Moiled Again No More?

Hey moils (actually, corrected spelled mohel – the person who performs circumcision on a Jewish male as a religious rite), there’s a group in San Francisco – they call themselves “intactivists” – that have a beef with your briskit! They’re joined by another similar such assemblage in Santa Monica seeking to put measures on their municipal ballots to criminalize the circumcision of minors, even though it is a religious mandate in both the Jewish and Muslim faiths. Oy! They may already just have enough signatures to get on the ballot in at least one of these cities.

Anti-circumcision activists say the measures would protect children from an unnecessary medical procedure, calling it ‘male genital mutilation.’ … ‘This is the furthest we’ve gotten, and it is a huge step for us,’ said Matthew Hess, an activist based in San Diego who wrote both bills… Mr. Hess has created similar legislation for states across the country, but those measures never had much traction. Now he is fielding calls from people who want to organize similar movements in their cities. ‘This is a conversation we are long overdue to have in this country,’ he said. ‘The end goal for us is making cutting boys’ foreskin a federal crime.’” New York Times, June 4^th. Fore!

Needless to say, there is trembling fear that this movement could catch on, threatening those who believe for health or religious reasons, that such procedures are fundamentally necessary or at least beneficial. “Jewish groups see the ballot measures as a very real threat, likening them to bans on circumcision that existed in Soviet-era Russia and Eastern Europe and in ancient Roman and Greek times. The circumcision of males is an inviolable requirement of Jewish law that dates back to Abraham’s circumcision of himself in the Book of Genesis.

“They say the proposed ban is an assault on religious freedom that could have a widespread impact all over the country. Beyond the biblical, there are emotional connections: checking for circumcision was one of the ways Jewish children could be culled from their peers by Nazis and the czar’s armies.” NY Times.

Even beyond the formal religious requirements of Islam and Judaism, there are advocates who adopt the procedure for their children simply on the basis of cleanliness, and there are substantial studies that circumcised males are less likely to pass certain sexually transmitted diseases – notably HIV – than their intact counterparts. Hospitals are generally neutral about the procedure and have been allowing parents to make this choice for their newborns for a very long time.

Our own government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, citing several recognized international field studies (mostly in Africa), notes “In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a few men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure, and vice versa. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk fo r HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised. …

“Ecologic studies also indicate a strong association between lack of male circumcision and HIV infection at the population level. Although links between circumcision, culture, religion, and risk behavior may account for some of the differences in HIV infection prevalence, the countries in Africa and Asia with prevalence of male circumcision of less than 20% have HIV infection prevalences several times higher than those in countries in these regions where more than 80% of men are circumcised.”

What is it about Americans who have a seemingly insatiable need to impose their personal values on others by law or by force who strongly disagree with them? I would have to agree that if such surgical procedures caused long-term, permanent damage to the individuals in question, there would be merit to the approach. In some countries, female circumcision is just a polite word for cutting out the pleasure-giving part of a woman’s genitals to control her and limit her sexual appetite.

But in this “circumstance,” this is nothing more than another group of fringe elements – using lots of graphic language – to impose their will on others. And don’t assume that if such legislation were passed, it would necessarily be defeated as violation of the religious freedom mandates of our First Amendment. If applied across the board to all children without reference to religious affiliation, it could possibly be sustained as within the legislative purview over health matters.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I’m and the long and the short of it is that I’m just trying to be circumspect.