CIN (Circumcision Information Network) 3:23

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.

SUIT CLAIMS N.D. GENITAL MUTILATION LAW BIASED
By Patrick Springer
The Forum [Fargo, North Dakota--Friday 7 June 1996]
Contributed by dvoskuil@emh1.tic.bismarck.nd.us (Duane Voskuil, Ph.D.)

[SideBar] {What's at issue?  The lawsuit argues females are solely protected
"without any rational basis for this gender discrimination."  Opponents of
circumcision equate it with female genital mutilation.}

When Kevin and Donna Fishbeck had a son last year they faced a decision
parents of male infants routinely confront in America: whether doctors should
circumcise their newborn.

The couple from Mandan, N.D., were divided. Kevin wanted Jonathan to be
circumcised; Donna did not.  Their physician followed Kevin's wishes.

Now Donna and her infant son are among a group of plaintiffs challenging
North Dakota's law prohibiting female genital mutilation and arguing male
children should be granted the same legal protection from routine
circumcision .

A lawsuit will be filed today in U.S. District Court in Fargo asking that the
North Dakota Female Genital Mutilation Law, passed last year, be declared
unconstitutional.

The lawsuit is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation and is
expected to draw national and international attention, while providing a
legal forum in which the practice can be debated.

"Our position is that the medical community should not be doing routine
surgery on otherwise healthy genital tissue without medical indication, says
Zenas Baer, a lawyer from Hawley, Minn., who represents the plaintiffs.

Removal of the male's foreskin -- an age-old practice common in America but
rare in most western, industrialized countries -- has come under increasing
attack in recent years by opponents who argue there is no medical basis for
the procedure.

The long-standing controversy surrounding male circumcision has been given
added attention recently with the spate of new laws protecting females from
genital mutilation.  North Dakota was the first state to outlaw female
mutilation; Minnesota passed a similar law and last month the U.S. Senate
acted.

Opponents of routine circumcision say male circumcision is equivalent to
female mutilation with cultural tradition being the only difference. Most
Americans regard female genital mutilation as barbaric, while most give
little thought to [male] circumcision.

"The reason is because we are immune to our own cultural traditions," says
Jody McLaughlin, an active circumcision opponent from Minot and a plaintiff
in the lawsuit.  "The Europeans say that we're barbarians for doing this."

Figures indicate 60 percent of male newborns are circumcised in the United
States, or more than 1.25 million annually, at a cost of $250 million,
according to one estimate.  As recently as 1980, about 90 percent had the
procedure.  The lawsuit estimates the incidence of circumcision in North
Dakota at 80 percent to 90 percent.

Jewish and Islamic males around the world are circumcised, but the practice
is uncommon in most western countries: 20 percent in Canada, 15 percent in
Australia, less than 1 percent in Denmark, according to the lawsuit.

Routine circumcision gained prominence in the United States in the late 1800s
to curb masturbation, and was credited with helping to prevent numerous
illnesses, including mental illness and tuberculosis.

Proponents today argue the practice helps prevent penile cancer, urinary
tract infections and various sexually transmitted diseases.  Both sides cite
contradictory medical studies, and the pros and cons are debated among
medical professionals.  The North Dakota Medical Association has not taken a
position on circumcision.

The lawsuit argues routine circumcision is done for cultural, not medical,
reasons.  "Not only is it not necessary, it is harmfully McLaughlin says.
 "It would be like someone telling you, you really don't need the tip of your
tongue.  You don't need the taste buds."

During a circumcision, 30 percent to 50 percent or more of the sensitive
foreskin is removed, diminishing sensation in mature males.  Female genital
mutilation is performed in some cultures to promote chastity of young women
and to discourage married women from straying from their husbands.

"The fundamental reason for this is to diminish sexuality," says plaintiff
Duane Voskuil of Bismarck, who equates male circumcision with female genital
mutilation.  "It's a controlling thing [when done to females].  It's the same
kind of reason for males."

McLaughlin says: Physicians say they're doing this because parents request
it.  The parents say they do it because the physicians recommend it.  If
anybody asks the babies, they say no by screaming."

The North Dakota law makes it a felony to "knowingly separate or surgically
alter normal, healthy, functioning genital tissue of a female minor."

McLaughlin, who pushed for the law and testified in its support, originally
sought a bill that was gender neutral, protecting male and female children
from genital mutilation.  The bill was rewritten to exclude male circumcision
in order to overcome widespread opposition.

By protecting only females, the law violates the Fourteenth amendment's equal
protection clause, the plaintiffs contend.  They argue it also violates the
Fifth Amendment, because it allows for the permanent injury of a minor male
without due process.

The lawsuit does not seek to outlaw circumcision for adult males.  Baer says
a court likely would grant exemptions for Jews and Muslims, whose religious
practices are protected under the First Amendment.

If successful the lawsuit might prompt legislation requiring a legal guardian
to look out for the interests of the child if his parents want the infant to
be circumcised, Baer says.

"This raises significant human rights issues he says.  "Each individual child
is [legally] considered to be a human being that is to be free of unnecessary
punishment, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

CIN note:  A similar article was printed by the Associated Press in the 8
June Bismarck Tribune.  Dr. Voskuil writes:  "I was just told I would not
receive a contract [as a philosophy and ethics professor at Bismarck State
College] for next year, after teaching [there] for 9 years.  Going back to my
urologist now may also be a problem, since he berated 'those people who are
trying to outlaw
circumcision.'  He said they can't tell parents what to do; and Jews have to
do this.  Adding, 'who do they think they are, anyway.  This is America for
chrissake.'  I wish someone would do a cartoon putting those words in the
mouth of the baby tied down and watching the knife attacking his genitals."

STUPID QUOTE OF THE WEEK
"Compared with the other decisions you've got ahead of you as a parent,
[circumcision] is trivial.  If you can't get past this one, you're in
trouble."  Ronald Poland, a Pennsylvania pediatrician, as quoted in The Wall
Street Journal, "Anxious Parents Question Merits Of Circumcision," 28 May
1996.

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.