CIRCUMCISION INFORMATION NETWORK Volume 3, Number 18, 6 May 1996 E-mail: CircInfoNe@aol.com The purpose of this weekly 1000-word bulletin is to educate the public about and to protect children and other non-consenting persons from genital mutilation. Readers are encouraged to copy and redistribute it, and to contribute written material. --Rich Angell, Editor. SENATE VOTES TO OUTLAW RITUAL MUTILATION An article by William Branigin, Washtington Post Edited for brevity Washington: The Senate voted [1 May] to make female genital mutilation a federal crime and to repeal a provision of the recently signed anti terrorism law that restricts the ability of illegal immigrants to enter the United States by claiming political asylum. By a voice vote, the Senate approved an amendment by Senator Harry Reid, D-Nev., to criminalize the practice of "circumcising" girls by cutting off all or part o their genitalia. Central Bar: A Controversial Custom: Female genital mutilation, known widely as FGM, is sometimes referred to as female circumcision, but critics oppose this term, as circumcision relates solely to removing penile foreskin, a practice that does not impair all sexual sensation or mutilate a wide area of genitalia, as FGM can do. The custom: *Affects an estimated 100 million women in dozens of African, Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian nations where the centuries-old ritual is observed by Muslims, Christians and adherents of traditional religions. It is thought to keep girls virginal and wives faithful. *Includes procedures ranging from cutting the hood of the clitoris to the removal of the clitoris to the removal of the clitoris and tissue at the entrance to the vagina to reduce sexual sensations. SUIT TO ASK FOR EQUAL PROTECTION An article of the The Bismarck Tribune, North Dakota, Thursday, 2 May 1996 Written by Rebecca Lentz Contributed by typist dvoskuil@emh1.tic.bismarck.nd.us (Duane Voskuil, Ph.D.) Edited for brevity The group of people who urged passage of a bill outlawing female genital mutilation plans to file a lawsuit in federal court claiming that the law violates the Constitution. Jody McLaughlin of Minot said she believes the Female Genital Mutilation Law violates the Equal Protection Clause because it only applies to females, not males. McLaughlin will be one of the plaintiffs. Specifically, McLaughlin and the others want routine infant circumcision outlawed. The laws suit will name the State of North Dakota as the defendant, McLaughlin said. "(The law ) does not go far enough to protect babies of both sexes," said McLaughlin, who asked a Fargo senator to introduce the bill. The law makes it a Class C felony to "knowingly separate or surgically alter normal, healthy, functioning genital tissue of a female minor." McLaughlin said they wanted the bill to include male and females, but they couldn't find enough sponsors. Minnesota attorney Zenas Baer, who is handling the plaintiff's case, confirmed he plans to file the case within the next two weeks but declined to comment further. He would only say the "general theory is equal protection." McLaughlin said the lawsuit developed because of the difficulty to get agencies-including the North Dakota Medical Association and the North Dakota Board of Medical Examiners -- to address routine infant circumcision. Routine infant circumcision serves no health purpose, McLaughlin said. In fact, she said, it's medically unnecessary and has short-term complications, including hemorrhaging, infection and death. McLaughlin said she didn't know how many infants die each year from circumcision but said the estimates are around 200. Most people don't know it's not only "contraindicated but also harmful," McLaughlin said. "One of the long-term problems that I'm being told about is the inability to achieve and sustain an adequate erection," McLaughlin said. She said she hasn't met a physician who will say routine infant circumcision is medically necessary. Physicians tell her it's done for social, cultural or philosophical reasons, McLaughlin said. "Since when are physicians agents for social customs?" she asked. "THE FORESKIN IS NECESSARY" An article by Paul M. Fleiss. MD, MPH, and Frederick Hodges Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, April 1996. Contributed by typist DYKS96A@prodigy.com ( GEORGE HILL) Sixth of a multi-part series. Violation of Human Rights: Before introducing the policy of routine infant circumcision after World War II, circumcisers did not examine the human rights violation involved in the policy of forcing or even allowing unconsenting individuals to undergo surgery to amputate healthy penile tissue. More than just physical harm, circumcision causes political harm. Even if circumcision were physically harmless -- which it is not -- it would still constitute a human rights violation. Furthermore, circumcisers have never shown that the stated public health goals could not have ben achieved by a less coercive policy than by foreskin amputation. The failure of the policy of mass circumcision to achieve the public health goals of reducing the rates of STDs, cancer, and genital infections is made more tragic in light of the harm, sexual dysfunction, morbidity, and risk of fatality unjustly inflicted on the past few generations of American males. Every male has the right to keep his birthright of an intact penis. Children have a right to expect parents or guardians to protect this right while they are still unable to protect it themselves. Parents and physicians have no right to remove health body parts from non-consenting individuals. In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics agreed. According to their recent statement,(23) only a competent patient can give patient consent or informed consent. An infant is developmentally incompetent to consent to non-therapeutic surgery. The concept of informed parental permission does not apply to circumcision since the concept of informed parental permission allows only for medical intervention in cases of clear and immediate medical necessity, i. e., diseases, trauma or deformity; the natural human penis satisfies none of these conditions. Furthermore, since it is the infant and not the parent who must live with the consequences of this 'treatment' the individuals legal right to refuse treatment as well as the right to seek alternative treatment has been violated. Likewise the basic human right to autonomy, self-determination, and the right to an intact body as outlined in Article 5.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (1969) and article 1.1 of the International Convention of Human, Civil, and Political Rights (1966) are violated by the performance of non-therapeutic circumcision. References: 23. Committee on Bioethics. Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice. Pediatrics 1995; 95:314-317. STUPID QUOTE OF THE WEEK "When babies cry during circumcision, it is usually due to exposure to cold air, being restrained and being hungry." A mohel, defending the practice in an internet discussion. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION call NOCIRC, the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers at (415) 488-9883, fax (415) 488-9660. Ask about the resource provider nearest you. For written information, write NOCIRC, PO Box 2512, San Anselmo, CA 94979, with SASE and/or donation if possible. For further internet information, contact the Doctors Opposing Circumcision Web site at http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC.