates the best interests rule,which prohibits physicians from performing surgery on boys that they wouldnot choose for themselves, and the ruleof proportionality, because any benefitsthat circumcision may have can beachieved without it. In fact, physiciansand parents have a legal duty to protecthelpless children from harm and thusfrom circumcision.[5]Physicians should not underestimate howangry many circumcised men are thattheir foreskins were removed againsttheir will. The only way to avoid liabilityfor nontherapeutic circumcision is not toperform the operation.

[1] Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S.158, 159–162 (1944).[2] “Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice”,AAP Committee on Bioethics, Pediatrics,Vol. 95, No. 2, at 31417 (Feb. 1995).[3] M. Frisch, MD, PhD, et al., “CulturalBias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Reportand Policy Statement on Male Circumcision”, Pediatrics; originally publishedonline March 18, 2013; DOI:10.1542/peds.20122896.[4] Sorrels ML, et al., “Finetouch pressure thresholds in the adult penis”, BJUInt. 2007 Apr.99(4):8649.[5] See generally Peter W. Adler, “IsCircumcision Legal?”, Richmond J. L. &Pub. Int. (publication pending).


Canadian PediatriciansPoised to Follow AAP inCondoning Circumcision

As reported in the article reprintedbelow, Canada's leading association ofpediatricians, the Canadian PaediatricSociety, is apparently preparing to issuea position statement that will soften itsprevious opposition to the practice andwill move it more in the direction of thecurrent policy statement recently issuedby the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Pediatricians Set to SoftenStance on Circumcision

Sharon KirkeyMarch 4, 2013Ottawa Citizen

www.ottawacitizen.comanada's pediatricians are about toupdate their advice on whetherbaby boys should be

circumcised, revising and softening theirstand for the first time in 17 years.Their review comes as new Canadianresearch suggests half of expectantparents would consider circumcision ifthey had a son and that the single mostimportant factor is the circumcision"status ”of the father. The CanadianPaediatric Society's old policy, issued in1996, opposed routine circumcision ofnewborns. The new statement isexpected to be more neutral.“There isn't going to be a 'prescription'for Canadian males in terms ofcircumcision,” said society president Dr.Richard Stanwick, chief medical healthofficer for the Vancouver Island HealthAuthority.The organization has been struggling toput forward a balanced position “thatcaptures the risks, and the benefits, but isalso respectful of personal preferences,religious issues and many other thingsthat dictate this decision,” Stanwick said.The issue is so loaded with emotion andcontroversy that the new statement hasbeen three years in the making.

“There are very strong opinions on bothsides of this issue,” Stanwick said. “Weknow that we're wading into somethingthat, no matter what we write, will not bestrong enough for probably either side.”Last year, the American Academy ofPediatrics announced that the healthbenefits of newborn male circumcisionoutweigh the risks, a move that provokeddemonstrations by anticircumcisionactivists who view the procedure asgenital mutilation of newborns.The old policy deemed circumcisionmedically unnecessary for the “wellbeing of the child.”But after a special task force reviewedmore than 1,000 studies published overthe past 15 years, the American doctors'group now says that circumcisionprovides protection against urinary tractinfections, penile cancer and thetransmission of some sexuallytransmitted infections, including HIV.The organization isn't recommendinguniversal circumcision. Instead, it saysthe final decision should be left toparents.Circumcision involves the surgicalremove of some, or all, of the foreskinfrom the penis. It is one of the mostcommon surgical procedures performedworldwide. In hospitals, the procedure isusually performed by obstetricians soonafter birth.“Clearly there has been a lot of literaturearound the potential role of theavoidance of infection,” Stanwick said.“But this also has to be balanced offagainst the fact that this is still a surgicalprocedure, and it is not without risk.”Those risks can include bleeding andhemorrhage, infection, inflammation andtightening at the end of the penis.Any shift in policy would have to ensure,“are there enough skilled professionalsaround to do this, so that we don't have acomplication rate that is unacceptableand so that we're not seeing males beingsignificantly harmed by not having theproperly trained people to do it,”Stanwick said.

The new policy statement is expected tobe released before the pediatric group'sannual meeting in June.“It would be great if we had absoluteanswers, but on this one, I don't think wewill,” Stanwick said.“At the end of the day ... it will verymuch be influenced by dad's status, aswell as the cultural and religious issues.”A new study found that the circumcisionrates are heavily influenced by whetheror not the father is circumcised.University of Saskatchewan researchers,in a study published in the journalCanadian Family Physician, surveyed230 parents attending prenatal classes inSaskatoon.Overall, half 56 per cent said theywould consider pursuing circumcision ifthey had a son. In cases where the fatherof the expected baby was circumcised,82 per cent were in favour ofcircumcision, versus 15 per cent whenthe father wasn't circumcised.According to the researchers, Canada'scurrent circumcision rate is 32 per cent.In the U.S., rates are increasing, to 61 percent of men, they said.

Canadian Pediatric Society

CARC Sends Letter to

Canadian Paediatric Society

On April 2, 2013, Attorneys for theRights of the Child wrote to the CanadianPaedatric Society, urging the CPS to uphold children's rights to bodily integrityand genital autonomy in its policy statement on male circumcision, which is expected to appear within the next fewmonths. We also enclosed our recent article in the Journal of Medical Ethics(JME) regarding the American Academyof Pediatrics' 2012 position statementand technical report, our upcoming JMEarticle on circumcision and human rights,ARC's table of human rights violated bymale circumcision, and an article writtenwith Robert Darby, “A Rose By AnyOther Name: Rethinking the Similaritiesand Differences between Male and Female Genital Cutting,” in Fearful Sym-metries: Essays and Testimonies Around


Excision and Circumcision, edited byChantal Zabus (Rodopi, 2009).The text of the letter is as follows:Attorneys for the Rights of the Child2961 Ashby AvenueBerkeley, CA 94705USA5104644530April 2, 2013Canadian Paediatric Society2305 St. Laurent Blvd.Ottawa, ON K1G 4J8CANADA

stablished in 1997, Attorneys forthe Rights of the Child (ARC)addresses the legal and human

rights implications of genital cutting performed on nonconsenting male, femaleand intersex children. We are aware thatthe Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) isin the process of reviewing its 1996policy statement regarding infant malecircumcision.With chaptersinformation in Canada,ARC believes that the CPS has an obligation to expand its review of circumcision beyond highly contested and oftencontradictory medical studies and to consider growing international recognitionsof the boy child's human right to bodilyintegrity. As discussed in my enclosedarticle, soon to be published by theJournal of Medical Ethics (JME), “Circumcision of Male Infants as a HumanRights Violation,” circumcision violatesrights to privacy, to life, to liberty, to security of person, and to physical integrityunder the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights, and theConvention on the Rights of the Child.Such recognition is especially importantin the wake of the disastrous policystatement on infant male circumcisionthat was issued in August 2012 by theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).The revised policy was rejected by members of the international pediatric community in a recent statement by theGermany’s official Paediatric Association, the Berufsverband der Kinder undJugendärtze (BVKJ).

As discussed in my article, “Out of step:Fatal flaws in the latest AAP policy report on neonatal circumcision,” recentlypublished by the JME, the AAP’s policyreport and the associated technical reportsuffer from troubling deficiencies regarding important topics and discussionsthat are omitted:

• an incomplete and seeminglybiased review of the medical literature;

• available information that is improperly analyzed;

• poorly documented and often inaccurate presentation of relevant findings;and

• unsupported conclusions.The AAP documents ignored vital issuesthat would be helpful to both parents andphysicians:

• discussion of the important functions and benefits of the male prepuce

• explaining simple hygienic care ofthe intact penis

• enumerating less radical, noninvasive (nonsurgical) methods to preventdisease

• acknowledging the growing claimsand documentation by circumcised menof adverse longterm consequences ofinfant circumcision

• acknowledging the ethical conflictin imposing nontherapeutic surgical alteration on a nonconsenting minor (see:JME article on ARC website)

• discussing the double standard ofopposing parental wishes for any genitalcutting of daughters (even a symbolicnicking or the removal of the femaleforeskin) while supporting parents' request for the surgical removal of half theskin system of their sons' penises. (see:"A Rose By Any Other Name" on ARC

Website)

• growing international recognitionthat every child, regardless of gender,race, religion or cultural background, hasa basic human right to bodily integrityand eventual autonomy over their sexualorgans. (see: JME article on ARC web-site)

The AAP policy, while not officially endorsing routine circumcision of all malenewborns, erroneously concludes thatmedical benefits may outweigh the risksand then 'passes the buck' to parents todecide. However, the AAP not only failsto acknowledge the absence of any stud

ies of longterm adverse outcomes, butdoes nothing to inform parents of theforeskin’s functions and benefits nor ofnoninvasive alternatives that can accomplish the same alleged benefits as thesurgery.As explained more fully in the enclosedarticle, “Out of step: Fatal flaws in thelatest AAP policy report on neonatalcircumcision,” the AAP fails to demonstrate a single true benefit to male circumcision. On the other hand, the risksand harms of this surgery include thepermanent loss of the protective, sexualand immunological functions of theforeskin. The primary motivations forthis practice are not medical, but cosmetic and social. Parental rights cannotethically be used to override the rights ofthe child, who is the true patient.Sections of other international humanrights treaties, to which Canada is a signatory, are applicable to forced circumcision of minors (see enclosed table).Numerous European nations are underthe same legal obligation as Canada tohonor those treaty commitments. Increasingly, national medical organizations in countries such as Sweden,Finland, and the Netherlands are callingfor an outright ban on infant circumcision, whether performed for religiousor cultural reasons.In Germany, for example, the BVKJvehemently opposed the German bill thatlater legalized circumcision, instead favoring an alternative bill that preservedboys’ right to bodily integrity. That alternative would have made nontherapeutic circumcision of males legal onlyafter the age of 14 and with the boy'sfully informed consent. In Austria inNovember 2012, criminal charges of inflicting grievous bodily harm werebrought against two circumcisers. Thecharges mention the child's right tophysical integrity, the absence of informed consent, and that religious motivation does not excuse the wrongfulact.Any nation professing to care about thehealth and human rights of children mustnow join respected medical, legal andpolitical authorities in Europe by recognizing that these two issues are not mu

E


tually exclusive and that infant circumcision of males contravenes both.As a further document for the CPS toconsider in formulating an updated policyon circumcision of male infants, we referyou to ARC’s recently published summary of court cases involving circumcision(www.arclaw.org/resources/settlements).

As you can see, the trend is not favorablefor any policy that even mildly endorsesthe continuation of this practice.ARC hopes that the Committee finds thisinformation helpful and that the forthcoming CPS statement will take a forwardlooking approach to the boychild's

human rights that is consistent with thegrowing worldwide opinion that parentalproxy consent for nontherapeutic genitalcutting of nonconsenting minor maleslacks justification in human rights, medical ethics, and the law.We look forward to your response to ourinput and statement of concerns.


Association ofAmericanMedical CollegesDemonstrationNovember 2, 2012

Brother Kriends, I wrestled with how tomake a maximum impact on themedical community with this

demonstration. I carefully prepared my“Sunday Best” costume after consultingwith Jonathon Conte on how to apply thepaint. I had a few mishaps during the application process and got a few splotchesof red paint on the front of the pants, necessitating several hurried applicationsof bleach to remove it, lest I appear to bebleeding all over at the demonstration. AtJonathon's suggestion I used arts andcraft red acrylic paint, poured from thebottle and spread with a tiny spongebrush. I was astonished how much it resembled blood. It dried after a day, but Igave it another day to be sure, and kept itin a separate bag from my sign, notwanting any bloodstains on the posterboard.As it became clear to me that I wouldmost likely be holding down the fortalone on Friday and Saturday, I beganconsidering in my mind how to achievemaximum shock value with the bloodstained crotch uniform. I woke up in themiddle of the night, several days beforethe demonstration, with a dramaticthought, “Bring back the mask!” And soI thought of different ideas, it wouldhave to be white of course, a pillow slip

just looked amateurish I found, finally awhite mesh laundry bag over a rainbowmesh bag worked for me. I thought thecharacter should have a designation,went through several ideas, and decided“Eternal Man” would allow me to represent all victims past, present, future and I posted it on Facebook in advance, hoping the community would vetit with feedback. Saving our Sons wasvery helpful in that regard with a suggestion that, while the mask was very dramatic, my own face and name wouldwork better for the demonstration, and Iagreed with their reasoningI carefully prepared my “travel pack” forAmtrak and BART transit to the demonstration site. The sign fit in a large lawnand leaf bag, along with a detachablestick, and my bloodstained paints went inthe bag also. I used the same large clipsto hold the bag shut as held the stick inplace on the sign, and it worked well.

I was a little apprehensive about appearing on the street alone in my bloodstained suit, and the “change of clothing”presented a challenge. I don't know whythe transition from “normal” to “dramatic” should be a potential moment ofawkwardness but I've found it to be true.When we wore the masks in 1980, wealways found a private place to transition, even though many people knew usboth masked and unmasked. It just seemslike a private moment. Fortunately, I haddemonstrated with BAI the week beforeand noticed that Jonathon Conte hadfound a bus shelter where he prepared hisdemonstration materials. That same busshelter worked fine for me in that regard,at the corner of 4th and Howard. I couldturn my back on the traffic to put on andtake off my bloodstained pants, and theshelter concealed me from pedestrians aswell.The moment when I had to leave thesafety of the shelter and face the worldalone with bloody pants was a momentof high tension for me. I walked out tothe stoplight with my sign held high inthe air... and the tension instantly left mybody. I felt in command of the street, andthat feeling never left me during my ninehours of duty over the weekend.Everyone who demonstrated in New Orleans will understand the experience ofconfronting medical professionals withan angry protest, and I would say thisexperience paralleled the AAP demonstrations in that regard. Most conferenceattendees would not look me in the eye,or would give a slight glance and thinkbetter of it. Often I could not read a per

F

San Francisco

Brother K protesting outside the

Association ofMedical Colleges

Meeting, November 2, 2012


son's reaction but they'd give a slight nodjust as they passed me on the sidewalk.On balance, I would estimate that theAAMC attendees are largely procirc,possibly as much as 80%, just a guesstimate on my part from the hundreds andhundreds who walked by me on the sidewalk.I already reported on Friday's experiencein another comment. It went well andnumerous attendees and passersby incars and on the street responded favorably. I saw many cameras capturing thedemonstration, an admittedly nonscientific way of measuring its success. OnSaturday, I heard a voice call out overthe roar of traffic, “Turn around please!”On the other side of 4th street were twowomen with a camera, so I held my signhigh for them, they took the photo,smiled and waved, and went on theirway. A number of people took photos onboth Friday and Saturday.I was particularly pleased to meet Mattand Julie Orlando yesterday – theyhappened by the demonstration site onan afternoon stroll through their new hometown. Matt is the grandson of MarilynMilos, and I can't tell you how proud Iwas to meet him and Julie, and to seeMarilyn's spirit in him. We had a nicechat and took photos of each other,which I will share on Facebook, andMatt will also I believe.There were hundreds and hundreds morepeople in attendance on Saturday thanFriday. I couldn't believe the foot trafficcoming from the hotels, all converging atthe stoplight at Minna and 4th Streets, aready audience for our message. Theycrossed the street in droves, a dozen ortwenty at a time, right from the moment Iset up camp there, about 9:50 a.m., and Irealized such an audience would notcome again. You can imagine the voicepower it took to address such largecrowds with traffic buzzing, even roaringin the background, and people talkingwith each other... and my voice is hoarsetoday as proof.So I took over that intersection, and addressed the crowds as follows, “America,would you cut your daughters and granddaughters? Why not? Because it's barbaric! Well, it's just as barbaric to cut

your sons and grandsons! How dare you!How dare you! What kind of people arewe? No more second class citizenshipfor baby boys! Don't cut boys! Don't cutgirls! You can leave your conscience onthe sidewalk like bubblegum under myshoe, or you can think about it!”Obviously I couldn't say all that at anyone time, but it's a pretty good version ofmy overall speech to the crowds at thecorner. The “conscience on the sidewalk”comment evolved because of noses heldhigh in the air and people affecting “notto hear a thing.” You all know THATdrill.Early on, about 15 minutes into themorning, a doctor walked by and snarleda vulgarity at me. I called out, “Comeback and say it to my face!” He walkedon and repeated it over his shoulder. Ianswered, “Hey, chicken, say it to myface!” He hesitated, slowed down, turnedaround, glared at me, and reluctantlymade his way back to stand eyeball toeyeball with me. He repeated it again.“Why do you say that?” I answeredcalmly. You can imagine the look of furyin his eyes. He shouted again directly infront of my face, turned around, andmarched away. “Chicken!” I called out tohim. “Come back and say it again!Chicken!” At no point did I threaten anyphysical violence, but I am going to answer psychological violence with greaterfury than they've ever seen, and I did infact.Several minutes later a Moscone Security guard approached me, saying, “Wehad a complaint. This is a warning. If ithappens again, we'll have to call in SanFrancisco Police to deal with you.” Hewas the same Security guard who'd seenme the day before. I said, “Did they tellyou I was responding to an “F U?” “No,”he said, realizing that my verbal assaulthad not come out of nowhere. “You can'tdo that again,” he warned me. “I understand,” I said.About an hour later, a street tough approached me, saying, “I'm _______ ...what's gonna happen to me?” I had nointention of engaging in an argumentabout religious beliefs, and his mannerwas so bullying that I just nodded at himand returned to my audience at the

stoplight. He kept at me for a while, behind my back, and several minutes later,when I turned around to finish my speechto a group of people, he said,"You wanna see my circumcised penis?”and he started to open his trousers. Iturned away and ignored him. This wenton for about 10 or 15 minutes, him repeating, “I'm ________ ! What's gonnahappen to me?”I kept on addressing the hordes of peoplecrossing the street there. The “agent provocateur,” as I concluded he was, tookoff his large, thick black belt and beganstriking the sidewalk and trashcan withit, as though he were lashing a slave withhis belt. Something about the guy didn'tring true with me... he didn't seem tohave any religious convictions beyond aoneline statement, and he appeared to bea guy someone had slipped a twenty,with instructions to scare me off thecorner. He became so aggressive inslamming his belt wildly that he almosthit a group of three woman with it.I crossed the street to get away from him.He cried out, “Hey, you in the white suit,get back here and face me!” It was clearthat he was not going to go away until heintimidated me off the corner, and I realized it was a situation I could not control.I walked in the street to avoid him andwent in search of Moscone Security.They were nowhere in sight at my locale,although earlier they had remained on thesidewalk, monitoring me for about halfan hour after the complaint. I finallyfound a woman in Moscone uniform atthe far end of the block, reported the incident to her, much to her alarm I shouldadd, and she promptly walked back withme to look for the guy. He was nowherein sight, having decamped obviouslywhen I went in search of help. He nevershowed his face again. I cannot provethat he was a hired thug but it's my belief, based upon the totality of his behavior and mannerismsSo there you have it, my best summaryof two days on the front lines of the circumcision war. I don't intend to play polite with the medical community on thisissue. People hardened their opinions along time ago.


Protest Served at Physicians'Annual Dinner

Jonathon ConteBay Area Intactivists

www.bayareaintactivists.org

uman rights activists with signsand faux bloodstained clothesflanked the entrance of the Con

cordiaArgonaut Club on the eve of theSan Francisco Medical Society's 2013annual dinner to protest the physicians'opposition to the San Francisco MaleGenital Mutilation Bill. The ballot initiative, which garnered the support of over12,000 San Francisco voters, sought torestrict nontherapeutic circumcision toconsenting adults. Despite one of itsstated goals being the advocacy of patient rights and the responsibility of itsmembers to adhere to medical ethics, theSan Francisco Medical Society endorsesthe genital cutting of healthy maleminors without the consent of the patientor any medical diagnosis. During theprotest, members of Bay Area Intactivistspointed out that the medical organization's position on routine infant circumcision lies in awkward contrast to that ofnational medical organizations aroundthe world, none of which recommendroutine infant circumcision.

Members ofBay Area Intactivists protest

outside the San Francisco Medical

Society's Annual Dinner to condemn the

organization's opposition to the San

Francisco MGMbill

Human Rights ActivistsDemand Clinton FoundationEnd Exploitation OfAfricans

Anthony LosquadroExecutive Director, Intaction.org

March 4, 2013uring tonight's Clinton Foundation Millennium Network eventfeaturing a dialogue with Pres

ident Bill Clinton , Chelsea Clinton , andHollywood actor Ed Norton , protestersfrom the human rights organizationIntaction.org disrupted the show wearingbloodstained white suits to protest theexploitative and racist health policies involving the circumcision of African men.The concept of HIV prevention throughcircumcision began with biased medicalresearchers searching for a solution tothe AIDS pandemic that could be marketed to government agencies and philanthropic organizations. The researchteams that could develop a marketablesolution, regardless of efficacy, would berichly rewarded with grants, researchmoney, and tenure at their institution.The U.S. President's Emergency Plan forAIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the ClintonFoundation, and the Gates Foundationjumped on the circumcision bandwagonto demonstrate their effectiveness to theirstakeholders and their donors. However,

these organizations were either misguided or blinded by their quest to increase goodwill and donations by hypingcircumcision.Male circumcision is a dangerous mistake in the fight against HIV, and it endangers both men and women. Recentstudies examining circumcision rates andHIV prevalence found that circumcisiondid not significantly reduce the rate ofinfection in Africa, Europe, the Caribbean, and America.U.S government medical authorities andU.S. academic researchers have acheckered history over human rights,ethics, and outright racism with STD experiments. From the Tuskegee experiments done to American black men to thedisastrous STD experiments conducted inGuatemala, American researchers arenow inflicting the same racist theoriesand pseudoscientific experiments onAfricans.African men and women are being dupedinto the belief that circumcision offerseffective protection from HIV. These organizations can tout their achievementsto keep their revenue streams flowing,while poor Africans suffer from the continued spread of HIV and the traumafrom the loss of their foreskins.

(l. to r. ) David Grant , Anthony Losquadro, CHand Rob Tsvetkov

disrupt an interview with Chelsea and Bill Clinton (inset)

Intactivists vs. the Clintons

DH


President Clinton'sEvent Disrupted by

Anti-Circumcision ActivistsDeirdra Funcheon

March 5, 2013New Times Broward Palm Beach

www.browardpalmbeach.comurely, President Clinton was alittle freaked out last night whenin the middle of his event—a

Clinton Foundation Millennium Networktalk in New York featuring the formerpresident, Chelsea Clinton, and actor EdNorton—a whistle blew and a group ofmen stood up, held hands, and chanted,“Stop exploiting Africans; circumcisiondoes not stop AIDS!”The protesters were selfdescribed “intactivists"—those who believe that circumcision is actually a mutilation of thegenitals.Although circumcision is routinely performed on infants in the United States, itis not in other developed countries. Germans even moved to outlaw the practicelast year (though Jews stopped the lawon religious grounds), and it is banned insome Australian hospitals. Circumcisionbecame widely popular as a means toprevent males from masturbating.Today's medical establishment generallysupports circumcision, arguing that it haspreventive effects for penile cancer andother diseases, though some studies sayit leads to erectile dysfunction and otherproblems.Last night's protest was led by a groupcalled Intaction.org and promoted by“The Barefoot Intactivist” a Universityof Florida graduate who gives his nameas Kevin and who runs barefoot to promote awareness of the anticircumcisioncause.Protesters targeted Clinton because hehas been a huge supporter of programsthat seek to circumcise hundreds of thousands of African men in an attempt toslow the spread of AIDS.Protesters say this is misguided thatthe research is flawed and that Africans are being used as pawns in scienceexperiments.Anthony Losquadro, executive director

of Intaction, said that he and seven otheractivists had been planning the protestfor a month. They each bought $100tickets to the event, and had actually intended to put on white suits with bloodstains on the crotches before standing up,but the rows were packed too closely together to maneuver without sending theaudience into a panic.Losquadro said it was about midwaythrough the program, when Norton wasinterviewing the Clintons about theirfoundation's initiatives, that his group interrupted. Clinton coolly said, “OK, youguys had your chance to speak, now it'smy turn” and “attempted to engage us ina little bit of a dialogue. He mentionedthe three studies in African countries thatshow circumcision results in a 60 percentreduction in the transmission of AIDS.”These three studies are the basis uponwhich millions of dollars are funneledinto circumcision campaigns, thoughanticircumcision activists say the research is flawed. “But it's kind of difficult to do a dialogue [about such acomplicated subject] in the middle of theevent,” Losquadro said, “so we changedour chant to 'Condoms, no cutting' because we believe that condoms, education, and antiretrovirals are much moreeffective [in stopping the transmission ofAIDS/HIV]. Then Chelsea Clinton interjected and said, 'The two are not mutually exclusive,' and we were escorted outof the building and the Secret Servicequestioned us.”Losquadro says he became an activistbecause “I see circumcision as the wrongthing to do to babies because they can'tconsent,” he said. “It's just a matter ofright and wrong, and we believe we're onthe right side of this issue.”A statement by Intaction called Africancircumcision campaigns “exploitativeand racist health policies,” explaining:The U.S. President's Emergency Plan forAIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the ClintonFoundation, and the Gates Foundationjumped on the circumcision bandwagonto demonstrate their effectiveness to theirstakeholders and their donors. However,these organizations were either misguided or blinded by their quest to increase goodwill and donations by hyping

circumcision. Male circumcision is adangerous mistake in the fight againstHIV, and it endangers both men and women. Recent studies examining circumcision rates and HIV prevalence foundthat circumcision did not significantlyreduce the rate of infection in Africa,Europe, the Caribbean, and America.

Intaction Protesters DisruptClinton Foundation Event byCalling Attention to AfricanCircumcision Exploitation

Anthony Losquadro, Executive DirectorIntaction.org

March 5, 2013uring the Clinton FoundationMillennium Network eventwhich featured a dialogue

between President Bill Clinton, ChelseaClinton, and Hollywood Actor EdNorton, protesters from Intaction.orgdisrupted the show to protest theexploitative and racist health policiesinvolving the circumcision of Africanmen.Protests and demonstrations are aneffective and lowcost means formovements to raise awareness and getattention. Some famous protests includethose lead by Rev. Martin Luther King,Chinese Tiananmen Square protesters,1960's draft card burning & Vietnam warprotests, and the gay rights NYCStonewall protesters.Earlier this year we discovered BillClinton would be speaking at an eventwhere we could gain access. Clinton hasbeen an outspoken supporter of AfricanHIV/circumcision projects. He has givennumerous speeches on the issue,including one at AIDS 2012. You canwatch some of his talks on cspan.The Clinton Foundation is usingcircumcision and HIV issues to furtherits fundraising goals by exploitinggullible Africans.Our protest was a coordinated andplanned effort by several people. Keyelements for a protest include thefollowing:

S

D


–We had sufficient time to plan. Wemade the final decision to protest 30days in advance.

–Our message was onpoint, and themessage was framed for a newperspective on the issue. We did notmake circumcision the direct subject ofour message. Instead we focused on theexploitation of Africans, a more sensitiveissue for donors.

–We had a sufficient number ofpeople that were willing to be involvedto show solidarity. Should a protest havetoo few participants, it starts to appear asa fringe element.

–The subject person of the protestwas relevant to our issues, and theprotest had a clear meaning.

–We had a large and significantcaptive audience consisting of an expresident and his rich donors.

–To help obtain media attention wescheduled a press release timed forpublication during the middle of theevent.We organized our team which consistedof Rob, Adam, David, Gary, Nick,George, BarefootIntactivist, and myself.We decided that four of us would standup and chant. We positioned twointactivists to flank the protesters and actas “defensive ends.” Additionally, wehad two intactivists with cameras, one torecord the protesters and one to recordthe President.I obtained a coach's whistle which Iwould use to stop the show and focus allattention on the protest.We “smuggled” our bloodstained whitesuits through the front door by hidingthem folded under our shirts. Whilepracticing at home, I didn't have anydifficulty suiting up from a seatedposition. However, the tight theaterseating gave us insufficient room to donour suits without arousing the suspicionof security. The theater house lights wereturned down making the darkness furtheradd to our difficulty. We pressed onfumbling with our suits, however thenoise was drawing too much attention.With no foreseeable opportunity to donour suits, I disappointedly signaled to theteam to abandon the bloodstained suits.The time had finally come when we had

to make our move. Clinton wasdiscussing Haitian relief efforts. As soonas he finished up, I was determined tomake African circumcision the next topicon the agenda of the evening. I texted ourwaiting cameramen “HERE WE GO” toprepare them.Still seated, I put the whistle in mymouth, and locked hands with David andGary. I knew in the next few seconds theentire crowd would turn around from theblast of my whistle. The audience wouldbe stunned by our audacity to interruptthe President. I was wondering if SecretService or security would tackle us.Could there be plainclothes policelurking in the audience? It felt like we onthe top of a roller coaster ride ready totake the plunge, and by my next breaththere would be no turning back.Once our protest began I can't give anaccurate recount of events because theadrenaline rush interfered with allsensory input. I do remember Clintonsaying, “OK, you had your chance tospeak, now it's my turn.” He then told theaudience about the oftquoted threeAfrican trials that “proved” circumcisionprevented HIV transmission by 60%. Ithen borrowed a phrase from IntactAmerica and started chanting, "Condomsnot cutting." Chelsea glibly responded bysaying, “I didn't know the two weremutually exclusive.” Feeling that ourmessage had been sufficiently delivered,I ended this surreal dialogue between theexpresident, his daughter and us, andsignaled our group to exit.Even though we disrupted the President'sevent, once our message was deliveredwe exited the theater in a dignifiedmanner. Our aim was to give thePresident and the audience a newperspective while not raising their ire tothe point where we closed their minds.What could be more powerful than acoordinated group of people with thecourage and patience to deliver such amessage and then walk out in protest?The whole experience, from the initialplanning, to the execution, to sharing afew beers and laughs afterwards thatnight, created a terrific bond between ourgroup. The experience left us with newconfidence and strength to take on future

challenges in life. We hope we inspireothers to take up the fight for humanrights and genital integrity, and to bringthe genital integrity movement to a newlevel of intensity. You can read more about why

circumcision is a dangerous mistake for

HIVprevention on Intaction. org.

Stop Exploiting AfricansGary CostanzaMarch 4, 2013

he ushers at the BrooklynAcademy of Music were asstunned as Bill and Chelsea Clin

ton – patrons usually don’t stand midperformance and shout slogans at thestage so no oneshould blamethem for notrestoring order.That night, March4th, some cool intactivists and Ipulled off anamazing protest:we interrupted aClinton Foundation MillenniumNetwork talk atthe Brooklyn Academy of Music, standing and chanting “Stop Exploiting Africans” and “Circumcision Does Not StopAIDS” to protest the misguided efforts tocircumcise millions of African men tostop AIDS, stunning the audience, Bill,Chelsea, and actor Ed Norton. Alreadythere’s been good press on the internetabout our “action” and a lot of intelligentcomments. See Intaction.org orIntactamerica.org or their Facebookpages to see some photos and videos.I’m an MRA from way back, and I justhappened to run across AnthonyLosquadro’s group and website, intaction.org, and realized that he was local,so I wrote him and asked him to keep mein mind for any acts of protest, as I’d always wanted to do things like picket andhand out leaflets at a hospital or facilitythat performs circumcisions. So, abouttwo weeks before the event Anthony asksif I’d like to be a “Bloodstained Man” toprotest the drive to circumcise Africans,

T

Gary Costanza


and I told him I’d think about it. Well, Iknew I had to do it, for when duty callsand it falls in your lap like this, especially with talents like Anthony and theothers who put themselves out there – itmay sound corny – for the children, andnow, for the Africans, I had to help theseguys and maybe put some doubt in theminds of potential Clinton Foundationsupporters about the drive to circumcise.It might even have the effect of putting asmall grain of doubt in the ClintonFoundation’s support of mass Africancircumcision.The plan was to attend the ClintonFoundation talk by buying tickets andsitting together in the orchestra and thendonning the “Bloodstained Men” jumpsuits (white w/bloodstained crotch) whileseated, then standing while zipping upthe jumpsuits. Anthony on my right, thehead Bloodstained Man, would nudge usto put on our suits and stand, holdinghands in a spreadeagle position – to signify the strapping down of a baby boy –while he blew a whistle to get everyone’s

attention, and then we’d start our chants.But midway through the talk, Anthonytexted the guys – there were eight of us –that we were ditching the jumpsuit ideaas the close quarters and darkness madethat near impossible, but everything elsewas go at the next mention of “HIV” onstage. Then, we got the nudge and stoodup, four of us, holding hands and chanting “Stop Exploiting Africans” and “Circumcision Does Not Stop AIDS,” whichwe changed to “Condoms Not Cutting.”It was great because the whistle and ourappearance stunned and silenced everyone while we did our chants, until BillClinton finally responded with “OK, youguys had your chance to speak, now it’smy turn” and then cited the discredited60% HIV reduction rate argument. Wewere still chanting but ready to exit so Itook a parting shot, telling the Clintonsthat circumcising Africans would onlyencourage them NOT to use condomsand ultimately cause more AIDS deaths.We figured we’d made our point so westarted our exit and to my amazement no

one really was pushing us out, but theydid make sure that we all left thepremises. We were elated how it all went,slapping each other on the back on theway out, glad to have made our point andnot gotten arrested.We were, however, approached by twoSecret Service agents who asked if wewere antiClinton and if we had a leaderor organization, to which I wasn’t volunteering any information. They were actually friendly and said they appreciatedthat we were well behaved and didn’t tryto stay and cause trouble and mainly thatwe were simply a group of passionateactivists.I’d like to thank my fellow intactivistsAnthony, David, Rob, Nick, Kevin,Adam, and George for a wellorganizedand effective protest and allowing me tojoin them in this “lesson” we gave Clinton and any circumcision sympathizers. You can watch a video on the protest on

the JerryTheOther YouTube channel

Book Reviews

Review: The Sorcerer'sApprentice

Review by J. Steven Svoboda

“The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: Why Can’tthe United States Stop CircumcisingBoys?” by Robert Darby. Canberra, Australia: SJF Publishing. 61 pages. Published only as ebook and available fromAmazon.com. $4.77.

edical historian Robert Darby(author of the 2005 Universityof Chicago Press book A Sur-

gical Temptation: The Demonization of

the Foreskin and the Rise of Circum-

cision in Britain, which upon its appearance I reviewed, describing it as“spectacular”) has recently published ashort electronic book (ebook) about circumcision, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice:

Why Can’t the United States Stop Cir-

cumcising Boys?, expanded from a 2005article he published in the journal Contexts. Full disclosure: I have collaborated with Rob Darby on somepeerreviewed articles, met him personally in Canberra in 2000, and considerhim a friend as well as a colleague.Darby’s work uniformly evidences awellhoned sensibility, erudite knowledge of his topic, and a smooth writingstyle, and Sorcerer’s Apprentice is no exception. The author offers a felicitous,even pleasant read about what for many

of our readers will be the unpleasanttopic of neonatal circumcision, whichDarby shows us is a wasteful and harmful procedure.The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is not primarily intended for the same audience that islikely to be reading this review, butrather for people who have never reallyquestioned or thought much about theUS’s most common surgical procedure.Nevertheless, it is undeniably useful tohave a short, accessible, reliable sourceto which to refer intelligent yet uninformed friends and acquaintances whomay wish to learn more about this peculiar American practice.Darby underscores the inapplicability toa non–therapeutic procedure of a riskbenefit analysis, given that the latter is aframework devised to determine the appropriateness of therapeutic medicalprocedures treating pathological conditions. The author trenchantly points out

M


the egregiousness of seeking reasons tojustify foreskin removal, arguing, “Medical authorities should start at the otherend, as they do with any other body part:the foreskin is normal male anatomy…let us see what we can do to protect itfrom the mechanical faults and diseaseprocesses to which it may be at risk.”As an Australian author, Darby may havebeen particularly wellpositioned to analyze this practice with objectivity. Theauthor briefly yet effectively surveyssuch topics as the significant differencesin the incidence of circumcision in different regions of the US, the invalidity of“medical” arguments that attempt to justify the practice, the HIV shibboleth, andfinancial incentives for the perpetuationof the practice. Darby does not refrainfrom contextually noting the US’ remarkably poor performance relative tocomparable countries on various healthindicators.Any defects in this fine work are vanishingly minor, such as the author’s failureto elaborate on his reference to the lamentable suicide of Bruce Reimer. The

readers for whom this book is designedare surely a disjoint set from the readerslikely to know that Bruce Reimer wasthe intact brother of David Reimer, thelatter being the “John/Joan” who was thesubject of John Colapinto’s book abouthow he lost his penis from a circumcision and then was further traumatizedby Dr. John Money’s egregious “treatments” of him and his brother as well asby Money’s attempts to convince theworld of his ostensibly smooth conversion to a “girl.”The author goes into some detail in discussing the historical context in the US andthe development of what Darby terms themedical establishment’s “demonization ofthe foreskin.” He usefully summarizes anarticle by Geoffrey Miller about the normentrepreneurs who successfully introducedinto society the meme that the foreskin is“polluted, chaotic, and bad.” Darby thengoes on to review Sarah Waldeck’s intriguing work extending Miller to considerhow the current American frame might bechanged to support the right to an intactpenis. The concept of doctors as culturalbrokers is discussed at some length, with

the author providing some useful analysesto deepen and refine our understanding.Historical discussions and issues relatingto HIV are analyzed at a deeper level,followed by a reflection on the remarkable coup pulled off by which the burdenof proof regarding circumcision now appears to lie with those who would protectthe child’s right to bodily integrity.Darby concludes with a lengthy appendix prepared by Doctors OpposingCircumcision (DOC) commenting on theAAP’s 2012 circumcision policy statement. As this appendix was not authoredby Darby, and as it is available online,and as more complete and authoritativerefutations of the AAP’s 2012 statementhave appeared since the DOC commentary was published, it might have beenpreferable not to have included it as partof the ebook.Robert Darby’s electronic book is an invaluable tool in any intactivist’s toolkityet costs under five bucks, and receivesmy highest possible recommendation.Don’t miss it!

Review: Forgetting ChildrenBorn ofWar: Setting theHuman Rights Agenda in

Bosnia and BeyondReview by J. Steven Svoboda

Forgetting Children Born of War: Settingthe Human Rights Agenda in Bosnia andBeyond. By R. Charli Carpenter. NewYork: Columbia University Press, 2010.273 pages. www.cup.columbia.edu. Noprice listed on book but website givesprice as $37.

Charli Carpenter, assistantprofessor of political scienceat the University of Mas

sachusettsAmherst, has done that rarestof things. She has written a book, For-getting Children Born ofWar: Setting the

Human Rights Agenda in Bosnia and

Beyond that is so outstanding that ultimately it comes to shed light far beyondits focused topic. Full disclosure: Carpenter has extensively interviewed me inpreparation for her next book, whichanalyzes several political movements including intactivism.First of all, it has to be said that Carpenter is nothing less than an astoundingly lucid and fluid writer, a purepleasure to read. Words fairly flow fromher pen (or more likely, computer) in away that for me almost recalls a bygoneera when greater attention was paid tocraft and to the perfection of every detailof a creative effort. Truly, her facilitywith the written word is nothing short ofbreathtaking.

Even the book’s preface is exceptional.Carpenter weaves a web combining numerous acknowledgements, fascinatingglimpses into segments of her researchpath, and surprisingly personal revelations about her own career path and integration of motherhood with research.Carpenter’s book addresses the failure ofthe human rights community to effectively address the needs of children bornof war, i.e., offspring of wartime rapes.At first, this lack of attention might seemsurprising, even odd, but as the authorteases apart the issue, patiently filling usin on the various relevant human rightsand government mechanisms, it comes toalmost seem inevitable.Certainly—as Carpenter would be thefirst to agreethe human rights of theseparticular children have not been neglected due to any sort of conspiracy toexclude them from protection. Even fora longtime toiler in the human rightsfield like myself, I had never reallybrought the conscious attention that the

R.


author lavishes on detailing the highlypolitical processes by which humanrights resources get allocated.Carpenter points out that not only is theassistance these children need not forthcoming, but until she started work on herbook, no one outside Bosnia was evenasking the questions about these children’s outcomes, and about how to bestprotect their human rights.The relevance of Carpenter’s book to issues far beyond its literal scope becomesevident even in the opening pages, whenshe notes that:the construction of specific categories ofrights claims in international societydoes not follow a rational, linear processin which the most vulnerable populationsreceive attention on the basis of need andmerit. Rather, attention to issues by human rights advocates is conditioned bymyriad political, organizational, cultural,structural, coalitional, and economicfactors; and some combination of thesefactors may draw attention away fromcertain individuals regardless of the merits of their case.A bit later, the author notes, “[H]umanrights discourse and practice are constructed according to racist, sexist, andageist assumptions.”The relevance of this analysis to intactivism is clear: The right to genitalautonomy or genital integrity is currentlya neglected right, parallel in that sense tothe plight of children of war rapes andneglected for presumably similar reasonsthat probably also combine aspects of the“political, organizational, cultural, structural, coalitional, and economic…” Certainly various opponents of femalegenital cutting (FGC) have forthrightlyadmitted that they have not made common cause with intactivists for consciouscoalitional and political reasons. Clearly,then, sexism can cut in both directions,as Carpenter has herself previously acknowledged in different contexts.Another passage with relevance to intactivism comes a bit later, when Carpenter laments that “rarely were childrenborn as a result of rape imagined as subjects of human rights concern within

these narratives. Instead, they functioned as symbols. Their identities anddescriptions of their fate were manipulated and constructed so as to serve theinterests of actors with very differentagendas.” Intactivists sometimes findtheir issue so completely neglected thatthe infant boys are not even manipulatedand constructed to serve other agendas,but in any event, the failure she describesto see these children as people ratherthan as symbols is compelling.Carpenter is right that one explanation ofdifferential treatment of different classesof victims is that “some issues can beframed more easily than others so as toresonate with policymakers and publics,”or phrased somewhat differently, “thereis tension between protecting somegroups and protecting others.”And surely she is equally correct that,“By the same token, some issues resonate more easily with potential politicalentrepreneurs within advocacy organizations.” In yet another piece of trenchantanalysis with high relevance to intactivism, she shows how complex issues thatdon’t cozily fit into existing boxes andanalytical frames may not even be considered as attention is focused on moreeasily solved problems.Another principle that is also applicableto intactivism is that problems that canbe assigned to intentional actions byidentifiable persons are easier to get action on than “problems whose causes areirredeemably structural.” Still another isCarpenter’s signal conclusion that “whatdistinguishes successful from unsuccessful international issues is not the actualnature of an issue but rather advocates’perceptions of the political and normative costs of advocacy. This in turn is afunction of the way in which an issue isperceived to fit within an existing set ofnarratives about human rights.”The author shows how the pervasive assumption that the child’s interests arealigned with the mother’s is repeatedlydisproven yet without much institutionalwillingness to consider the child’s interests for their own worth. Along similar lines, all too often the children—whenthey are discussed at all—are primarilyor exclusively discussed as symbols

rather than as living human beings withtheir own needs and rights.Later, in a truly enthralling section thatreads like a primer in political analysisof human rights protections, she showsthat progress in providing justice to women suffering wartime rape was accompanied by a lack of attention tosecondary harms of such rape, includingthe plight of children born as offspring ofsuch rapes. A brilliant piece of analysisshows a bit later that the apparent puzzleof a number of feminist scholars accepting the rejection of children born as aresult of genocidal rape becomes moreunderstandable “given the genderedstructure of international law itself.” Shedemonstrates that surprisingly, all toooften “feminist articulations of war rapedovetail… conspicuously with theframes of religious conservatives…”Carpenter shows that it is hard to get traction for culturally sensitive issues andmoreover that advocates’ concern withtheir own “personal career trajectories”may reduce their likelihood to “publiclysupport emergent issues,” particularlythose that may be controversial. Incredibly, some practitioners have gone so far asto argue for the acceptability—at least under certain circumstances—of infanticide.Near the end of her remarkable book, theauthor launches into a discussion of thedifficulties and pitfalls that may arise in attempting to raise a new issue with theUnited Nations’ human rights apparatus.Children, she shows, are disadvantaged bythe relative ease of dismissing claimsbrought by “champions” rather than therights claimants themselves. Also, “existing narratives about who is the victim”color the reception that may be received.Moreover, “the way in which a particularproblem is constructed early on and linkedto other human rights problems can exerta powerful effect on the decisions of leading advocacy organizations as to whetherto publicly discuss the issue.” Thus UN attention to male circumcision may be limited by the history already created byantiFGC organizations.Carpenter’s tone is admirably judiciousand free of blame, focusing on the facts.Her success at almost uniformly resistingthe impulse to privilege one’s own issue


News

Consent Rule May Proceed fora Circumcision Ritual

Sharon OttermanJanuary 10, 2013New York Times

www.nytimes.comew York City health officialsmay proceed temporarily with aplan to require parental consent

before an infant may undergo a particularJewish circumcision ritual, a federaljudge ruled Thursday.City officials say 12 cases of herpes simplex virus have likely resulted from theprocedure, known as metzitzah b’peh,since 2000, including one Brooklyn casereported this week. Two infants died, andtwo suffered permanent brain damage.

Most Jews no longer practice metzitzahb’peh, in which the circumciser uses hismouth to suck blood from the wound,but it remains common among some ultraOrthodox communities.Citing the risk of infection, health officials in September introduced a regulation that would require parents toprovide written consent stating that theywere aware of the health risks.But the Central Rabbinical Congress ofthe United States and Canada, AgudathIsrael of America, and the InternationalBris Association sued in October to stopthe rule from taking effect, calling it aninfringement of their constitutionalrights. They also denied the procedureposed a risk and asked a federal court toput the rule on hold while the litigationproceeded.

In denying the request for a preliminaryinjunction, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the United States District Courtfor the Southern District wrote that therisks were clear.“In light of the quality of the evidencepresented in support of the regulation,we conclude that a continued injunctionagainst enforcement of the regulationwould not serve the public interest,” shewrote.City lawyers said they were gratified bythe ruling, but Andrew Moesel, aspokesman for the plaintiffs, said thegroups would appeal. “We continue tobelieve that this case is a wrongful andunnecessary intrusion into the rights offreedom of religion and speech,” hesaid.

Metzitzah B'peh

Penn Researchers ChargeOrthodox Misused Report on

Circumcision Rite,Claim Findings on Metzitzah

B'Peh Were DistortedSeth BerkmanApril 18, 2013The Forward

www.forward.comniversity of Pennsylvania officials are crying foul over whatthey view as the illicit procure

ment and misuse by several ultraOrthodox groups of an internal study by Pennresearchers of a controversial circumcision rite.

Penn’s Center for Evidencebased Practice never published or released an assessment it conducted earlier this year ofevidence from prior studies showing therisk that the religious rite known as metzitzah b’peh poses to infants, the officials say. Yet somehow, ultraOrthodoxgroups recently acquired the Penn studyfor use in a lawsuit opposing regulationof the practice by New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.“The unpublished report was usedwithout our knowledge or consent, andimportantly, without proper context,” theUniversity of Pennsylvania Health System charged in a statement released April

15. The school termed it “regrettable thatour evidence review was manipulated forpurposes other than advising physiciansof important clinical risk factors fornewborns.”In an April 10 email to the Forward, JoelBetesh, project director of the study, alsostated bluntly, “I do not agree with theway they are portraying our report.”The ultraOrthodox groups claim that thestudy debunks the medical consensus thatinfants exposed to metzitzah b’peh, alsoknown as MBP, face a much higher risk ofcontracting neonatal herpes, a potentiallylifethreatening disease for newborns.

N

U

is yet another aspect of this book worthyof admiration. She writes incisively, logically, without being visibly swayed bythe impulse toward political correctnessor alignment with reigning paradigms.There are almost no nits to pick in thisvirtually perfect book. I did find it a bit

curious that she mentions in her prefacethe enshrinement of children’s rights ininternational law with the 1976 entry into force of the Convention on the Rightsof the Child (CRC), without noting thatas an American, she hails from one of thethree countries in the world (the othersbeing Southern Sudan and Somalia) that

has not yet ratified the CRC.Don’t miss this true gem of a book. Despite being published by one of the topacademic presses, it is both priced andwritten so as to richly deserve general attention and acclaim. Three cheers!


Circumcision ControversyEndangers Fight To KeepRite Legal in Germany

A.J. Goldmann, Donald Snyderand Nathan Jeffay

May 6, 2013The Forward

www.forward.comLawsuits Cite Rabbi's Videotape

of Metzitzah B'Pehhe practice of metzitzah b’peh, acontroversial part of some Jewishcircumcisions, is reigniting con

cern about religious circumcision inGermany, where the government onlyrecently fended off an effort to outlawthe ritual altogether.The chief representative of Chabad inBerlin, Rabbi Yehuda Teichtal, has beenaccused of making MBP, as metzitzahb’peh is often called, part of the religiouscircumcision of his own infant son during a ceremony in front of 400 guests,including journalists. The ensuing uproarover the practice, which health authorities say endangers infants, has split Germany’s Jewish leadership.The dispute has also led Israel’s ChiefRabbinate to rush to Teichtal’s defensewith a letter that critics say backtracks onits own recent directive to Israeli mohelsupholding a safe and sterile alternative toMBP.The German controversy comes on top ofan ongoing conflict between New York

T

The three ultraOrthodox groups —Agudath Israel of America, the CentralRabbinical Congress of the United States& Canada, and the International Bris Association — submitted the Penn paper asevidence in their most recent court brief,filed in the U.S. Second Circuit Court ofAppeals on April 8. Their suit challengesa New York City regulation requiring amohel to obtain a signed consent formfrom the parents of a newborn beforeperforming direct MBP on the infant aspart of a ritual circumcision.MBP, a procedure practiced by some ultraOrthodox mohels, involves orallysucking away the blood from the infant’sgenital area after cutting off his foreskinduring the bris, or ritual circumcision.The practice can infect newborns withherpes simplex virus type 1, according tomedical authorities. While not serious foradults, neonatal herpes can be fatal forinfants, or cause permanent cognitive orphysical damage.A study published in a journal sponsoredby the federal Centers for Disease Control found that infants definitely or likelyto have been exposed to MBP during circumcision face a risk of neonatal herpes3.4 times greater than that of newbornsoutside this group.Most mohels in this country use a sterilepipette for suctioning the blood. Butmany ultraOrthodox mohels considerdirect suction of the genital area bymouth to be mandated by the Talmud aspart of the religious rite.Andrew Moesel, a public relationsspokesman at Sheinkopf LTD, whichrepresents the ultraOrthodox groups, rejected sharply Penn’s assertions that hisclients had misused the school’s study, orthat they had obtained it improperly foruse in their court suit.“We believe that we accurately characterized the intent of the review,” Moeselsaid, “in particular, underscoring significant limitations of the New York CityDepartment of Health’s nonpeer reviewed study on MBP and other literature on the subject. The reviewdemonstrates that any causal link onMBP and type 1 herpes is far from conclusive.”

Moesel added that he received the research paper “from a member of thePenn community” and that there was nosubterfuge involved. The study was publicly available on Penn’s website, he said.Asked to email the link to the paper,Moesel said he would send it to the Forward “right away,” but then failed to doso. He did not respond to several followup emails reiterating this request.In an email to the Forward, Susan Phillips, senior vice president of public affairsat the University of Pennsylvania HealthSystem, wrote that the study “was neveravailable online from us and still isn’t.”Referring to an April 9 press release onthe study, also sent out by the ultraOrthodox groups, Phillips said, “I spoke tothe PR contact… and commented stronglyon the errors in the release, etc., but wehave never sent them anything.”The press release was sent out bySheinkopf LTD one day after the ultraOrthodox groups submitted the Pennstudy as part of their court brief. It trumpeted the study under the headline, “IvyLeague Study Casts Doubt on ClaimsThat Jewish Tradition Leads to Herpes inInfants.” The press announcementclaimed that the study conducted atPenn’s Center for Evidencebased Practice “found little evidence to support theclaim” that MBP “leads to an increasedlikelihood of herpes in infants.”“We have been saying for years that theevidence attacking this religious practiceis highly dubious, and now we haveworldclass doctors agreeing with us,”enthused Rabbi Gedaliah Weinberger,chairman emeritus of the Aguda’s boardof trustees, in the press release.According to Phillips, the press release“mischaracterized our review by implying that there is no causal relationshipbetween circumcision performed withoral suction and the transmission ofneonatal herpes simplex virus (HSV)when the full report on the existing evidence concluded this link does exist.”The review’s conclusions are unambiguous. It says that existing studies on MBP“suggest that direct oral suction performed by a mohel during circumcision

may be a source for transmitting HSV1infection to an infant,” which can causedeath. But the review also indicates that“this evidence base is small and significantly limited.” The researchers call formore studies to amass additional evidence.Just who initiated the study remains unclear. Phillips said that the Center forEvidencebased Practice conducted it atthe request of “another physician in thesystem,” but she would not identify thatperson. “I can assure you, he has nothingto do with any of the groups involved inthis litigation,” she said.


City public health authorities and ultraOrthodox groups over the use of MBP inthat city. In Europe, where religious circumcision itself stands on shakier groundin public opinion, some fear that theMBP controversy could imperil thebroader right to practice brit milah, asthe circumcision rite is known inHebrew.Christian Bahls, a 34yearold mathematician, has filed a criminal lawsuitagainst Teichtal for allegedly employingMBP during his son’s March 3 brit milahat the Chabad synagogue in Berlin.Bahls, who was joined by several othersin his complaint, claims that a video ofthe event on the website of the Berlinnewspaper Tagesspiegel shows MBP being performed. In fact, the video, whichbriefly shows the mohel taking a sip ofwine and bending down toward the 8dayold infant, leaves the viewer unclearas to whether the procedure took place.Bahls told the Forward that after seeingthe video, he contacted the Tagesspiegeljournalist, who confirmed to him thatMBP had occurred.In an interview with the Forward,Teichtal, who heads Berlin’s ChabadJewish Education Center, would neitherconfirm nor deny that MBP was used.The Hebrew term metzitzah b’peh refersto a procedure in which a mohel orallysucks away the blood from an infant’sgenital area after cutting away the infant’s foreskin. The practice can infectnewborns with herpes simplex virus type1, according to medical authorities.While not serious for adults, the viruscan be fatal for infants, or cause permanent cognitive or physical harm.Since 2004, the New York City Department of Health has reported 13 cases thatit attributes to MBP, with two deaths.While rare, the incidence of this virusamong New York City male newbornswith confirmed or probable exposure toMBP — one in 4,098 — is 3.4 timesgreater than among newborns outsidethis group, according to a study published in June 2012 in the federal Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention’sMorbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

Most mohels in the United States use asterile pipette for suctioning the blood.But many ultraOrthodox mohels consider direct suction of the genital area bymouth to be mandated by the Talmud aspart of the religious rite. In January, NewYork City’s health department began requiring mohels who use MBP to obtain asigned consent form from the parents ofthe infant. But it remains unclear to whatextent mohels using MBP are complyingwith the new rule.In Germany last September, the country’s Ministry of Justice drafted a law toprotect religious circumcision for Jewsand Muslims after a Cologne districtcourt ruled that this ritual deprives achild of his right to selfdeterminationand inflicts “bodily harm” and “assault.”The proposal passed Germany’sBundestag by an overwhelming majorityin December after heated public debate,and was seen as a victory for Germanyas a tolerant multiethnic society. Thenew law affirms the legality of religiouscircumcision but requires that circumcision be carried out with the highestmedical standards.Bahls, who heads an organization forvictims of sexual abuse, says he filed hiscriminal complaint against Teichtal precisely because these standards had beenviolated.In Germany, citizens may file publicsuits against individuals whom they believe committed crimes. The Berlin stateprosecutor is still evaluating Bahls’scriminal suit.Meanwhile, Bahls has posted an explanation of his suit on his website, in English, German, French, Hebrew andRussian.“I’d like to make one thing very clearright up front: This lawsuit is not drivenby any antiJewish resentments, but bythe strong belief that all children bear thesame inalienable rights,” Bahls’s websiteannounces.The antiabuse activist also stresses thathis complaint is not aimed at religiouscircumcision in general. “That is an issuefor an internal debate among the Jewishpeople,” he writes. “I also disapprove of

any misuse of my efforts… by peoplethat use the issue of circumcision to fueltheir discriminating thoughts againstminorities.”Instead, Bahls writes: “My aim is to shedsome light on the circumstances of thisparticular circumcision. It clearly showsthat some people are unwilling to abide[by] at least the minimum standards setforth by law, for example just obeyingthe rules for proper medical treatment.”Teichtal counters that his son’s brit milah“was done according to the top medicallevel.”“The mohel has over 30 years of experience and is a supervisor of mohels in Israel,” Teichtal told the Forward. Whileavoiding a direct answer to the questionof whether MBP was performed, Teichtalsaid: “We spoke to [the mohel] beforethe bris about the medical requirementsaccording to German law, and he assuredus that the bris would meet those requirements, and he did it that way. Therewere even several doctors in attendance.”Dr. Ulrich Fegeler, a spokesman for theGerman Pediatric Association, nevertheless warned: “What this rabbi is accusedof doing is neither hygienic nor in accordance with acceptable medical practice. If this controversial procedurecontinues, it will be taken to the courtsfor legal action.”With the charges now filed against him,Teichtal said that “the important thingfor us as a community is to stand together.”That, however, is precisely the oppositeof what has happened since the controversy broke out. While Gideon Joffe,president of Berlin’s Jewish community,has voiced support for Teichtal and forthe Jewish community’s “right to practice the traditions they’ve inherited fromtheir ancestors,” Dieter Graumann, president of the Central Council of Jews inGermany, stressed his organization’s opposition to MBP.The Central Council is currently in theprocess of drawing up guidelines for thecertification of mohels in Germany,


Queens Infant Disfigured inBotched Bris, Lawsuit Charges

James FanelliMarch 5, 2013

www.dnainfo.comQueens [New York] rabbibotched the bris of an 8dayoldboy, then told the dad that he

did an acceptable job, even though theinfant needed corrective surgery, a newlawsuit charges.Gavriel Barukh, the father of the boy, issuing Rabbi Mordechai Rachminov,claiming he sliced off part of his son'scorona glandis [i.e., part of the corona ofthe glans of the boy's penis] during the religious ceremony on Oct. 16, 2011, at theBukharian Jewish Community Center in

Forest Hills, according to the lawsuit filedlast week in Queens Civil Supreme Court.After the ritual, Rachminov, 69, misledBarukh by claiming the circumcisionwas “performed appropriately and thathis conduct was within the standard ofcare and skill required of Jewish mohelim and circumcisers,” the lawsuit says.He also allegedly told Barukh that aphysician wasn't necessary. Even after itbecame apparent that the bris went awry,Rachminov and the community centerfailed to call a doctor, the suit says.Barukh claims that the delay in medicaltreatment resulted in greater permanentdamage to his son. The boy had to undergo corrective surgery with general anesthesia and may need even more

procedures, the lawsuit says. A womanwho answered the phone at Rachminov'shome said the allegations weren't true. “Ididn't hear any of this,” she said.The Bukharian Jewish Community Centerwas also named in the lawsuit. A womanwho answered the phone at the center saidRachminov no longer works there. Shedeclined to comment about the lawsuit.Barukh's lawyer did not return a call forcomment.The practice of performing a bris becamea hotly debated topic in September afteran infant died from contracting herpesduring the ritual. The city Health Department said at the time that since theyear 2000, 12 babies have contracted thevirus during the religious ceremonies.

A

Graumann told the Jüdische Allgemeine,Germany’s main Jewish newspaper. Andin compliance with Germany’s circumcision law, mohels who perform MBPwill be denied a certificate, he vowed.The split paralleled the discord among Orthodox rabbinical groups weighing in onthe controversy in Germany and elsewhere.Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, the Moscowbased president of the Conferenceof European Rabbis, which is the primaryOrthodox rabbinical assembly in Europesince World War II, told the newspaperBerliner Zeitung in early April, that, forhygienic reasons, he recommended use ofa glass pipette for suctioning blood during circumcision. He criticized “closedultraOrthodox communities” that “floutcommunity rules.”“While we respect Rabbi Teichtal’s rightto practice his tradition,” Goldschmidt said,referring to MBP, “we doubt it was wise todo so as a public community rabbi.”In a separate interview with the newsagency JTA, Goldschmidt hinted at his underlying concern. He said that he wantedto be “supportive of [Teichtal] without endangering the whole issue of brit milah.”Meanwhile, the Rabbinical Center ofEurope, a Brusselsbased organization

founded by Chabad to rival the Conference of European Rabbis, has stronglybacked Teichtal. In an April 18 editorialin the newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau,the center’s general director, MenachemMargolin, criticized Goldschmidt andothers for “aligning themselves withthose who are working against Jewishinterests.” He said that such misguidedefforts could lead to governments onceagain “accusing Europe’s Jews of inhuman and uncultured practices.”In an interview with the Forward, Margolin cited a long list of commentary andrabbinical debates regarding MBP.“There are many things in each generation that Jewish leaders are trying tochange and improve,” he said, butwarned, “this is not an issue that shouldbe discussed in a nonJewish paper. It’ssomething to be discussed by rabbis.”The Israel Chief Rabbinate’s decision toenter the dispute on Teichtal’s side has,meanwhile, complicated perceptions ofits position on the issue in Israel itself.Earlier this year, the rabbinate issued aletter to Israeli mohels that was seen as aneffort to support the use of sterile pipettes.The letter followed an Israeli study whichfound that 30% of neonatal herpes in thecountry was attributable to MBP.

But in an April 22 letter to Teichtal fromMorsiano, the rabbinate’s director of thedivision for circumcisions, the Israelirabbi stressed that MBP was integral tothe circumcision ritual. There is no justification for canceling MBP, he wrote,“unless the mohel has a sore in hismouth, or some infectious disease.” Atthe same time, Morsiano said that themohel is required to get the family’s permission to perform the oral suction.Medical authorities say that adult herpescarriers often have no sores and are unaware they are infectious. Yona Amitai,one of Israel’s most prominent pediatricsexperts, said that in his view, the rabbinate had, through its letter, “highly discouraged” the alternative method ofperforming the rite with a sterile pipette.“I highly criticize this approach from thestandpoint of public health despite thefact that I am religious,” Amitai said.But Morsiano, in an interview with theForward, insisted that he has not comeout against the tube method, nor has hebacktracked on the recent letter to Israelimohels, which presented the sterilepipette method as equally valid. The intended meaning of the letter, according tohim, was that “there is no justification toabolish [MBP] as an option for thosewho want it.”


Lawsuit Filed RegardingGenital Mutilationof Intersex Child

The Southern Poverty Law Center, oneof the country's most wellknown legalactivist organizations, is representing theadoptive parents of an intersex childwhose genitals were mutilated prior tothe adoption.The article below describes the lawsuit.Parents Sue South Carolinafor Surgically Making

Child FemaleHolly Yan and Joe Sutton

May 15, 2013CNN

cnn.comhe adoptive parents of a childborn with male and female organssay South Carolina mutilated their

son by choosing a gender and having hismale genitalia surgically removed.The surgery took place when the childwas 16 months old and a ward of thestate, according to a lawsuit filed by theparents against three doctors and severalmembers of the South Carolina Department of Social Services.The child's biological mother wasdeemed unfit, and the biological fatherhad apparently abandoned him, according to the suit. So others made the decision.The child, now 8 years old, feels morelike a boy and “wants to be a normalboy,” said Pamela Crawford, the boy'sadoptive mother.“It's become more and more difficult,just as his identity has become moreclearly male, the idea that mutilation wasdone to him had become more and morereal,” she said in a video released by theSouthern Poverty Law Center, which isassisting in the case.

TBaby Dies in Israeli HospitalFollowing Circumcision

Yori YanoverJune 7th, 2013The Jewish Press

www.jewishpress.comThe circumcision had actually been performed flawlessly, and apparently babychoked during feeding.

newborn baby who was hospitalized in serious condition atWolfson Medical Center in

Holon, Israel, from complications following a rite of circumcision, passedaway on Friday. Both Chief Rabbis andthe Chief Rabbinate of Israel expressedtheir sorrow to the mourning family.The Chief Rabbinate of Israel stated that“immediately after the initial report ofthe incident, the director of the dept. ofcircumcisions in the Chief Rabbinate wasin constant contact with the mohel (ritualcircumciser) who conducted the rite, withthe doctors who treated the baby at the

A

Last fall, city officials enacted a rule requiring parents to sign off on a bris beforeit can occur. Jewish groups are currentlychallenging the rule in federal court.

The rituals are mainly practiced by Orthodox Jewish communities. They involve a rabbi or mohel excising thebaby's foreskin, then sucking out blood

from the cut with his mouth. The contactis how herpes can spread to the child.

“There was no medical reason that thisdecision had to be made at this time.”Marilyn Matheus, a spokeswoman for theSouth Carolina Department of SocialServices, said the agency does not haveany comment on the pending litigation.The defendants named in the suit alsoinclude doctors from Medical Universityof South Carolina and Greenville Memorial Hospital.Sandy Dees, a spokeswoman for theGreenville Health System, said she couldnot comment because of the litigation.Assigned to be a girl, but identifying as

a boy

The child, identified in the lawsuit as“M.C.,” refuses to be called a girl andlives as a boy. His family, friends, school,religious leaders and pediatrician supporthis identity.“We just let him follow his instincts asmuch as we can,” his adoptive father,John Mark Crawford, said in the video.Pamela Crawford said performing genderassignment surgery on a baby robbed herchild of the ability to make the decisionfor himself.“I would have never made the decision tochoose the gender either way,” she said.“What I would have been working withis how do we preserve as much functioning in either direction because we can'tknow what this child's gender identity isgoing to be.”The lawsuit claims doctors at a statehospital and Department of Social Services workers “decided to remove M.C.'shealthy genital tissue and radically restructure his reproductive organs in orderto make his body appear to be female.”The suit says the surgery violated the14th Amendment, which says that no

state shall “deprive any person of life,liberty, or property without due processof law.”The suit also asks for “compensatorydamages in an amount to be determinedat trial.”But the adoptive father said the real intent of the lawsuit “is just to upholdthese constitutional principles integrityof a person's body, and some kind of dueprocess for infants where people aroundthem in power are considering doingsurgeries like this.”Pamela Crawford agreed.“I would give anything for this to nothave been done to our child," she said. "Idon't want it to happen to any morekids.”


ARC needs your support.

Visit http://arclaw.org/donate

to support ARC through

donation or membership.



South African CircumcisionResults in $215,000 Award

The South African lawsuit resulting fromthe botched circumcision of a fiveyearold boy has been decided in favor of theplaintiffs for R2.2 million or approximately US $215,000.

R2.2m for Boy'sBotched Circumcision

Sharika RegchandThe Mercury (South Africa)

June 20, 2013he parents of a boy whose circumcision was botched at a Vryheid hospital were awarded R2.2

million to be paid within 14 days by theprovincial Health Department, DeputyJudge President Achmat Jappie ordered inthe Pietermaritzburg High Court on Wednesday.Judge Jappie also ordered that the department pay all the family’s legal costs.The mother of the child, now nine, suedthe department on behalf of her son following his circumcision in October 2009.

He suffered severe burning, infectionsand a loss of his normal penile tissueafter the procedure.Plastic and reconstructive surgeon PaulMcGarr said in a report before the courtthat he was “completely amazed by theinertia, lack of a sense of urgency andlack of sensitivity shown by the doctors”who initially managed the child.McGarr went into detail as to how thechild’s injury had occurred and commented that the standard of practice andaftercare at the hospital constituted grossnegligence by staff who had failed to

T

Wolfson Medical Center, and with thesenior physicians who are members ofthe joint circumcisions committee of theMinistry of Health and the Rabbinate.”It was reported by the rabbinate that“since the initial diagnosis, the doctorswho treated the baby were convinced thatthe complication in the baby’s conditionwas not the result of the circumcision butresulted from a previously existing medical condition. Later treatments administered to the baby confirmed thisdetermination.”“An investigation revealed that the mohelwho performed the circumcision is aveteran, certified mohel,” said the Rabbinate’s statement. “The mohel followedprocedure and performed a test on thebaby after the rite. Only about half anhour after circumcision did signs of themedical complication in the child beganto appear, not related to the circumcisionitself. The mohel accompanied the familyto the hospital.”A week ago, at about 11 AM, MDAparamedics were called to a synagogue inHolon, after an infant who had undergone a rite of circumcision there hadstopped breathing and lost consciousness,shortly after the ceremony. The rescuecrew took him to Wolfson Medical Center. After resuscitation in the hospitalshock room, the baby’s condition stabilized.Hatzolah volunteer Yehuda Mizrachi,who was among the first on the scene,told Channel 2 News: “We received acall about an unconscious baby. When Iarrived I found a completely blue baby,not breathing and without a pulse. Westarted resuscitation and massaging, untilthe ambulance arrived and took him tothe hospital.”After investigating the circumstances ofthe case, it was discovered that the circumcision had actually been performedflawlessly, and apparently baby chokedduring feeding.“The bris had concluded safely and theneveryone sat down to eat,” Abraham, afriend of the family, related. “He wasnursing from his mother and then she puthim in his cart. At some point we noticed

follow the most basic principles of surgery.“The words lazy, incompetent and disinterested accurately describe the treatingdoctor’s actions,” he said.“In essence, nine minutes of a rushed,incompetent circumcision has significantly and severely impacted on the childfor the rest of his life.”Attorney Sonette Boning said the boy’sparents were happy that the matter hadbeen finalised after four years.She said they were not on medical aidand had found it difficult to get him thebest medical and psychological treatment.He would also need to have further surgery.The mother previously told The Mercurythat it was difficult for her son and therehad been a big change in his life.“He went through a lot of anxiety, fearand psychological trauma. He also losthis selfconfidence,” she said, recallingdays when her son had panic attacks andtimes when she could do nothing to helphim feel better.

that the child was not responding and hadturned blue.”“One of the guests called the MDA, andwith their guidelines performed a cardiacmassage,” added Abraham, described theevent. “Then the rescue team continuedthe efforts, along with the MDA.”

Is Circumcision Quackery

Documents