CIN (Circumcision Information Network) 3:18

Introduction
This weekly bulletin is a project of CIN, the Circumcision Information Network (formerly CIN CompuBulletin). The purpose of this weekly 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.

 Back to the CIN Overview page.

 Back to the News 1996 page.

The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. IntactiWiki hosts this website but is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.

  © CIRP.org 1996-2024 | Filetree | Please visit our sponsor and host:  IntactiWiki.